User talk:G.dallorto/Archivio3

Back to my user talk page

Categorie

Ciao Giovanni, ti ho scritto anche nella itwiki, ma con diverso contenuto :):). Ho categorizzato le immagini del S Giorgio in Lemine, ma sarebbe bene che dessi un'occhiata secondo quanto ti ho scritto nella it.

Penso che per immagini di questo genere sarebbe opportuno creare una categoria Arte romanica, magari in inglese, perchè ci sono parecchie immagini amnaloghe e altre ce ne saranno (ma io non sono capace di crearla, potresti farla tu se lo ritieni giusto). Avevo creato a suo tempo due gallerie Romanico Bergamasco e Romanico lombardo giusto per facilitare le ricerche, non conoscendo il sistema delle categorie. Se questo sistema funziona le due galerie non servono più. Ringraziandoti, ti saluto, ciao --Giorces 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Madonna in trono e S. G. Battista (vai alle schede)

ho ancora una speranza, dimmi che ti è sfuggito: nel S Giorgio le didascalie di tutte le immagini degli affreschi hanno la dicitura attiva vai alle schede come, per esempio, l'immagine a fianco, che portano alla sottopagina, storico-artistica, descrittiva delle immagini stesse, così il lettore è facilitato e non si è appesantita la pagina della voce (questa almeno era la mia idea). Pensavo di ripeterla per la cappella Colleoni.

Bellissime le tue foto dal castello sforzesco e vergogna per me per avere chiamato prigione la Pietà Rondanini, i neuroni erano in pausa, temporanea spero: due ore di cilicio non bastano, categorizzerò più foto :):).

Per la categorizzazione delle immagini del S Giorgio hai fatto un lavoro eccezionale e immagino defaticante, molto dettagliato e forse il mio contributo anzicché aiutare ha raddoppiato il tuo lavoro. Mi chiedo e ti chiedo ora se possa essere utile anche una categoria più generale del tipo Arte romanica o altro per facilitare la ricerca. Se un utente cerca un'immagine specifica del S Giorgio in Lemine così la trova molto facilmente, ma se cerca un'immagine qualsiasi di un affresco romanico in genere la può trovare altrettanto facilmente? sicuramente la mia è una domanda oziosa ma non so darmi una risposta.
Io cercherò di categorizzare, secondo quanto hai fatto tu, le foto passate e sicuramente le future, sperando di non aggravare il tuo impegno :):), ciao --Giorces 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecco, ... ora sì,... anche tu una piccola svista :):). Hai ragione per la visibilità del rinvio alle schede, ho già inserito il tuo suggerimento in calce a quella voce e anche in questa (eventuali tue critiche sono graditissime). Per la categorizzazione non pensavo che avessi creato un sistema così perfetto, veramente eccezionale. Lo utilizzerò cercando di rendermi utile. Io ringrazio te per la pazienza, mi brucia ancora il Prigione, chissà che salto che hai fatto, ... e vabbé, ciao --Giorces 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

... lo sapevo, ... da quando ho cambiato pusher ... non è più lo stesso, eppure io gliel'ho detto che il rosmarino non va bene e che è meglio usarlo solo in gastronomia, ma lui insiste. Ancora una volta hai ragione, avevo sbagliato a scrivere eppure mi sembrava di avere controlato, dici che è il rosmarino? oppure è la tastiera che mi è nemica e non ha capito i diversi ruoli e fa quello che vuole. Il link corretto è Cappella Colleoni, che vado limando, ancora una volta scusa, ciao --Giorces 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ps persone a me vicino dicono che non sono sempre così, ma anche...peggio :):)

Dizionario araldico

Il libretto in questione è effettivamente solo un dizionarietto assunto come riferimento ufficiale italiano per l'uso della terminologia araldica. Le immagini ivi presenti sono riportate solo per la loro utilità e non è mai indicato l'individuo o la famiglia che portava quegli stemmi. Sarebbe necessario ricercarli uno a uno. Purtroppo l'unico modo per farlo è quello di caricare in un database tutte le blasonature su cui si mettono le mani (o che si possono ricavare in proprio dallo studio dello stemma) e poi cercare per parole chiave. Come ti ho detto, io sto caricando le blasonature che trovo, ma siamo ancora lontani dall'avere una base dati accettabile. Ciao ---Massimop 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

stemma di Italia

Ciao G.dallorto, ho visto che hai posto la Category:Coats of arms of the cities and villages of Sicily to some of images which seem all to have been uploeded by User:Messina. They seem to be from the italian Wikipedia. Besides the problem of copyright (neither autor not permission are given), these images do not coply with the rule as stated in the definitions of the categories that stemma of italian municipalities have the syntax name-stemma.png (and not name_stemma.png). This sytax is used e.g in the infoboxes of the German, English, and many other Wikipedias (see e.g. Usage of Acireale-Stemma.png). In it and scn, local images seem to be used. It seems that Messina is creating a second parallel structure of stemma not compatible with most of the Wikipedias. Further, the newly created page Province of Catania is redundant over the page Coats of arms of the Province of Catania, only with the other set of coats (with blank instead of "-"). How shall this be handled? I very much would prefer a consistent system of the names of the coats, especially one which is in accordance with the multiple foreign language wikipedias using the coats.

Further, images of the coats generally were not included in the Category:Coats of arms of the cities and villages of Sicily, but in the single galleries thereof. Since you are very active in the categorisation of italian categories, I would leave the choice to you how this is done in the future. However, the images uploeded by Messina and those already present before should be treated equal, i.e. all in the category or none. Please let me have your thought on that matter. Salute --Bjs 13:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically concerned about coats, but about Siciliy, since I'm on eof the mebers of the German Wikiprojekt Sicily. In this context, I noticed the upcoming chaos in the coats. IMHO, gallery pages like Coats of arms of the Province of Catania, even if most of the images are missing, have certain advantages over categories: you can see which coats are missing (and possibly create and upload them), and you can see which missing coats have been uploaded recently (and correspondingly enter them in the corresponding pages in Wikipedia.). Regarding the images contained in the galleries, I will step by step add the categories to these images, too.

But how do we proceed since there will be lots of duplicates, the ones with the blank and the others with the "-"? It seems that only the ones with the "-" are generally used in the wikipedias. Delete the ones with blank and upload them with "-"? And shall all the coats be in a single category or shall we make subdivisions by province? Greetings--Bjs 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dizionario & CoA to be classified

Buongiorno G. ! First point, Henry is suffisant (Salomé is my family name) ! Second point, if you write to me in any language except in english of course, you can dare del tu (in french, tutoyer), it's in use on fr:WP (except for strapazzate and first times) .
I've had a look at the Category:Dizionario araldico ufficiale italiano and could not find any blazon I could know. I've categorized some crosses, it's few !
For the CoA to be classified, it's the mania of Massimop. He means that the charges have not been classified, like Category:Lions in heraldry. I'll take some time to do some but I can't promise more. In fact, now on fr:WP we are working with Inkscape so that we draw SVG blazons. I don't mean that 2D images will be replaced soon, that's why I shall do something for the french ones and why not others (Europe is our country !); At least the few french ones I have seen have other problems of categories and so I shall have to create Cat. for département like Category:Coats of arms of cities in Yvelines.
You know what ? I'll be sixty in 7 days and I've not yet prepared anything for my retirement ! I must do it, I believe I shall earn more francs euros than with my half-time taxi job. :-))))) Ciao ! Cordially, ℍenry (Jaser !) 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PS : I'm dreaming of a journey to Italy following the steps of the Gonzaga, Este, Montefeltro, Sforza, Visconti, Medici, Colleoni (I've seen you created the cat. ! I translated the italian article to french.), Della Rovere and others !

