User talk:Cycn

English: Welcome to the Commons, Cycn!

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

Filnik 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regions of Belgium

Dag Cycn, the overlappende cats, zoals in regions of Belgium, zijn bedoeld om zo snel mogelijk in België te navigeren/browsen zonder al de tussenliggende organisaties te moeten doorklikken (meteen onder vlaanderen en wallonië de bijhorende provincies). Zoals je ook ziet in category:Belgium is er links boven mogelijkheid om snel naar lagere en hogere cats te gaan zonder eindeloos te klikken. Ik vind gebruiksgemak en -snelheid belangrijker dan purisme in de categories. --Foroa 10:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

De temps en temps is het erg jammer dat hier niet hernoemd kan worden. Soms is het verwarrend hoe het is ingedeeld. CoA, Flags en Maps zouden hetzelfde ingedeeld moeten zijn. Ik heb wel ernstig de indruk dat de ploeg die ik er nu door heen haar de navigeerbaarheid sterk verbetert maar sommige dingen kunnen vast beter dan ik aanhoudt. Blijf vooral meedenken, volgens mij zitten we redelijk op een lijn... Cycn 11:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inderdaad, je ploeg trekt goede voren. Vergeet niet dat er al een derde of vierde rename poging is voor de provincies: Limburg (province of Belgium met kleine p) en Limburg, Belgium (zoals in nl) heeft ook al bestaan. wat betreft de move: ja en nee. Zie mijn aanvragen op delinker om een move = hername aan te vragen. Anderzijds, als ik zie dat er in de 250 of zo gebruikers (alle soorten wiki's) van de commons honderden commonscat templates gedropt worden (waar ik dus tegen ben), dan weet ik dat er by iedere catmove verschillende links ongeldig worden in die massa van wiki's. --Foroa 11:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ik kwam al dingen tegen... Niet alles kan in een keer maar met de kaarten van provincies heb ik het nu bijvoorbeeld gelijk. Cycn 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

History behind the Regions of Belgium

Vergeet niet dat tot voor 180 jaar, het Noorden van Frankrijk bij Vlaanderen hoorde en overwegend vlaams sprekend was. Nu schieten er nog amper 20 à 40.000 over. Niettemin zijn er veel gemeenschappelijke dingen in taal en symboolgebruik, zoals de leeuw van Hazebroek. --Foroa 10:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ik denk dat de Westhoek in zijn geheel op een of andere manier aan Vlaanderen gekoppeld mag worden (op Wikipedia - over de politieke situatie doe ik, als afgestudeerd politicoloog, uiteraard, geen uitspraken...) Cycn 11:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, dat verklaart je gevoeligheid en begrip voor het Belgische category systeem. Verwar de Westhoek niet met het Noorden van Frankrijk (meer dan 1 miljoen inwoners) --Foroa 11:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Na... ik ben geen Vlaming, he... Ik probeer het een beetje georganiseerd te houden/krijgen. De onderverdeling maakt het er niet makkelijker op. Gewesten, gemeenschappen, facaliteitsgemeenten. Als dan ook nog buurlanden een deel van 't land bezet blijven houden... (wacht even, nu zeg ik wat politieks, geloof ik) Cycn 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inderdaad, ik zie dat je geen vlaming bent maar toch al aan politiek en discriminatie van de Walen doet. Wij zijn een stuk voorzichtiger omdat er een aantal min of meer gedreven walen zitten die de gemeentenamen en beschrijvingen in het Waals geven (voor de Waalse wiki), hetgeen niet echt leesbaar is voor de meesten, en die dan ook nogal sterk op een waals klassement staan (zoals ik vaagweg beschreven had in castles in Wallonia). Hoedanook, die gaan op termijn moeten samenleven met een Belgische hoofd-klassering. --Foroa 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ik ken ze. En inderdaad: compleet onontwarbar, dat Waals... (en dan ben ik bekend met Luxemburgs he)

Als niet-Vlaming kan ik me, meen ik, iets meer perimiteren. Maar wees gerust, ik zal net zo goed tegen Vlaandren schoppen... of Holland, mocht dat zo uitkomen.

Ik heb geen standpunt in het Belgische taaldebat. Het deel waar ik kom ligt ver van de taalgrens en gelukkig spreken ze er Lorreins (Gaumais), wat wel prima te volgen is, als je Frans beheerst.

duplicate cat.

Dear Cync,

I simply don't agree with your statement that dividing up The Netherlands is senseless (Category:Reliefs in Utrecht (city)). From a user point of view, it is easily navigating through the categories this way and finding that particular Relief he/she saw in Utrecht. Without having to scroll through a lot of pictures. Perhaps some small cities do not need a separate category, but the big ones do. I always have a tourist in mind that walks through one of our cities and wonders about a certain sculpture. This way he can find it easily. Brbbl 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... divide them up, then. But divide them up so all major cities get covered and not some, like now. A hand full of subcategories not even containing all the pictures that should be in it aren't a great idea and that only creates chaos. Cycn 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are enough statues, scupltueres and reliefs in any town in the Netherlands to justify creating subcategories for them. Maybe per province, like stuff like this is subcategories for CoA's or flags and when dividing up makes more sence.

Now you have to go thought several steps to reache one picture in a maginal town like Bunnik. That does not make sence. Cycn 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cities and villages in Belgium

Hallo, de Category:Cities and villages in Belgium omvat een lijst van iedere mogelijke plek in België die een naam heeft: steden, gemeenten, dorpjes, wijken. --Foroa (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dan zou de categorie Locations in Belgium moeten heten, maar dan moeten ook bossen, rivieren, bruggen en verplaatsbare toiletten erin.

Het was opgevallen dat waar ik de categorie weghaal het gemeentes betreft die niet tevens plaatsen zijn?

Waar is trouwens te vinden dat ook wijken (kan ik me nog voorstellen) en gemeenten (volslagen onlogisch, dat is een gebied, geen woonkern) in deze categorie zouden moeten, terwijl de naam duidelijk naar iets anders wijst? Cycn (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Er staat ook: "This category contains a list of each city, village and hamlet in Belgium."

Dus niet gemeente, en dat... enfin: dat had ik al gezegd. Cycn (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Je hebt inderdaad dat de category inderdaad Places in Belgium zou moeten heten. In de meeste landen zijn de categorieën Cities in xxx, Cities and villages in xxx, Villages in xxx, Municipalities in xxx, ... een soep en het had dus geen zin om er nog een nieuwe variante bij uit te vinden. De bedoeling van de lijst is dat indien er iemand komt met enkel een naam van een "plaats" ergens in België, dat hij die in een enkele lijst kan vinden. Ik was begonnen met een cross check met de postnummer lijst maar dat is veel werk en het feit dat de lijst dynamisch maakt de zaak niet eenvoudiger.

Dat het niet altijd overzichtelijk is, dat begrijp ik, maar dat is enigszins loststaand, zeker tussen verschillende landen, staat hier enigszins los.

Bij een gemeente als Orp-Jauche staan zowel Orp als Jauche in de lijst, dus blijft het prima te vinden. Soms valt bij zo'n samenvoeging iets weg, zoals bij Clermont-sur-Berwinne, maar ik denk niet dat dit de vindbaarheid ernstig belemmerd.

Inderdaad, in de meeste gevallen is dat zo maar niet altijd. De idee is als je alles erin zet dan moet je niets weten van het precieze statuut van de plaats en kan je ook niet misplaatsen. In vele landen heerst er precies zo veel verwarring omdat de regels zo ingewikkeld zijn en zelfs dikwijls verschillen van provincie naar provincie. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ik heb vaker enorme chaos in onderwerpen aangetroffen. Ik heb bij de images zelf gemeente en plaats wapens en vlaggen al helemaal doorgelopen bij België, maar er is nog zat te doen.... Cycn (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ik blijf van mening dat het ridicuul is iets in een categorie steden, dorpen (vlekken, wijken) te zetten terwijl het dat niet is. Een gemeente is nog altijd geen plaats en is zelfs niet vergelijkbaar. Ik denk dat dat grotere verwarrig schept (dus juist niet overzichtelijker). Cycn (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wijken is te veel gezegd. Het betreft eerder dorpjes en parochies uit de vorige eeuw(en) met een eigen geschiedenis die "opgeslorpt" zijn geweest door grotere entiteiten (en in sommige gevallen wijken zijn geworden omdat in België alles volgebouwd wordt zodat ook de grenzen vervagen) --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dat is ook ongeveer wat ik ermee bedoelde. Stadsdelen noem je het dan, geloof ik. Cycn (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bovendien is een dergelijke lijst superhandig om plaatsen met gelijkaardige namen te ontdekken en te corrigeren. Bedankt voor het begrip. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wellicht...

De genoemde categorie is voor wooneenheden, wellicht is een categorie voor geografische namen nuttig, ook voor rivieren, streken, etc? Cycn (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In deze functie voldoet de categorie trouwens ook niet, omdat er nog heel veel namen ontbreken. De categorie heeft als functie aan te geven dat het een plaats in België betreft en om een lijst te creeën met plaatsen in België waarvan iets beschikbaar is. Cycn (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Een geografische namen atlas zou inderdaad best nuttig kunnen zijn. Vraag is indien je dat via categorieën doet of met een of andere query. De afweging tussen gebruikers eenvoud (en foolproof) en nut is zeker niet altijd eenvoudig. --Foroa (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Het lijkt me ook een heel project en niet (alleen) aan ons tweeën om te beslissen. Cycn (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Zelfs waar de regels relatief eenvoudig zijn en stabiel, zoals gbij emeenten en steden, is er al een chaos. Laat staan waar er meer subtiele verschillen zijn. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Er zijn trouwens nog meer categories waarbij de gemeente geen plaats is en die dus niet in deze category staat, die ik dus niet hoefde te veranderen. Mocht nu duidelijk worden dat het de bedoelding is dat ook de gemeentes als plaatsen verkeerd worden geinterpreteerd (waarvan ik nog niet overtuigd ben, ik heb geen discussie gezien waaruit dat naar voren zou komen - het is jou/jullie mening) dan zullen die gemeentes wel meegenomen moeten worden, lijkt me. Cycn (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Montmédy-Stadhaus--w.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now it's ok ;-) --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:SVG vs. Template:Convert to SVG

Hello Cycn. I doubt the usefulness of changing one template redirect into the name the template redirects to (Svg → Convert to SVG) as happened in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vlag_Maarn.jpg&diff=0&oldid=18317845 – as the template lists convertToSVG, SVG, toSVG, shouldBeSVG as acceptable aliases doing overzealous changes just creates revision clutter and is best avoided. Thanks. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not important to make a change just for this, but I included it in a change of the sorting of the flag. If the rest is acceptable, I just leave the redirect. Cycn (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete flags of municipalities of North Holland

Hoi Cycn, wat is het doel van deze categorie? Je hebt het een subcategorie van Category:Flags of former municipalities of North Holland gemaakt, maar je plaatst er ook File:Haarlemvlag.gif in. Multichill (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete flags zijn vlaggen die vervangen zijn of moeten worden door betere versies: .png of nog liever .svg. De categorieën stonden vol met .gif en .jpg versies terwijl er ook nieuwere versies naast staan, dat is nogal onoverzichtelijk. Cycn (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Plaats licentie-sjabloon

Hallo Cycn, Zou je voortaan het licentie-sjabloon (hier PD-Vlaamse-gemeentevlag) onder het betreffende kopje of anders onder het Information-sjabloon willen laten staan? Het veld permission is bedoeld voor OTRS-toestemming en niet voor dit soort sjablonen. Nog mooier is als het kopje == {{int:license-header}} == er boven staat. Alvast bedankt! Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Verder nog een opmerking, Commons is niet nl-wiki. Er gelden hier andere procedures en gebruiken. Als je denkt een sjabloon te moeten plakken voor bv bad name, kijk dan eerst hoe dat met andere categorieën/afbeeldingen gedaan is. Je had ze namelijk niet op een correcte manier gebruikt. Als je wilt kan ik je helpen, ik kan bestanden hernoemen en categorieën verwijderen. Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:deletion policy