Buongiorno Giovanni ! D'accordo, I've well understood ! Maybe I did not search enough as I started with the Image:52xxx and following ones. I don't change what I said, I'll do some day after day ! Ciao, greetings, ℍenry (Jaser !) 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinando de' Medici

Hey, you requested this to be deleted as it's empty and used {{Delete}}. Could you please use {{Speedy}} in the future as {{Delete}} is just for deletion requests and not for deletion requests (I just happened to stumble upon your request). Yonatan ^talk 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About Polish heraldry

Dear Giovanni Dall'Orto:

I was looking around your work about Italian heraldry. Congratulations!

I like very much the idea of the alphabetical order from the re-born "Category:Coats of arms of Polish families". How is the way to re-name the "Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images", so it MUST be done? I am not good dealing with those kind of things.

About your request concerning the "Coats of arms to be classified" I will do my best. I do know something about Polish nobility issues, but about civic Coats of arms... well, let me see if I can help.

I am sorry to write you in the it:wiki the first time. I always try to know something about the wikipedians with I be in touch, so I was looking around in the it:wiki this day. I do not know Italian enough to write, but I can read it quite well.

Best regards my friend. --Gustavo 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I quote Piotr Pawel Bajer: " The tribal system influenced all the countries included in the Polish Commonwealth. As a result, the nobility consisting of more than forty thousand families, used about seven thousand arms including family coats of arms of Western origin." [1].

We have in this Category only four hundred… We are lucky! --Gustavo 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Dear Giovanni Dall'Orto:

I already start to work in “Category:Coats of arms to be classified”, I saw that you already deleted or renamed the “Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images”. Can you delete the "Category:Coats of arms of clans of Poland"? I do not know how. It is already empty and useless.

Thank you my friend. --Gustavo 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Temples

Hi,

I'm a bit surprised by your message. It seems to me that I tagged the old category with the {{Badname}} template; if I didn't, this is just a lapse of memory, because I always do so.

What do you mean by “leave a message” on the page of the previous cat? Isn't a badname tag enough? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. However Category:Temples of Greece seems to be a red link from now. Ciao. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Category:Plans of ancient Greek temples, the correct case is “ancient”, in lowercase; there is no reason to rename this cat according to me, “Ancient” would be a mistake. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Category:Temples by deity, I'm doubtfull. The deities here are just Greek deities, I don't find appropriate to mix it with Roman ones. A temple to Jupiter can't be considered as temple to Zeus, so (except for Apollo and Dioscuri perhaps), a separation (Ancient Greek temples by deity and Ancient Roman temples by deity) would be fine to me. What is your opinion? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Third (I hope last), speaking of Italy and Turkey seems to be a little anachronic. I suggest to move to Magna Graecia and Asia Minor. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK for the 3rd point. For the 2nd, there is actually a Category:Jupiter, but it is not used, and separation is quite problematic as you quoted. It would need a real specialist, so let's keep it for the moment.

I still think you are wrong for "ancient" case. Of course, "Ancient Greek" comes with uppercases because this is a language name, all languages names are uppercased in English, as for national adjectives. But in "Plans of ancient Greek temples", "ancient" is a simple adjective, not national neither linguistic: there is no reason for uppercase. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Repubblica Romana (1849)

Rispetto alla repubblica romana, desidero fare notare che la Repubblica Romana non costituisca, propriamente, un episodio della 1^ guerra di indipendenza. Tanto, per dire, che coinvolse i francesi, non gli austriaci. Si tratta, semmai, di un episodio del biennio 48-49 del quale la prima guerra è un aspetto.

Lo stesso discorso non vale per le 5 giornate, che costituirono l'immediato antefatto della guerra.

Mi permetto, quindi, di suggerire di mutare le categorie da

Category:First Italian War of Independence|Repubblica Romana

a

Category:Italian Risorgimento|Repubblica Romana

I miei migliori saluti.

--Mmm448 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arte Romanica

Ciao Gabrielle, ho veduto la categoria Category: Romanesque artists fatta da te. Mi dispiace, ma nessun pittor nella categoria è propriamente romanico. La chiesa di San Giorgio in Lemine é romanica, ma i freschi sonno del secolo XIV. Quasi tutta l'arte romanica e anonima, dunque non si conosceno molti autori, soltanto alcuni atribuiti. La categoria Category:stonecutter marks non è esclusiva della arte romanica, anche gli scalpellini gotici usabano questi marchi. Saluti, --Balbo 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, first of all, it is a pleasure to talk with another art enthusiastic like me, although we should be working together better than discussing. I find gratuitous your accusations of vandalism. You can have a look to my contributions and find if I have traces of that behaviour. Anyway, I understand that you may have felt offended by my corrections. I apologize if I haven´t done it more carefully. (It may have been because of my efforts of talking with you in Italian, a language that I adore, but I use it less fluently that English). I have only removed bad categorised tags, but I dind´t delete or change any category. My knowledge of that church is not that much to assert that there is NO Romanesque fresco in it, but it is clear that the most famous, the ones of the XIV century, are not. They could be considered Gothic, but they have some characteristics of the early Renaissance. I don´t find any problem in removing the tags as they don´t fit to that category. To complete the corrections I made to the categorisations, you must notice that you categorised also some Gothic sculptors as Romanesque: I moved them to its correct category. The mess was so notable, that my editions were important in number and far away from being vandalism they restored some rigor in the classifications. About the stonecutter marks, if the category is called that way, and not "Romanesque stonecutter marks", the incorrect (and unlike you I presume bona fide) edition is to tag it under Romanesque artists. The category has nowadays only Romanesque examples, but it will be for sure filled with other centuries examples.

I hope this will lead to an understandment, and I hope too that we will meet again in this beautiful project.

Ci rivediamo!--Balbo 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I didn´t know that precedents and you are free to be suspicious about the matter, but I repeat that my intention was to help, and as well as you made mistakes in categorisation, my unintended mistake was not to create that new category. Indeed I sympathise with you, because you find yourself in a very similar situation to how I was some time ago. Almost 90 per cent (it is a rough aproximation) of the images related to Spanish architecture had no proper category, and even the categories themselves didn´t exist. Although I cannot state that I am the only wikipedist working in that stuff (there two or three more, mostly attending to their regional architectures) I have been working in it long time. I take care of your fast aproachal to the subject, take care yourself of my own speed in the same activity. It could never be considered vandalism, even "technically", because, as I knew it was your work, I adressed to you the question to make them reviewed by you if you found something wrong. The problem I had with thay anonymous user id far away from being the same: He removed correctly categorised tags without saying absolutely nothing to justify the removal. If you read the users talk that you linked, you will find that my answer included this: "te ruego que no borres sin causa justificada (que la imagen no corresponda a la etiqueta, o que esté duplicada la información, o una categoría general junto a otra más específica...)"

One last thing. My work is not limited to Spanish architecture and art images, and I often deal with (not only) Italian art images, which I categorize carefully. Don´t feel alone in your work, because I will help whenever I am needed.

P.S. Ah! Sorry for calling you Gabrielle, instead of Giovanni: that was another unintended mistake of mine...If you find it correct I would close definetely this episody, because our time in wikimedia is better to be inverted in possitive work rather that in sterile discussions about solved problems. I repeat my mood on future collaborations about art and architecture. Best wishes!

Ci rivediamo!--Balbo 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

Hello. "Category:Historical images of the Usa" is a bad name; "USA" or "United States", not "Usa". "Category:History images of the United States" exists; I use that instead. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories, bis

Hello,

For categories, I tend to adopt a pragmatic point of view: let's create (or separate) a cat only when we need it. That is, when a cat is overpopulated, or wrongly structured. At the moment, Category:Temple of Baal in Palmyra is standalone and will perhaps be for a while, so a mother-cat (Category:Hellenistic temples in Middle East or else) does not seem to be a priority. Specially in a so doubtfull case.

This is the same for Category:Ancient temples: currently, this cat is fine because it fits its content. If some new content appears, we'll perhaps have to deal with this question, but let's keep it simple!

Wiki is incremental process, we don't have to reach perfection at first shot. So let us not invent problems to find solutions :). Sorry for this non-answer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Palermo

Why a new category in addition to Category:Churches in Palermo? It is a bit confusing --Bjs 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

monobook.js

Hi, you might benifit from the buttons that are added if you make your monobook.js the same as mine [2]. You will get some extramenu items on image pages to mark images nld/nsd or file a deletion request. Cheers! Siebrand 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Federico_Borromeo.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for helping out in sorting the images in the category Category:Popes, your work is greatly appreciated. sincerely Gryffindor 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teobaldo_Visconti,_marchese_di_Cislago,_conte_di_Gallarate.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter and the popes

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Disputes#Saint_Peter any thoughts? --Evrik 05:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think there is any utility in creating something like the text of en:List of popes to Popes? In place of all the text at Category:Popes, the text could be removed and {{Catmore}} could be placed. --Evrik 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic saints

I'm not sure I agree with the merge of Category:Roman Catholic saints. They can be a distinct subset of CHristian saints. --Evrik 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some instruction about sorting should be given. Where should it go? At one point someone commented that saints and christian saints are duplicative. I'm not sure about that, but will give it some more thought. --Evrik 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Check out Category_talk:Saints. --Evrik 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Medici pic

That's Giovanni, not Piero who was his elder brother. Thank you for alerting me to that error.

--Mandy 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!

Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

Naming

Ciao Giovanni,

I'm quite a bit perplexed when I consider the naming of your photographs. For instance, when I do compare Image:Nerone - Monaco, Glyptothek - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto.jpg and Image:Nero Glyptothek Munich 321.jpg (using the name of the Commons cats for museum and people for consistency, and the accession number to get a single standard ID), or furthermore when I look at things like Image:DSC04522 Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Il proconsole Polemeanus - 106-107 d.C. - da Efeso - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg. The last case is what I would call a very “noisy” name, that is a name containing too much unusefull informations: does the photographer, date of photograph and DSC04522 care to define the subject shown in the photograph?—I don't think so (specially, things like “DSC04522” are discouraged in titles).

In my personal opinion, informations given in the title of an image should be just enough to perfectly define the subject, no more and no less. This is why I find Jastrow's naming conventions for museum image titles very accurate: Keywords Museum_name [Accession_number]. With such a format, the last example could be Image:Polemeanus Ephesos IAM 2453.jpg, or Image:Polemeanus Ephesos Istanbul Archaeological Museum 2453.jpg with a long version for museum name. All other informations, concerning source or subject, are details which are important in the description but do not matter in the title.

I don't want my message to appear too much critic (in fact your names are more precise than many ones), but as we work (Jastrow, you and I) on the same subjects, it would be a good thing if we could define common ways to do so: this includes categorization, image descriptions (see for example this initiative) and image naming at least. Perhaps creating a project to share these methods would be good idea. What is your opinion? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to answer to the main points:

• Including name in the title: well, I known a lot of people who use attribution licenses—I do so in some cases, for example—, but quite none is tagging the image title directly. As you know, there are 2 kinds of people: those who care copyright issues, and those who don't care. For the first ones, you can try any methods, they'll take your pictures claiming fair use or nothing; for the second ones, leaving your name in the description page is enough, they'll respect your decision. I've always thought that adding a license information was just intended to the second ones... Furthermore, if a third part people is improving one of your image, he has to be cited according the CC-BY license, but his name won't appear in the image title though (and renaming an image to add its name after editing it would be a bit abusive, not?).
• Including the date in the title: OK, the examples you give are consistent. If the date matter, of course it should be added. But for museum collections, this represents only a small part. Statues created BC generally don't evoluate much now... Your Nero bust is exactly the same as mine, date would not be an usefull information in that case (and I note you don't provide it).
• For numbering: a title should be readable and usefull to anybody, not to a single one. Adding a personal convenience, like numbering, is not appropriate on a muti-user project like Commons. Every one has its directory problems; exporting them on Commons is a curious way to solve them :) And if every try to do so, implementing its own numbering on its own selection of images, the clash will come soon on Commons.
• Future prospection: I don't know what will the future of Commons be. But I believe that duplicate images are not usefull: when we have several versions of the same items, let's only keep the better one, categories are far enough a mess. And even if several versions should be kept, it is more simple to add a number version on a single base (Image:Barberini Faun front Glyptothek Munich 218 n1.jpg, Image:Barberini Faun front Glyptothek Munich 218 n2.jpg and so), than using a photographer's name and date.

And of course, the point was not to rename all the images you already uploaded!

• For templates: the primary goal was not to look nicer, but only to provide the most detailed information on museum items, to reach a “professional” quality in object descriptions. And using a strict framework with templates is by far the quickest way to do so. You prentend to care essentially on categorizing items, but I think that the whole problem should be consider: have a good cat tree is a good point, because it allows you to easily find objects, but having a good description is equally important, because if you find a photo you don't know what it represents... So museum informations like accession number, location and dimensions, even credit line are a very good habit, it ensures that objects could always be precisely identified. And for the multi-language problem, that was a technical problem which has been fixed, see Image:Capitoline Aphrodite Louvre Ma 571 n5.jpg. And yes, we are still all waiting a truly international version of the software, for a better look-and-feel. But that's another point. Furthermore, using templates allow various possibilities for the future: bots can easily process big templates, but not plain text.