Hi. To speedy delete a file under the deletion policy it needs to be an exact match. Being incorrect is not a reason for speedy deletion. Such files need to go through a normal deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Versions of the File:Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg

Hallo Cycn, please note that I had to make corrections to your edit here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Trijnstel (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Cycn, was hast du mit diesen Änderungen/Befehlen [1] und [2] beabsichtigt? --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe die Änderungen zurückgesetzt, da die Vorlage {{Bad name}} dazu da ist, schnell benannte Duplikate von Dateien zu löschen. Wenn Du der Meinung bist, dass der Name einer Kategorie geändert werden sollte, dann verwende bitte {{Move}} und begründe bitte Deine Meinung! a×p_de^Hello! 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of Palestine (1924).svg

Do not add "Category:Historical flags of Israel" to something which is not a historical flag of Israel. Since it's a variation of the ca. 1900 Zionist flag which formed the basis of the flag of Israel, it can be included in Category:Variations on flags of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it can't be included, as it isn't a variation of a Israeli flag. Cycn (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But, as requested, I won't add "Category:Historical flags of Israel" again, because it cannot be an historical flag of Israel, as Israel did not exist in 1924. For the same reason it cannot be a variant of an Israeli flag. Cycn (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You sometimes have a purely mechanistic approach to categories which does not always appear to be useful. Go to Flag of Israel to see how flags very similar to what later came to be known as the flag of Israel (with probably slight variations in color, proportions. etc. with respect to the later official Israeli flag specification) were quite well-known as Zionist flags since at least 1898. Therefore no anachronism is involved. I really don't know why you want to restrict Category:Variations on flags of Israel to be as narrowly defined as possible, but the first thing that should be asked is whether such a narrowing is helpful with respect to the purposes of Wikimedia Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a variation, it a proposed flag. There are more categories of proposed flags by country and Israel could use one for flags as these. Cycn (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete flags

Hi,

I've reverted your addition of a number of flag images to the sub-cats of Category:Obsolete flags of the United Kingdom - such as File:England flag.png. That is a rendition of the current flag of England, and so cannot be of an obsolete flag.

The fact there is a SVG version available doesn't make the other an obsolete flag. An obsolete flag would be one like the 48-star US flag.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The image is obsolete, not the flag, that's true. So, it would be correct to rename the whole tree under Category:Obsolete flags. The intention of the tree is to clear the categories of the obsolete files so you can find the files you need, otherwise those categories get crowded. I don't think you should undo this cleanup over a technicallity. Cycn (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not a technicality though. The superseded images aren't images of obsolete flags - they are images of the current flags. Users may find it useful to obtain images of obsolete flags (example). Mixing the two concepts of "images of obsolete flags" with "redundant images of current flags" restricts the utility of the category.

It would be better to use a term such as "superseded flags" to describe these - as that avoids the double meaning of obsolete.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole tree should be renamed to superseded, thats a short and clear(er) term. If you nominate them I will support it, or do you want me to do it? Cycn (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland.svg

The "duplicate" tag can only be added in cases of very similar visual appearance, or obviously inferior visual appearance with respect to the same underlying graphic. However, File:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland.svg appears to have an intentionally different aspect ratio with respect to File:Four Province Flag of Ireland.svg (close to 3/2 instead of A4 paper)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see, I was mislead. I thought they were both 2/3, but the other one is more 3/4. Cycn (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's A4 paper in landscape mode (technically 1:√2). AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. odder (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for work ?

Hi Cycn,

If you are running out of work, Holland needs you. --Foroa (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it! Cycn (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The GNS flag wars

Cycn, I think you should know you've entered into quite a POV pickle over at File:Flag of Serbia, 1941-1944.svg. That image represents the insignia used by the Government of National Salvation. A puppet government within a WWII German military occupation zone, the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Serbian nationalists, like the topic-banned User:PANONIAN, are pushing the POV that this government was in fact "Serbia".

The nonsense is essentially over-with on enWiki but now its spreading here on Commons. Here, said Serbian accounts have created flag and coat of arms files that use the historically-inaccurate, modern-day colours from the current File:Flag of Serbia.svg. Accordingly, they've also named these files "Flag of Serbia 1941-44" and whatnot. Believe it or not, this is all extremely important to them.

Both the files File:Flag of Serbia (1941–1944).svg and File:Flag of Serbia, 1941-1944.svg are inaccurately named and (more importantly) inaccurately coloured. This is the source file for the flag they're supposedly representing, notice the difference. File:Flag of Serbia (1941–1944).svg is particularly inaccurate, as its basically just using the colours from the modern-day flag. Under no circumstances should that file be favored.

I've currently uploaded File:Government of National Salvation flag.svg. This file is a version directly and carefully derived from the source material. It is also accurately named. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I shall ask to have the file renamed, as this is obvious unclear. National Salvation... of what? I assume Serbia, but I won't ask for years. Cycn (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That was simply the name of the puppet government. There was no "Serbia" at the time, as the German occupation authorities (upon occupying the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941) did not create a Serbian puppet state. The state of affairs was such that the military occupation authorities granted General Milan Nedic the mandate to form a puppet government to oversee the civil affairs of the military-administered occupation zone in question. Of course, due to a myriad of Balkan-esque POV benefits, PANONIAN and a couple other Serbian users find it extremely important to utilize the confusion over this complex situation to push the POV of a non-existent, a-historical puppet state, a "Vichy Serbia" (quote PANONIAN).

But this is a long story and has been settled on enWiki. The article was brought into line with sources, protected, and PANONIAN & others were topic-banned. This is just a little "revenge" thing they've got going here.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There must be an indication in the name what it's subject is. Serbia nieeds to be in it, I can formulate the name differently, but Serbia needs to be in the name or noone will know what nation needed to be solved (according to the namegivers. Cycn (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I contest the application of criterion #2 with regard to the current title (I find it quite clear), and oppose your proposed move as the uploader. As I said, I contend that the insertion of "(Serbia)" into the title is more misleading than indicative to the subject of the image, being familiar with the subject matter. At the time (World War II) there was no "(Serbia)" to speak of, and this image does not represent it in any way.

Also I don't understand why you keep removing my own move proposal? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are requesting to move file to the exact same name? Why the hell did you drag me into your discussion, btw, just to get more people to disagree with you? Cycn (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your request. I restored it to it's original state. Cycn (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, of course not. For goodness' sake... I hate this never-ending mess. Its simply that this subject is unfortunately both obscure and complex. Meaning that to work out the proper approach one needs to be informed - and noone is. When you add the fact that there's a "clan" of users deliberately disrupting and spreading misinformation on the subject, you have one hell of a frustrating quagmire. I apologize if I insulted you somehow, such was not my intent. I've contacted you to "enlist" your aid, if possible, in finally organizing this mess properly - certainly not to argue with you.

To put it simply, there was no "Serbia" there at all: neither occupied, nor a puppet state established by the occupying powers. "(occupied Serbia)" suggests the former, simply "(Serbia)" suggests the latter. Both are misleading. That territory was simply a part of Yugoslavia - and then it was placed under military occupation. That's all. And so far as I can tell, no other governments can be referred to as the "Government of National Salvation". enWiki doesn't have any, at least. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

German occupied Yugoslavia would work as well, would that work for you? And sorry again for removing your request, twice, by half an accident (twice). Cycn (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If you feel a disambiguation note is really necessary, how about "Flag of the Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia).svg"? Though I'd really prefer if we could go without? The title is pretty long and unwieldy as it is, and as I said there's really only one "en:Government of National Salvation" that meets NOTE. Either way my preference is towards the standard "Flag of XY" format. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of governments named themselves 'Government of national salvation', so disambiguation is necessary. I will change my request to Flag of the Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia).svg. Cycn (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, supporting your move proposal. Thoughts on the other two inaccurate flags? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

One is a smaller version of the other, so should be deleted anyway. I've noticed the discussion on the other one... Well, it is a duplicate and it seems inaccurately named. Misleading is grounds enough for renaming the file, whatever the uploader wants, one cannot deliberately proctect an incorrect name. Proving that it is is the challenge but maybe the name we now landed on helps in this case. That leaves the .jpg-version, that has the other name as well and should also be renamed if we follow your arguments. Cycn (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources behind the current state of affairs can be readily found on the relevant enWiki article. The discussion there was long, exhaustive, and generally terrible. The fact is some publications do use the term "Nedic's Serbia" or some variation, but it was clearly shown, numerous times (by Peacemaker67 and others) that they are simply in the wrong to do so (they were usually just simplifying the matter for the reader). The exact organization and status of the Government of National Salvation, and its occupation zone in general, has been sourced, presented, and described. There is, at this point, no question whatsoever as to whether there existed a country named "Serbia" at that time and place (neither "occupied", nor "puppet").

Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally."
Tomasevich 2001, p.182

But Nedić’s competence remained strictly circumscribed; indeed, his government had a largely "formal character", being for the most part restricted to ratifying decisions made previously by German authorities. The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers."
Ramet p.130

With regard to PANONIAN, his openly stated goal is to have a file with the name "Flag of Serbia" he can use on the Serbian Wiki, regardless of the accuracy of its colours or name. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If he needs the name like that to use it in a template it would also work with a redirect. If it's marked duplicate, removed and made into a redirect he won't be harmed in his goals. I don't think it would be very constructive to have an opinion about his arugmentation or goals, so I refain from that. Cycn (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not my opinion - its what he says. I don't think he'd ever agree to not have an image entitled "Flag of Serbia" for this. Its not anything technical, its just he's absolutely convinced he's right and that this is all some admin conspiracy. I quote [3]

You're right about the administrators, its clear they support almost anybody who's against Serbs. What is one to expect anyway from someone who's mind has been brainwashed for the past 20 years by Western media?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my statements: I believe that there is indeed Croatian conspiracy against Serbs in Wikipedia, and DIREKTOR is a big part of it. Admins in en Wikipedia are not part of that conspiracy, but they are unable to deal with Croatian nationalism and they usually block Serbian users in almost every dispute with Croatian users. However, this is irrelevant for our image problem. I will not engage myself in renaming war with DIREKTOR over files which were not uploaded by myself (my actions will be limited to files which I uploaded only). I see that DIRECTOR changed his strategy and wants to delete this file as a duplicate: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia,_1941-1944.svg In such case, only file with name which he prefer would remain. This is obvious POV war of user:DIREKTOR who aims to annihilate any other POV but his own. As I recall commons policy, in the case of POV dispute over some files, multiple versions of some files are kept to reflect each POV. The worst thing is that DIREKTOR have no any source which could confirm his opinion that disputed flag was a flag of the government. I scanned image of that flag from a book which says that it was flag of Serbia and DIREKTOR did not presented any source which says the opposite. If you want proof for this, Cycn, just ask DIREKTOR which source says that it was flag of the government. I bet that DIREKTOR will not provide such source and will engage himself in long philosophical rhetorics trying to convince you that he is right even without source. As I said, I will limit my actions only to file which I uploaded, and if that one is deleted as a duplicate, I will then upload that file in Serbian Wikipedia under accurate name. PANONIAN (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Panonian,

I do understand your paranoia about anti-serb sentiments and their cause. I would, however, not be inclined (yet) to conclude that Direktor is part of a conspiracy, Croatian or otherwise, with the information I have. His arguments, as he brought them to me, seem valid. But that's only one side of the story... How do you see the area in question as Serbia? It looks to me much like the Polish situation and you wouldn't say Generalgouvernement was Poland, or would you? One could even argue that saying so would be anti-Polish, as it would legitimise the German occupation. If you would translate that to Serbia, stating the area in question (much smaller than present day Serbia) was Serbia and the name should be 'Flag of Serbia' could be anti-Serbian, you see? I believe this is what Direktor is trying to say, without intention to be anti-Serbian (quite the opposite even) but you somewere got the idea he does have such intentions and explained everything he said accordingly. Could you explain why you believe this flag, (with it's symbolism obviously being serbian) represents Serbia and not a military occupied zone? Cycn (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cycn, please see these two pages where I collected sources about WW2 Serbia:

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:PANONIAN/Извори01

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:PANONIAN/Извори02

Second one have original documents from the time and some English google books quotations. Book from where I scanned the flag also says that it is flag of "Србија (1941-1944)" or in English: "Serbia (1941-1944)". Third thing is the flag color, which looked unimportant to me, but this is the problem: I scanned this image directly from a book: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG Now, I checked the book again and seems that blue color in the book itself and in the scanned image are not exactly same. In the scanned image colors are somewhat darker (I have no idea why scanned image appeared like that), but in the book itself, blue color of the flag is same as standard blue color in other flags of Serbia from that book page. In another words, correct blue color of WW2 Serbia flag is standard blue color from standard Serbian tricolor. Due to that, I will revert file which I uploaded to version of user:Fry1989 because his version is more accurate: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia,_1941-1944.svg PANONIAN (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, Cycn, as I see it, DIREKTOR now have file that reflects his POV: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia).svg Other 3 flags of WW2 Serbia are all different from this file uploaded by DIREKTOR either in color or in image format and I see no reason not to keep all four images in commons. This is how things in commons are usually solved, right? DIREKTOR can use his file in his home Wikipedia and I will use my file in my home Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If they are not the same, they are not duplicates and no deletion should occur. It seems strange to have 3 versions of this flag in SVG but it's not uncommon. Maybe one could eventually be deleted as a duplicate in favor of a version of an image with the same or larger dimesions. I will have a look at your sources and as your are well documented this can take some time but you make a solid point. Thank you very much. Cycn (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. The guy is a pro at misleading people on this subject. He's actually compiled these silly lists of quotes from publications that either do not cover the matter in depth and use simpler terminology, or are misrepresented in that they do not refer to any country by the term "Serbia" (but merely to the rough geographic region). Months ago these lists were refuted in their entirety by more focused, professional sources which they contradict. The question of a "Serbia" existing there is a closed subject. But I'll be damned if I'll start discussing that again here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand correctly that your claim is: Generalgouvernement wasn't Poland, Böhmen und Mähren the Czech Republic and this wasn't Serbia? Unlike Slovakia and Croatia, that had an own state? Cycn (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Perhaps even more so than the General Government, since there was no "Serbia" in the decades before WWII either. I personally find it very strange that Serbian users of all people would want to over-emphasize connections with the Nazi occupation, and to such an extent too. Can you imagine Poles adamantly claiming that the GG was "Poland"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot

I noticed that You often help categorizing properly many images. Thank You. However, I suggest You to use Cat-a-lot for massive operations: it makes much easier working on many files at once. It can be enabled in the Preferences, in the Gadgets tab. --Ricordisamoa 14:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I had allready activated it but never stated using it. I check and it's a nice tool, nice, that will help me a lot. Cycn (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Monumenten

Beste Cycn, ter informatie: ik heb deze en deze bewerkingen teruggedraaid: het is echt een misvatting dat ieder rijksmonument altijd een gebouw is (vgl. bv. begraafplaatsen, siervazen, straatklokken, wierden en terpen). Zie overigens ook mijn overlegpagina. Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Volgens mij heb je gelijk maar het lijkt wel gebruikelijk te zijn dat ze onder gebouwen staan. Dan staat het elders waarschijnlijk ook gewoon verkeerd. Cycn (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ermine in heraldry

Hallo Cycn - kannst du mir bitte den Grund nennen, der für die Umbenennung in "Ermine fur-skin in heraldry" spricht? --maxxl2 - talk 14:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ermine fur-skins in art und Category:Furs in heraldry. Heraldikkategorien werden in der Regel "Subject in heraldry" genannt. Der Name "Ermine (fur)" erwähnte Heraldik überhaupt nicht. Cycn (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Diese Namensänderung wurde bisher nicht diskutiert. Die Notwendigkeit zweifel ich an. Ein Einvernehmen im Projekt Heraldik gibt es bisher nicht. Soviel ich sehen kann, gibt es in der Nomenklatur der Heraldik nur Ermine als Tingierung. Das hat also mit dem Fell wie in Category:Ermine fur-skins in art überhaupt nichts zu tun. Ich bitte dich, die Änderung des Kategorienamens zurück zu nehmen. --maxxl2 - talk 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ich sehe noch zu wenig Grund diese Änderunen rückgängig zu machen. Vieleicht gibt es eine bessere Lösung aber die alte Situation war schlimmer meiner Meinung nach. Cycn (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ob die alte Lösung deiner Meinung nach schlimmer war ist doch nicht der Punkt. Wir müssen in den Kategorienamen der offiziellen englischen Blasonierung folgen. Und dieser Regel entsprach der alte Namen. --maxxl2 - talk 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sie haben ohne Zweifel einen Link zu diesen Regeln für mich. Cycn (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Außer dem zuvor genannten Link zur englischen Wikipedia ist diese Quelle für Pelzwerk was die deutsche Heraldik betrifft sehr genau. --maxxl2 - talk 19:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Interessant, ich werde das sicherlich irgentwann alles lesen. Und wir müssen in den Kategorienamen der offiziellen englischen Blasonierung folgen? Wo vinde ich diese Regel für Wikipedia? (oder ist das Ihre Meinung) Cycn (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Das ist nicht nur meine persönliche Meinung, sondern es sind die Regeln der Blasonierung, denen alle Kategorienamen hier auf Commons folgen. --maxxl2 - talk 09:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Das is sehr gut. Sie haben ohne Zweifel einen Link zu diesen Regeln für mich... Cycn (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Cycn, in der Tat sehe ich hier auch keinen Grund für diese/deine Namensänderung. Hier werden eigentlich die Konventionen zusammengetragen: Commons:WikiProject Heraldry (s. Diss., leider alles Englisch). Anregungen könntest Du sicher dort anbringen. Wobei generell Namensänderung von Kategorien erst eine Art Prozess durchlaufen müssen: COM:CFD / COM:Rename a category (was Maxxl2 meinte) Die allg. Regelung ist hier: COM:LP oder hier: COM:Sprache. Liebe Grüße -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 11:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category ist eindeutig. Danke für den Link. Cycn (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Aber ich gebe zu hier ist eine Missverständnis-Gefahr, daher wäre ggf. evtl. eine weitere Meinungen (wie besagt) anzuraten. " in heraldry" würde ich auf jeden Fall belassen. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 12:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Es gibt mehrere Kategorieën mit dieser Gefahr. Ich werde darüber nachdenken und dann vielleicht einen Vorschlag machen. Cycn (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Emilia