You probably agree with me: average quality in image names and descriptions is low on Commons. And it won't grow up very fast... So let's not wait, and take advance. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have a nice rest. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman emperors

hello there,

I started some work on the categorisation of Roman emperors, maybe you might want to take a look? sincerely Gryffindor 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I started at least one dynasty, based on how it is done on the English-language Wikipedia, see Category:Constantinian dynasty, there is more to come obviously. With the empresses I agree with you as well, we need to create a specific category for them, with Latin names obviously. I chose purple because of the imperial purple of the roman emperors, I changed it now to red, I hope it's better. I have also started moving the articles to the native Latin name (as given in the Wikimedia policy on articles), orientating myself on the Latin Wiki. So for example emperor Constantine I the Great's article is at Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, while the category is shortened to Category:Constantinus I Magnus. Could be confusing, but I think this is the most consistent way. ciao Gryffindor 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

invito

Ciao Giovanni è un po' che non ci si sente eh? Ho passato un periodaccio pieno di impegni, ora spero di recuperare un po' di tempo... Una volta ti avevo buttato lì un invito per passare a firenze che era un po' caduto nel vuoto. Il fatto è che il prossimo 13 maggio ci sarà la domenica delle ville e palazzi aperti, un giorno solo su 365, e cercando di pensare a chi mi potrebbe essere d'aiuto ho pensato a te.. fosse solo per insegnarmi come non fare foto "blurred" e "overexposed"! a parte gli scherzi se avessi tempo e voglia ci possiamo organizzare per un raid fotografico domenicale, il pretesto ci sarebbe. Fammi sapere qui o via email, ciao! --Sailko 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grazie, Venezia la conosco proprio poco, speriamo di trovare un tempo.. per firenze mi arrangerò x-) Cercherò un po' di proseliti al Progetto Firenze. Per i problemi alle foto mi sa che dipende dallo stabilizzatore... senza forse verrebbero meglio, ma dovrei farne almeno 5 per averne una decente.. poi il problema è che la mia macchina ha un obiettivo piccolo piccolo... un mio amico mi diceva che più piccolo è più le foto sono standard.. però mi piace perché è una macchina tascabile, la posso portare sempre dietro. Il cavalletto non posso usarlo, però cerco sempre di appoggiare i gomiti e anche di trattenere il respiro mentre scatto.. vabbè, speriamo che con la bella stagione un po' più di sole giovi. Ciao --Sailko 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Api in bicicletta

Ciao Giovanni (a Venezia si direbbe Nane),

Vai a dare un’occhiatina alle mie Image:- Bee swarm on a bicycle (1-5) -.jpg api in bicicletta e dimmi se ti piacciono.

Scattate nel centro di Amsterdam. Tante belle cose --Nino Barbieri 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Di sicuro ho fatto casino io. Allora Vai nella pagina Category:Nino Barbieri e troverai le foto nella terza riga - Ciao--Nino Barbieri 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ma come si fa? Non sono molto pratico di queste cosette. Forse me lo insegni tu e se fai la galleria sulla prima poi imparo guardando e le altre le faccio io. Grazie in anticipo! --Nino Barbieri 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSC00072 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:DSC00072 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Dodo 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSC00071 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:DSC00071 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Dodo 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues

See your messages. I'll answer tomorrow. Good night. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered the second issue on my talk page, to keep the debate in a single place. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from E@L

I'll cross-post my message here as this was to you more than to Bibi Saint-pol.

To clear things up on the last point, the deletion of the former category names was my decision and I performed the deletion. I take full responsibility for that; Bibi Saint-Pol had nothing to do with the deletion of the categories after they were moved. The contents had been moved and were now empty, so I deleted them after moving the info, as is usual with empty categories (unless in certain circumstances where a cat name is likely to still be used, in which case a redirect is left in place).

As to the Ancient Greece vs. Hellenic debate, I was not aware of this and had I been I would have certainly discussed things in more detail. Bibi Saint-Pol and I discussed the syntax of the categories, not their names; it was a move from "[place] [item/profession/other]" to the proper "[item/profession/other] of [place]" and another term for "Ancient Greece" or changing this term never came up.

The categories starting with "Hellenic" have this problem as well; they should be "Theatres of the Hellenic (something)" to follow naming guidelines. The problem with "Hellenic" is that it is specific: "Hellenic era" or "Hellenic period" refers to the the Bronze Age period of mainland Greece spanning c.2800 - 1100 B.C., "Hellenic Greece" refers to the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC, etc.
The term "Ancient Greece" can be specific, but is the universally accepted term and is used more loosely: according to the wikipedia article on Ancient Greece "There are no fixed or universally agreed upon dates for the beginning or the end of the Ancient Greek period. In common usage it refers to all Greek history before the Roman Empire, but historians use the term more precisely. Some writers include the periods of the Greek-speaking Mycenaean civilization that collapsed about 1150 BC." I would assume that Ancient Greece is a more general term that Hellenic if you go by these guidelines, as well as being more conducive to proper category name syntax. While "Ancient Greece" can be taken as a specific term referring to a specific area and a specific time frame as historians use it, most of the world is going to know that by "Ancient Greece" you mean the area, civilization(s), and time around the Ancient Greek period. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Davvero semplice!

Grazie mille, sei un vero amico!

Negli anni 80 ho fatto il programmatore da professionista per la Graphtec, ma ho usato solo assembler. Con il gergo di Wiki (che cos’è? Java?) non mi trovo ancora a mio agio. Ma con il tempo imparerò … ho imparato anche l’italiano, bene o male. Ti auguro tante belle cose … Ciao--Nino Barbieri 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming (bis)

In fact, Jastrow works with a lot of catalogues, but I don't use much. Just like you I'm taking photos during my holidays or week-ends. So I just shoot the object and its museum notice; you know that in many museums the accession number (and sometimes dimensions and credit line) is displayed on the notice (for example, it seems to be present in Palermo). So in that cases, you won't spend any time nor money by just adding it, and you will save a lot of time for people like art students who make intensive use of this info.

Still, if you prefer to leave your name in the image title, just do it, I understand your arguments. But pay attention that when adding your own name to an image, further evolutions of this image will be "locked"—I don't find a good term in English, sorry—by your single name, which could encourage forking with a new image title rather than improving the original file. Example: if someone shoot a better version of my Nero bust, I would be glad he just upload it upon my version: there is a detailled description, and the file is already used in many projects, so this will save a lot of time. But I guess that nobody will upload upon files with an author name in title—that wouldn't be fair; and creating a new image page, and renaming all occurrences in all WP is very boring. This could be avoid, in a personal conception at least.

For DSC00201 and else, I'm not convinced at all: this information is unusefull to anybody but you, keeping it does not make sense. You ask “who is harmed by this”?—well, nobody is harmed, but nobody is happy with it too. Exactly as if you added the hour a picture has been taken in the title—who cares?