Hello, "Emilia" IS NOT a region of Italy; Emilia-Romagna is. That category is only for the SVG of flags of administrative regions. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So it shouldn't have been in the mothercategory (the non-SVG) of regions in Italy as well? Maybe a subfolder for Historical regions? Cycn (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish flag

File:Proposed Yiddish flag.svg is named PROPOSED not only because Wiki software told me that "Yiddish flag" already exists. I know this flag is not official, but I hope once it will be. But it is NOT fictious (here is proof). So I removed the fictious flag label. PS: Can you check on this site my names of flags of Lazistan (or Laz people), Cherokee, Persians, Miranda and Pontios (Pontus)? I want not to upload them until the names will be acceptable. God be with you! Hosmich (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you added 'proposed' to the name if the flag was not a proposed flag. This creates avoidable confusion. Also: why do you choose another name because another flag had a similar name? File:Yiddish flag.png was taken, what does that have to do with File:Yiddish flag.svg? Cycn (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Je maintiendrai

Dag Cycn (Cycnus?), bedankt voor de aanpassing. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Graag gedaan...

Latvian town flags

Hi! Why You are moved images of flags of latvian towns from category Flags of cities of Latvia to category Flags of municipalities of Latvia? They are NOT flags of respective municipalities, they are flags of parts of municipalities (towns without separate governing body) in this municipality. In most cases there are two flags in category: one for municipality, and another for town. Like for Ogre town and for Ogre municipality. For people without deep knowlege in local vexillology it may cause wrong use of flag image. May be better way is to create new category Flags of towns of Latvia for that sort of flags? --Kikos (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I? - Can you provide me with links to the categories or the edits I made? Cycn (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. --Kikos (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you were asking me about an action I performed in March? I wouldn't know details about that any more. Go ahead and correct it if your information is better than mine was then. -Cycn (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

superseded

Hallo Cycn, ik ben nu ettelijke maanden bezig vector afbeeldingen te maken van alle gemeente-, voormalige gemeente- en dorpswapens. Ik orden daarbij de categorieën meteen maar en stop de gif- en onvolledige svg bestanden en de superseded categorie. Zodat het voor overzichtelijk wordt welke bestanden nog in vector moeten, anderzijds wenst de gemeenschap vector bestanden i.p.v. gif. Ik zal dat je enkele zoals deze weer teruggeplaatst heb, mag ik weten wat daar het nut van is? --Archmedus (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Er staat dan geen nieuwe versie gelinkt. Als die er wel is moet die gelinkt worden en dan kan ook gelijkt het ConverttoSVG-sjabloon eruit. Een bestand is alleen 'superseded' als er een betere versie (PNG of SVG) van is.

Het lijkt mij niet overzichtelijk om alle bestanden niet je nog moet doen bij de bestanden die je al gedaan hebt te zetten. Als de nieuwste versies van alle wapens in categorieen als Category:Coats of arms of former municipalities of South Holland staat en je treft daar nog niet-SVG-bestanden aan kun je juist zien dat die nog zouden moeten gebeuren (of nog naar de supersededfolder verplaatst moeten worden). 09:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ik begrijp door je uitleg het "nut" ervan wel, ik hoop ook dat je mijn "ongemak" ervan begrijpt. Als een afbeelding in een "superseded" categorie staat kan men daaruit al opmaken dat er iets in hogere resolutie bestaat, zo gezocht/gewild zijn die Nederlandse wapenschildjes nou ook weer niet. Het ConverttoSVG-sjabloon vervangen werkt in elk geval niet echt gebruiksvriendelijk als je tweeduizend afbeeldingen "moet" vervangen. Met "moeten" heb ik altijd wat moeite als het niet om biologische zaken gaat ;-) Een heel tijdrovende klus (zeker als het "moet" en het tekenen al zoveel uren aan tijd kost en me daarnaast afvraag of ik het wel zinvol vind) te bedenken dat het SVG tekenen vrijwilligerswerk is. Dat een lage resolutie afbeelding dan niet doorlinkt naar een SVG bestand neem ik dan voor lief. Desalniettemin begrijp ik uit je reactie dat je het terugdraaien van "superseded" blijft voortzetten zolang de afbeelding niet doorlinkt naar een SVG bestand. Jammer, ik zal in elk geval niets meer in een supersed categorie plaatsen.--Archmedus (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Als er geen betere versie is... Als er een betere versie bestaat wil ik het graag weten en van Koudekerk kan ik hem nergens vinden, oftewel: naar mijn beste weten is er geen, dus is het bestand niet 'superseded'. Het is verouderd, zeker, het zou vervangen moeten zijn maar of er een nieuwe versie van is?

Ik heb nu via een hele omweg File:Koudekerk aan den Rijn wapen.svg gevonden. Mooi werk; dat zou je toch vindbaar willen hebben, neem ik aan. In de category:Koudekerk aan den Rijn om mee te beginnen. Ik ga deze in elk geval goedzetten. Cycn (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is een lang verhaal Sync, ik heb al wat te stellen gehad met categorieën, het enige dat ik de laatste maanden nog invulde was een verborgen categorie, voor het eigen gemak zodat ik (maar ook anderen) makkelijk eigen werk terug vinden kan, zeg maar een soort "automatische gallerie", daarnaast een hoofdcategorie. Maken om gevonden te worden heeft niet zo'n prioriteit voor me, meestal maak ik iets waarna vraag is, bijvoorbeeld als iemand lemmata schrijft waarvoor een betere versie noodzakelijk is. Soms merk ik tijdens onderhoud ervan (na een tijdje verbeter ik ze als de vaardigheden verder ontwikkeld zijn) dat sommige exemplaren veel gelinkt zijn, dat is leuk, maar niet mijn aandrijfveer. De echte uitdaging zit er in om ze correct (en steeds netter) te maken, kortom jezelf verbeteren. Ben er eigenlijk ook maar ingerold. Tegenwoordig teken ik verhoudingsgewijs meer dan dat ik nog aan artikelen werk. Ik ben nu met de NL wapens over de helft dacht ik, hoop voor het einde van dit jaar alles gereed te hebben. Dan worden het misschien familiewapens of over de grens? Bedankt voor het goedzetten :) MVG --Arch (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Het is al heel mooi dat je dit doet. Ik zal wat je hebt gemaakt doorkijken naar wapens die ontbreken en zo nodig de categorieen goedzetten en eventueel locale wikis bijwerken. Als ik eens een wapen tegenkomt waarvan de SVG ontbreekt kan ik ook je bijdragen of je categorie raadplegen; mooit dat ik het weet, soms is de oude versie echt niet om aan te zien. Cycn (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Alvast bedankt voor de moeite, top! Ja, ik ben zelfs op (peperdure belastingcenten verspillende) gemeentelijke websites vlekkerige gif bestandje tegen gekomen die amper te waren onderscheiden tussen wapenschild en inktvlek :) --Arch (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

De Lege Midden

Beste Cycn, U levert erg veel en goed werk voor de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Bij het plaatje De Lege Midden slaat u echter de plank mis bij uw wijziging van het lidwoord. U licht dit toe met de opmerking De is niet correct in het Fries. Op uw gebruikerspagina staat niets over uw kennis van fy: en ik kan u garanderen dat in het Frysk sprake is van de als lidwoord van midden . Bron hierbij is het Frysk Wurdboek van J.W. Zantema. Omdat het boek waarschijnlijk niet in uw bezit is kunt u zich vervoegen dij de Taaladviesdienst van de Afûk of andere kenners van het Frysk. Oorzaak van verkeerd gebruik is de invloed van het Nederlands. Dit was tevens de reden om een tijd geleden de naam op het kaartje aan te passen op Commons. Ik verzoek u om het kaartje in ere te hesstellen en uw bewerking ongedaan te maken. Kees Swart (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Waarom gebruikten ze dan op de Friese Wiki hun eigen plaatje met 'It' in de juiste tint zwart ('De' wijkt behoorlijk af in de tweede versie)? Het onderschrift daar begint ook met it. Het plaatje heet ook zo. Of is er een reden dat het op de ene plek wel it is en elders de? Cycn (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bij het eerste uploaden van mijn zelfgemaakte bestand heette de afbeelding It Lege Midden, dezelfde fout dus als waar ik u op wees. Later werd deze flater me duidelijk en heb ik de naam op het kaartje veranderd in De Lege Midden en opnieuw geupload. Blijkbaar is de kleur inkt iets afwijkend geweest. Het veranderen van de bestandsnaam vond ik te lastig, en heb daarom de bestandsnaam gelaten zoals die was. De paginabezoeker ziet immers enkel de afbeelding met het juiste lidwoord De. Het heeft niets te maken met regionale varianten, maar het is de invloed van het Nederlands die sprekers soms in verwarring brengt. In het Frysk zijn wel meer van dit soort voorbeelden (interferentie van talen heet dit meen ik..) zoals de mar (Frysk)= het meer (watervlakte)(Ned) Hoe de gewijzigde naam op het kaartje heeft uitgewerkt op de Fryske wikipedy is mij niet bekend. Feit blijft dat het De Lege Midden moet zijn. Groet, Kees Swart (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dan moet de afbeelding ook wel hernoemd worden, lijkt me. Verder staat er op de fywiki ook overal 'de' hoor, dus wat dat betreft zal het goed zijn. Ik nomineer de afbeelding even voor hernoeming naar een naar met het juiste Friese lidwoord. Kun jij kijken of je de kleur nog goed kunt krijgen? Cycn (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Prima, 'k zal de naam wel even wissen en vervangen, dan is de kleur van de naamdelen gelijk. Kees Swart (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaat toch niet iets fraais opleveren: de huidige versie is slechts 78 kB, de vorige was 127 kB. Beter zou dus zijn om de vorige versie te hernoemen. Kees Swart (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Category Montanaire

Hallo Cycn, warum gehört die Kategorie Montanaire nicht in die Kategorie Cities and villages in the canton of Vaud? Montanaire ist seit 1. Januar 2013 eine politische Gemeinde im Kanton Waadt (vgl. nl:Montanaire), gleich wie zum Beispiel nl:Daillens, dessen Commons-Kategorie sich auch in der Kategorie Cities and villages in the canton of Vaud befindet. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Montanaire ist kein Ort, nur eine Gemeinde. Cities and villages in the canton of Vaud bedeutet Städte und Dörfer im Kanton Waadt, Dalliens ist, so zu sehen, auch ein Dorf und damit gehört es in dieser Kategorie. Cycn (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ach so. Danke für diese Information. Dann dürften in der Schweiz einige Kategorien falsch einsortiert sein. Habe nur kurz ein paar von den Gemeinden durchgeshen, die in den letzten Jahren fusioniert haben; z.B. Wald BE (2004), Ehrendingen (2006), Rapperswil-Jona (2007), Neckertal (2009), Ilanz/Glion (2014), Domleschg GR (2015) usw. Das sind alles politische Gemeinden, die kein Ort (Stadt, Ortschaft oder Dorf) sind. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Flags with disputed status

Hallo Cycn, kannst du sagen bzw. dort ergänzen, wo diese Cate beschrieben ist oder wo das Template dafür ist? Gruss ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Perhelion,
Diese Kategorie ist für Flagge wobei etwas umstritten ist (zB Farbe, Design, Größe). Sobald der Status einer Flagge klar ist wirt bei der Flagge dieser Kategorie entfernt und so kan es passieren das die Kategorie leer ist (wie jetzt). Auch wenn diese Kategorie leer ist, soll sie behalten bleiben und zu diesem Zweck ist diese Vorlage hinzugefügt worden. Vielleicht soll diese Vorlage mal übersetzt werden. Cycn (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Flanchis_in_heraldry

Flanchis in heraldry 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!