And you are right: a detailed title is a help in finding an image through Google. But we can't care only to Google logic, because we have other needs that trusting Google tops: create an open image framework and feed WPs with medias for the main goals.

Ciao. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pride agosto 2004 (Ari Gold).jpg

Hi - just found this image as marked for deletion as a copyright issue. My Italian is really non-existent but I think you may be able to clarify this? I'm taking the tag off for now but let me know will you. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My Italian isn't good but it looked something like that (maybe something in English would save it happening again?) - thanks for getting back to me - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me - I have no issues with it - thanks for the translation, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Young Centaur Musei Capitolini MC656.jpg

Hi Giovanni, why are you deleting Category:Greek inscriptions in Rome from this picture? The plinth does bear an inscription. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pergamene Gauls already includes Category:Roman copies after Greek originals, so the category is redundant in category:Dying Gaul. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. I answered you about the category scheme on Bibi's talk page, to keep things gathered in one place. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:S - 9-7-2000 - 04 - Sui muri di RomaA.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:S - 9-7-2000 - 04 - Sui muri di RomaA.jpg 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!

—xyzzy_n 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Posters

Regarding [3], I don’t think it’s quite the same thing. It’s supposed to be a picture of the building and it could be argued that the inclusion of the poster is w:de minimis; also, you’ve tagged it for speedy deletion, not regular deletion. Would you consider removing it from the deletion request at least until the speedy request is resolved? (And I suggest making a new regular deletion request for it if you are so inclined, considering that it’s not actually an Italian poster.) —xyzzy_n 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

…Actually, please don’t add any images to the Italian posters deletion request unless they are, in fact, Italian posters and my reasoning applies. I’m going to remove the ones you added—they are distinct cases. I haven’t seen the image with which the case started and, frankly, I don’t feel that my reasoning in the deletion request depends on it in any way. —xyzzy_n 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your edits. Sorry, but you’re mixing two different deletion processes (speedy and regular; please read Commons:Deletion) and several different cases of problematic (or, in at least one case, not problematic) images. There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale (but feel free to copy my nomination prose, if you find it so useful…). —xyzzy_n 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again. Please read COM:DG and COM:DEL before proceding further. —xyzzy_n 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Usw_constitution_cover.jpg

Please see the note there. Your deletion proposal was obviously made in the absence of any knowledge of the document. --Achim Hering 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek cats

Hi,

We have to finally decide about the Ancient Greek cats, because the current situation is a non-sense, it desserves us all. So if you don't oppose, I will ask Editor at Large to finish the renaming as described here. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't judge this renaming was problematic, that's why I didn't export this discussion...

There is still a mistake in your mind: nobody proposed to rename cat in the "FROM Ancient Greece" scheme (which would be bad) but in the "OF Ancient Greece" scheme: Category:Art of Ancient Greece, and so on. And as far as I know, Category:Art of Ancient Greece and Category:Ancient Greek art are synonyms, because "Ancient Greece" applies far more to a civilization rather than to a geographic area.

For temples and theatres, the need is a little different, because IMO the terms "Greek temple" or "Greek theater" are quite fossilized, so for these at least we should keep the old scheme: Category:Ancient Greek temples and Category:Ancient Greek theaters. But for all other terms, I don't see any disadvantage in writing "... of Ancient Greece" rather than "Ancient Greek...". And as this is the naming convention, let's go folk!

I propose you to ask the question to User:Jastrow and User:Marsyas. We four are the main editors on the Ancient Greece domain, we should try to define a common position together. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni on this matter : it would be simpler to stick with Greek art... if only because it's shorter to type ! But more seriously, this is a common and practical label. I tend to think that "Ancient greek" will be less offensive to all the nationalist trolls than "of/from Ancient Greece". Μαρσύας? 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Please take a look at this. Regards. --Dodo 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking about categories…

I wonder about making a distinction between modern Latin inscriptions and ancient ones. That would lead to a bi-categorization (Latin inscriptions by location and by period). Does it make sense for you? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Twice25

Ciao Giovanni,
non ci ho capito molto, lascio fare a voi. Però mi sembra strano che fotografie fatte per strada ad un palazzo (sia pure a particolari di un palazzo) non possano essere diffuse pubblicamente. Spero che la cosa possa essere controllata meglio e che le foto vengano salvate. Ho timore che andando avanti così, Commons possa chiudere presto bottega .... :-// --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ho provato a parlarne su it.wiki (vedi qui). Se vuoi passare a dire la tua ... --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Grazie per il consiglio Giovanni. Provvedo allora a trasferire di categoria le pogliagate genovesi sperando di porle così in salvo assieme alla storia patria ... :)) --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mi hai consolato un po'. Certi discorsi su it.wiki in parte mi hanno ugualmente consolato e in parte [s]consolato. Figli ineluttabili del copyvio, ci converrebbe davvero prendere in considerazione l'ipotesi di abbandonare la nave che affonda e ritirarci tutti in salvo su una spiaggia assolata a prendere il sole sperando che non giungano tsunami ... :)) --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreams of lovers

The inscription is a comment on the Greek myth of Endymion pictured on the grave : the eternal sleep of the Greek shepherd willed by Selene (the Moon, the woman with the torch) so she can visit him every night. Μαρσύας? 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bernoud, Alphonse (1820-1889) - Chiostro di S. A....., Firenze.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bernoud, Alphonse (1820-1889) - Chiostro di S. A....., Firenze.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. |EPO| 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancellare

Ciao “Nane” ,

ecco qualcosa che ancora non sapevo! Adesso l’ho imparata. Meno male che ci sei tu che mi copri le spalle. Grazie mille e ciao! --Nino Barbieri 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming cats, ter

Hi,

You will certainly be interested by the message I left to Jastrow: User talk:Jastrow#Et ça continue encore et encore. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Domitianus

Well, that's what I do generally. For Category:Torso, this is a mistake but for Category:Statues of Heracles, the museum notice didn't make any reference to Heracles, so I'm doubtfull about it. What is your source? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So I rather remove the cat. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Please use [[Category:Hellenic temples in <country>]] instead of what you currently are. Thanks. Lcarsdata 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorie

Ciao Giovanni, ma quanto scrivi.. Un fiume in piena ;) Sai che io sn un wikipediano e di riflesso un commoneer, per le cat mi riesce più naturale basarmi su voci che ci sn già su wikipedia.. ebbene sì c'è una sola piazza della signoria, in ogni caso cerco di mettere sempre i nomi più corti possibili, senza parentesi e senza "in X città", a meno che non sia strettamente necessario. Purtroppo (o per fortuna?) sono contributore con pochissima compagnia su firenze per cui a volte faccio un po' come mi passa per la testa, pensando che basta che me lo ricordi io dove ho messo le cose... lo so che è sbagliato e mi fa piacere se mi fai notare sviste o errori. siccome anch'io scrivo tanto e a fiume, cerco sempre di risparmiare caratteri non necessari, quindi non metto "di XXX" per scrupolo, preferisco rischiare di disambiguare in seguito. Per quanto riguarda la statua lì per lì non mi venive niente di meglio in mente... cambierò. Ciao! --Sailko 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorie

Ciao Giovanni, ti ho scritto anche nella itwiki, ma con diverso contenuto :):). Ho categorizzato le immagini del S Giorgio in Lemine, ma sarebbe bene che dessi un'occhiata secondo quanto ti ho scritto nella it.

Penso che per immagini di questo genere sarebbe opportuno creare una categoria Arte romanica, magari in inglese, perchè ci sono parecchie immagini amnaloghe e altre ce ne saranno (ma io non sono capace di crearla, potresti farla tu se lo ritieni giusto). Avevo creato a suo tempo due gallerie Romanico Bergamasco e Romanico lombardo giusto per facilitare le ricerche, non conoscendo il sistema delle categorie. Se questo sistema funziona le due galerie non servono più. Ringraziandoti, ti saluto, ciao --Giorces 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Madonna in trono e S. G. Battista (vai alle schede)

ho ancora una speranza, dimmi che ti è sfuggito: nel S Giorgio le didascalie di tutte le immagini degli affreschi hanno la dicitura attiva vai alle schede come, per esempio, l'immagine a fianco, che portano alla sottopagina, storico-artistica, descrittiva delle immagini stesse, così il lettore è facilitato e non si è appesantita la pagina della voce (questa almeno era la mia idea). Pensavo di ripeterla per la cappella Colleoni.

Bellissime le tue foto dal castello sforzesco e vergogna per me per avere chiamato prigione la Pietà Rondanini, i neuroni erano in pausa, temporanea spero: due ore di cilicio non bastano, categorizzerò più foto :):).

Per la categorizzazione delle immagini del S Giorgio hai fatto un lavoro eccezionale e immagino defaticante, molto dettagliato e forse il mio contributo anzicché aiutare ha raddoppiato il tuo lavoro. Mi chiedo e ti chiedo ora se possa essere utile anche una categoria più generale del tipo Arte romanica o altro per facilitare la ricerca. Se un utente cerca un'immagine specifica del S Giorgio in Lemine così la trova molto facilmente, ma se cerca un'immagine qualsiasi di un affresco romanico in genere la può trovare altrettanto facilmente? sicuramente la mia è una domanda oziosa ma non so darmi una risposta.
Io cercherò di categorizzare, secondo quanto hai fatto tu, le foto passate e sicuramente le future, sperando di non aggravare il tuo impegno :):), ciao --Giorces 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecco, ... ora sì,... anche tu una piccola svista :):). Hai ragione per la visibilità del rinvio alle schede, ho già inserito il tuo suggerimento in calce a quella voce e anche in questa (eventuali tue critiche sono graditissime). Per la categorizzazione non pensavo che avessi creato un sistema così perfetto, veramente eccezionale. Lo utilizzerò cercando di rendermi utile. Io ringrazio te per la pazienza, mi brucia ancora il Prigione, chissà che salto che hai fatto, ... e vabbé, ciao --Giorces 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

... lo sapevo, ... da quando ho cambiato pusher ... non è più lo stesso, eppure io gliel'ho detto che il rosmarino non va bene e che è meglio usarlo solo in gastronomia, ma lui insiste. Ancora una volta hai ragione, avevo sbagliato a scrivere eppure mi sembrava di avere controlato, dici che è il rosmarino? oppure è la tastiera che mi è nemica e non ha capito i diversi ruoli e fa quello che vuole. Il link corretto è Cappella Colleoni, che vado limando, ancora una volta scusa, ciao --Giorces 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ps persone a me vicino dicono che non sono sempre così, ma anche...peggio :):)

Dizionario araldico

Il libretto in questione è effettivamente solo un dizionarietto assunto come riferimento ufficiale italiano per l'uso della terminologia araldica. Le immagini ivi presenti sono riportate solo per la loro utilità e non è mai indicato l'individuo o la famiglia che portava quegli stemmi. Sarebbe necessario ricercarli uno a uno. Purtroppo l'unico modo per farlo è quello di caricare in un database tutte le blasonature su cui si mettono le mani (o che si possono ricavare in proprio dallo studio dello stemma) e poi cercare per parole chiave. Come ti ho detto, io sto caricando le blasonature che trovo, ma siamo ancora lontani dall'avere una base dati accettabile. Ciao ---Massimop 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

stemma di Italia

Ciao G.dallorto, ho visto che hai posto la Category:Coats of arms of the cities and villages of Sicily to some of images which seem all to have been uploeded by User:Messina. They seem to be from the italian Wikipedia. Besides the problem of copyright (neither autor not permission are given), these images do not coply with the rule as stated in the definitions of the categories that stemma of italian municipalities have the syntax name-stemma.png (and not name_stemma.png). This sytax is used e.g in the infoboxes of the German, English, and many other Wikipedias (see e.g. Usage of Acireale-Stemma.png). In it and scn, local images seem to be used. It seems that Messina is creating a second parallel structure of stemma not compatible with most of the Wikipedias. Further, the newly created page Province of Catania is redundant over the page Coats of arms of the Province of Catania, only with the other set of coats (with blank instead of "-"). How shall this be handled? I very much would prefer a consistent system of the names of the coats, especially one which is in accordance with the multiple foreign language wikipedias using the coats.

Further, images of the coats generally were not included in the Category:Coats of arms of the cities and villages of Sicily, but in the single galleries thereof. Since you are very active in the categorisation of italian categories, I would leave the choice to you how this is done in the future. However, the images uploeded by Messina and those already present before should be treated equal, i.e. all in the category or none. Please let me have your thought on that matter. Salute --Bjs 13:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically concerned about coats, but about Siciliy, since I'm on eof the mebers of the German Wikiprojekt Sicily. In this context, I noticed the upcoming chaos in the coats. IMHO, gallery pages like Coats of arms of the Province of Catania, even if most of the images are missing, have certain advantages over categories: you can see which coats are missing (and possibly create and upload them), and you can see which missing coats have been uploaded recently (and correspondingly enter them in the corresponding pages in Wikipedia.). Regarding the images contained in the galleries, I will step by step add the categories to these images, too.

But how do we proceed since there will be lots of duplicates, the ones with the blank and the others with the "-"? It seems that only the ones with the "-" are generally used in the wikipedias. Delete the ones with blank and upload them with "-"? And shall all the coats be in a single category or shall we make subdivisions by province? Greetings--Bjs 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dizionario & CoA to be classified

Buongiorno G. ! First point, Henry is suffisant (Salomé is my family name) ! Second point, if you write to me in any language except in english of course, you can dare del tu (in french, tutoyer), it's in use on fr:WP (except for strapazzate and first times) .
I've had a look at the Category:Dizionario araldico ufficiale italiano and could not find any blazon I could know. I've categorized some crosses, it's few !
For the CoA to be classified, it's the mania of Massimop. He means that the charges have not been classified, like Category:Lions in heraldry. I'll take some time to do some but I can't promise more. In fact, now on fr:WP we are working with Inkscape so that we draw SVG blazons. I don't mean that 2D images will be replaced soon, that's why I shall do something for the french ones and why not others (Europe is our country !); At least the few french ones I have seen have other problems of categories and so I shall have to create Cat. for département like Category:Coats of arms of cities in Yvelines.
You know what ? I'll be sixty in 7 days and I've not yet prepared anything for my retirement ! I must do it, I believe I shall earn more francs euros than with my half-time taxi job. :-))))) Ciao ! Cordially, ℍenry (Jaser !) 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PS : I'm dreaming of a journey to Italy following the steps of the Gonzaga, Este, Montefeltro, Sforza, Visconti, Medici, Colleoni (I've seen you created the cat. ! I translated the italian article to french.), Della Rovere and others !