Kiltpin (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cities and Municipalities in Italy

Hi Cycn. Your cat removing and rollbacks about Municipalities in Italy are not correct. In Italy "city" is only a honour title for some towns (that can be big towns or little villages). But all towns are municipalities ("comune"), that they are big ore little. So, some years ago the italian community of Commons, after a long discussion, decided (like Germany) to abolish all categories of city in Italy and to rename them in municipalities; without the metacats by city. If you look at the biggest cities in Italy (Milan, Florence, Rome, etc.) they are all Municipalities. With your removing of cat "Municipalities in Italy by region" and "Municipalities in Italy by province" from the Category:Cities by country subdivision you simply say that in Italy there aren't cities. Is this useful? Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. By leaving them in these categories you would be saying that all Italian minicipalities are cities. Are there no municipalities in Italy that aren't cities? If there aren't, then these categories should be added, otherwise it would be giving false information. In the latter case the actual cities still could be categorized as cities in another way. I'd consider not giving false information to be more useful than provinding (partially) false information. Cycn (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In Italy we consider all municipalities cities. Not theyr hamlets ("frazioni"). In fact all municipalities have a mayor and an autonomous administration. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mayors and autonomous administration are characteristics of municipalities in most countries, that doesn't make (all of) them cities. But if in Italy only cities are municipalities and that none of the municipalities are just villages, then those terms are effectively synonyms in Italy's case and then (and only then) you would be right. Cycn (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Normandie is not Normandy

Could-you, please, remove the redirection of Category:Rivers of Basse-Normandie and Category:Rivers of Haute-Normandie. Normandie (France) is part of Normandy (Normandie + Channel islands). All categories of Normandie must exist by themselves, and may be categorize in Normandy. Thanks.Palamède (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Flags_of_provinces_of_Indonesia

Flags of provinces of Indonesia 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!

Hddty. (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversions to coats of arms

I object to your reversions to multiple coats of arms in Category:Symbols of Westerwolde (municipality). In the Netherlands, coats of arms of municipalities are officially assigned and registered symbols. Superceded coats of arms, in this case coats of arms of former municipalities, do not become symbols of another municipality when the former merged into this other municipality. You have stated no reason for the reversions and I would like to ask you to explain or undo them. – Editør (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

These categories gather all coats of arms, flags, etc of the municipality, its predecessors and the villages. You want to clear all Category:Symbols of the Netherlands by municipality I understand? Cycn (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't want that. I merely want to correctly categorize these coats of arms. Let me give an example. The coat of arms of the municipality of Bellingwedde is not symbol of the municipality of Westerwolde. Bellingwedde was a municipality from 1 September 1968 to 1 January 2018, so its coat of arms can be in the categories "symbols of Bellingwedde" (although that does not yet exist, so simply "Bellingwedde" for now) and "coats of arms of former municipalities of Groningen" but not in "symbols of Westerwolde (municipality)". It doesn't make sense to add coats of arms of predecessors to a category, when there are more accurate categorizations at hand. – Editør (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea behind these categories is to gather all symbols of the municipality, its predecessors and the villages in the municipality; Maybe the naming isn't clear on that and we may need to change that or clarify that in a header of some kind. Or do you oppose putting them together in a category altogether? Cycn (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Multiple_flags

Multiple flags 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!

Josh (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Viken vs Akershus, Østfold and Buskerud

Hi, while the administrative regions of Akershus, Østfold and Buskerud was merged into Viken from 2020, the geographic regions of Akershus, Østfold and Buskerud predates the administrative regions and continue to exist as geographic regions even after the dissolution of the administrative regions. I wonder if it would have been a better solution to introduce an extra level for Viken in the categorization between Category:Something something of Buskerud and Category:something something of Norway rather than collect all the files and categories previously categorised under Akershus, Buskerud and Østfold. Putting them in a category just for Viken imo represents a loss of information. TommyG (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And you know that the geographic region of Viken actually predates those of Akershus, Buskerud and Østfold? Cycn (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your point being? Besides, the historic geographic region of Viken was a significantly larger area than the current administrative region of Viken. And, none of this negates the loss of information by moving files and categories from a narrow category to a broader category. TommyG (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave the geography-related categories of Akershus, Buskerud and Østfold where they are. Cycn (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Counties of Norway Navi

Hi, I think these changes led to Viken being missed out when the parameter "suffix" is not empty, see e.g. Category:Transport in Viken by municipality, where Viken is missing in the navigation menu. Could you please see if you are able to fix it? - 4ing (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I found the issue... Cycn (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! - 4ing (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Categorieën: zo specifiek mogelijk

Beste Cycn, Ik zie dat u in verscheidene bestanden de categorieën hebt gewijzigd van Sculptures in plaats X naar Sculptures in Land van Cuijk, dus van specifiek naar algemener. Waarom heeft u dat gedaan? Staan de beelden niet in "plaats X"? De regel is immers zo specifiek mogelijk, zie Commons:Categories/nl#Principe van modulariteit, ook om bovenliggende categorieën te ontlasten. --JopkeB (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

De betreffende gemeenten zijn gefuseerd tot de nl:Land van Cuijk (gemeente) maar de ondercategorieën kunnen nog gebruikt worden voor de plaatsen waarnaar de opgeheven gemeenten naar vernoemd waren, alleen moet dan wel alle inhoud eruit die niet in de plaats zelf staat.Wel zouden er nieuwe categorieën voor deze plaatsen kunnen komen, dat zou weer specifiek zijn en correct. Cycn (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Dank voor uw snelle reactie. Goed om te weten. Bedoelt u dat de zes gemeenten die nu zijn samengevoegd ook weer uit verschillende kernen/(woon-)plaatsen bestonden en dat nu "alles" weer moet worden overgeheveld naar die oorspronkelijke 33 kernen? Dat lijkt me nog een flinke klus. Sterkte ermee! --JopkeB (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nee, Boxmeer, Cuijk, Grave en Sint Anthonis zijn ook plaatsen maar omvatten ook vaak weer een aantal kleinere plaatsen. Mill en Sint Hubert was een samengestelde gemeente, dus van die categorie had ik al een doorverwijzing gemaak. Ik heb al een categorie voor Mill aangemaakt en gevuld. Cycn (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Email

@Cycn: wil je de emailfunctie aanvinken? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Het is dan wel Nederlands maar ik begrijp simpelweg niet wat je zegt...

Category:Pompeblêd

Pompeblêd 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!

Ilzolende (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)