Buongiorno Giovanni ! D'accordo, I've well understood ! Maybe I did not search enough as I started with the Image:52xxx and following ones. I don't change what I said, I'll do some day after day ! Ciao, greetings, ℍenry (Jaser !) 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinando de' Medici

Hey, you requested this to be deleted as it's empty and used {{Delete}}. Could you please use {{Speedy}} in the future as {{Delete}} is just for deletion requests and not for deletion requests (I just happened to stumble upon your request). Yonatan ^talk 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About Polish heraldry

Dear Giovanni Dall'Orto:

I was looking around your work about Italian heraldry. Congratulations!

I like very much the idea of the alphabetical order from the re-born "Category:Coats of arms of Polish families". How is the way to re-name the "Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images", so it MUST be done? I am not good dealing with those kind of things.

About your request concerning the "Coats of arms to be classified" I will do my best. I do know something about Polish nobility issues, but about civic Coats of arms... well, let me see if I can help.

I am sorry to write you in the it:wiki the first time. I always try to know something about the wikipedians with I be in touch, so I was looking around in the it:wiki this day. I do not know Italian enough to write, but I can read it quite well.

Best regards my friend. --Gustavo 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I quote Piotr Pawel Bajer: " The tribal system influenced all the countries included in the Polish Commonwealth. As a result, the nobility consisting of more than forty thousand families, used about seven thousand arms including family coats of arms of Western origin." [4].

We have in this Category only four hundred… We are lucky! --Gustavo 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Dear Giovanni Dall'Orto:

I already start to work in “Category:Coats of arms to be classified”, I saw that you already deleted or renamed the “Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images”. Can you delete the "Category:Coats of arms of clans of Poland"? I do not know how. It is already empty and useless.

Thank you my friend. --Gustavo 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Temples

Hi,

I'm a bit surprised by your message. It seems to me that I tagged the old category with the {{Badname}} template; if I didn't, this is just a lapse of memory, because I always do so.

What do you mean by “leave a message” on the page of the previous cat? Isn't a badname tag enough? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. However Category:Temples of Greece seems to be a red link from now. Ciao. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Category:Plans of ancient Greek temples, the correct case is “ancient”, in lowercase; there is no reason to rename this cat according to me, “Ancient” would be a mistake. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Category:Temples by deity, I'm doubtfull. The deities here are just Greek deities, I don't find appropriate to mix it with Roman ones. A temple to Jupiter can't be considered as temple to Zeus, so (except for Apollo and Dioscuri perhaps), a separation (Ancient Greek temples by deity and Ancient Roman temples by deity) would be fine to me. What is your opinion? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Third (I hope last), speaking of Italy and Turkey seems to be a little anachronic. I suggest to move to Magna Graecia and Asia Minor. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK for the 3rd point. For the 2nd, there is actually a Category:Jupiter, but it is not used, and separation is quite problematic as you quoted. It would need a real specialist, so let's keep it for the moment.

I still think you are wrong for "ancient" case. Of course, "Ancient Greek" comes with uppercases because this is a language name, all languages names are uppercased in English, as for national adjectives. But in "Plans of ancient Greek temples", "ancient" is a simple adjective, not national neither linguistic: there is no reason for uppercase. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Repubblica Romana (1849)

Rispetto alla repubblica romana, desidero fare notare che la Repubblica Romana non costituisca, propriamente, un episodio della 1^ guerra di indipendenza. Tanto, per dire, che coinvolse i francesi, non gli austriaci. Si tratta, semmai, di un episodio del biennio 48-49 del quale la prima guerra è un aspetto.

Lo stesso discorso non vale per le 5 giornate, che costituirono l'immediato antefatto della guerra.

Mi permetto, quindi, di suggerire di mutare le categorie da

Category:First Italian War of Independence|Repubblica Romana

a

Category:Italian Risorgimento|Repubblica Romana

I miei migliori saluti.

--Mmm448 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arte Romanica

Ciao Gabrielle, ho veduto la categoria Category: Romanesque artists fatta da te. Mi dispiace, ma nessun pittor nella categoria è propriamente romanico. La chiesa di San Giorgio in Lemine é romanica, ma i freschi sonno del secolo XIV. Quasi tutta l'arte romanica e anonima, dunque non si conosceno molti autori, soltanto alcuni atribuiti. La categoria Category:stonecutter marks non è esclusiva della arte romanica, anche gli scalpellini gotici usabano questi marchi. Saluti, --Balbo 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, first of all, it is a pleasure to talk with another art enthusiastic like me, although we should be working together better than discussing. I find gratuitous your accusations of vandalism. You can have a look to my contributions and find if I have traces of that behaviour. Anyway, I understand that you may have felt offended by my corrections. I apologize if I haven´t done it more carefully. (It may have been because of my efforts of talking with you in Italian, a language that I adore, but I use it less fluently that English). I have only removed bad categorised tags, but I dind´t delete or change any category. My knowledge of that church is not that much to assert that there is NO Romanesque fresco in it, but it is clear that the most famous, the ones of the XIV century, are not. They could be considered Gothic, but they have some characteristics of the early Renaissance. I don´t find any problem in removing the tags as they don´t fit to that category. To complete the corrections I made to the categorisations, you must notice that you categorised also some Gothic sculptors as Romanesque: I moved them to its correct category. The mess was so notable, that my editions were important in number and far away from being vandalism they restored some rigor in the classifications. About the stonecutter marks, if the category is called that way, and not "Romanesque stonecutter marks", the incorrect (and unlike you I presume bona fide) edition is to tag it under Romanesque artists. The category has nowadays only Romanesque examples, but it will be for sure filled with other centuries examples.

I hope this will lead to an understandment, and I hope too that we will meet again in this beautiful project.

Ci rivediamo!--Balbo 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I didn´t know that precedents and you are free to be suspicious about the matter, but I repeat that my intention was to help, and as well as you made mistakes in categorisation, my unintended mistake was not to create that new category. Indeed I sympathise with you, because you find yourself in a very similar situation to how I was some time ago. Almost 90 per cent (it is a rough aproximation) of the images related to Spanish architecture had no proper category, and even the categories themselves didn´t exist. Although I cannot state that I am the only wikipedist working in that stuff (there two or three more, mostly attending to their regional architectures) I have been working in it long time. I take care of your fast aproachal to the subject, take care yourself of my own speed in the same activity. It could never be considered vandalism, even "technically", because, as I knew it was your work, I adressed to you the question to make them reviewed by you if you found something wrong. The problem I had with thay anonymous user id far away from being the same: He removed correctly categorised tags without saying absolutely nothing to justify the removal. If you read the users talk that you linked, you will find that my answer included this: "te ruego que no borres sin causa justificada (que la imagen no corresponda a la etiqueta, o que esté duplicada la información, o una categoría general junto a otra más específica...)"

One last thing. My work is not limited to Spanish architecture and art images, and I often deal with (not only) Italian art images, which I categorize carefully. Don´t feel alone in your work, because I will help whenever I am needed.

P.S. Ah! Sorry for calling you Gabrielle, instead of Giovanni: that was another unintended mistake of mine...If you find it correct I would close definetely this episody, because our time in wikimedia is better to be inverted in possitive work rather that in sterile discussions about solved problems. I repeat my mood on future collaborations about art and architecture. Best wishes!

Ci rivediamo!--Balbo 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

Hello. "Category:Historical images of the Usa" is a bad name; "USA" or "United States", not "Usa". "Category:History images of the United States" exists; I use that instead. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories, bis

Hello,

For categories, I tend to adopt a pragmatic point of view: let's create (or separate) a cat only when we need it. That is, when a cat is overpopulated, or wrongly structured. At the moment, Category:Temple of Baal in Palmyra is standalone and will perhaps be for a while, so a mother-cat (Category:Hellenistic temples in Middle East or else) does not seem to be a priority. Specially in a so doubtfull case.

This is the same for Category:Ancient temples: currently, this cat is fine because it fits its content. If some new content appears, we'll perhaps have to deal with this question, but let's keep it simple!

Wiki is incremental process, we don't have to reach perfection at first shot. So let us not invent problems to find solutions :). Sorry for this non-answer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Palermo

Why a new category in addition to Category:Churches in Palermo? It is a bit confusing --Bjs 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

monobook.js

Hi, you might benifit from the buttons that are added if you make your monobook.js the same as mine [5]. You will get some extramenu items on image pages to mark images nld/nsd or file a deletion request. Cheers! Siebrand 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Federico_Borromeo.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for helping out in sorting the images in the category Category:Popes, your work is greatly appreciated. sincerely Gryffindor 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teobaldo_Visconti,_marchese_di_Cislago,_conte_di_Gallarate.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter and the popes

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Disputes#Saint_Peter any thoughts? --Evrik 05:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think there is any utility in creating something like the text of en:List of popes to Popes? In place of all the text at Category:Popes, the text could be removed and {{Catmore}} could be placed. --Evrik 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic saints

I'm not sure I agree with the merge of Category:Roman Catholic saints. They can be a distinct subset of CHristian saints. --Evrik 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some instruction about sorting should be given. Where should it go? At one point someone commented that saints and christian saints are duplicative. I'm not sure about that, but will give it some more thought. --Evrik 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Check out Category_talk:Saints. --Evrik 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Medici pic

That's Giovanni, not Piero who was his elder brother. Thank you for alerting me to that error.

--Mandy 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!

Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

Naming

Ciao Giovanni,

I'm quite a bit perplexed when I consider the naming of your photographs. For instance, when I do compare Image:Nerone - Monaco, Glyptothek - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto.jpg and Image:Nero Glyptothek Munich 321.jpg (using the name of the Commons cats for museum and people for consistency, and the accession number to get a single standard ID), or furthermore when I look at things like Image:DSC04522 Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Il proconsole Polemeanus - 106-107 d.C. - da Efeso - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg. The last case is what I would call a very “noisy” name, that is a name containing too much unusefull informations: does the photographer, date of photograph and DSC04522 care to define the subject shown in the photograph?—I don't think so (specially, things like “DSC04522” are discouraged in titles).

In my personal opinion, informations given in the title of an image should be just enough to perfectly define the subject, no more and no less. This is why I find Jastrow's naming conventions for museum image titles very accurate: Keywords Museum_name [Accession_number]. With such a format, the last example could be Image:Polemeanus Ephesos IAM 2453.jpg, or Image:Polemeanus Ephesos Istanbul Archaeological Museum 2453.jpg with a long version for museum name. All other informations, concerning source or subject, are details which are important in the description but do not matter in the title.

I don't want my message to appear too much critic (in fact your names are more precise than many ones), but as we work (Jastrow, you and I) on the same subjects, it would be a good thing if we could define common ways to do so: this includes categorization, image descriptions (see for example this initiative) and image naming at least. Perhaps creating a project to share these methods would be good idea. What is your opinion? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to answer to the main points:

• Including name in the title: well, I known a lot of people who use attribution licenses—I do so in some cases, for example—, but quite none is tagging the image title directly. As you know, there are 2 kinds of people: those who care copyright issues, and those who don't care. For the first ones, you can try any methods, they'll take your pictures claiming fair use or nothing; for the second ones, leaving your name in the description page is enough, they'll respect your decision. I've always thought that adding a license information was just intended to the second ones... Furthermore, if a third part people is improving one of your image, he has to be cited according the CC-BY license, but his name won't appear in the image title though (and renaming an image to add its name after editing it would be a bit abusive, not?).
• Including the date in the title: OK, the examples you give are consistent. If the date matter, of course it should be added. But for museum collections, this represents only a small part. Statues created BC generally don't evoluate much now... Your Nero bust is exactly the same as mine, date would not be an usefull information in that case (and I note you don't provide it).
• For numbering: a title should be readable and usefull to anybody, not to a single one. Adding a personal convenience, like numbering, is not appropriate on a muti-user project like Commons. Every one has its directory problems; exporting them on Commons is a curious way to solve them :) And if every try to do so, implementing its own numbering on its own selection of images, the clash will come soon on Commons.
• Future prospection: I don't know what will the future of Commons be. But I believe that duplicate images are not usefull: when we have several versions of the same items, let's only keep the better one, categories are far enough a mess. And even if several versions should be kept, it is more simple to add a number version on a single base (Image:Barberini Faun front Glyptothek Munich 218 n1.jpg, Image:Barberini Faun front Glyptothek Munich 218 n2.jpg and so), than using a photographer's name and date.

And of course, the point was not to rename all the images you already uploaded!

• For templates: the primary goal was not to look nicer, but only to provide the most detailed information on museum items, to reach a “professional” quality in object descriptions. And using a strict framework with templates is by far the quickest way to do so. You prentend to care essentially on categorizing items, but I think that the whole problem should be consider: have a good cat tree is a good point, because it allows you to easily find objects, but having a good description is equally important, because if you find a photo you don't know what it represents... So museum informations like accession number, location and dimensions, even credit line are a very good habit, it ensures that objects could always be precisely identified. And for the multi-language problem, that was a technical problem which has been fixed, see Image:Capitoline Aphrodite Louvre Ma 571 n5.jpg. And yes, we are still all waiting a truly international version of the software, for a better look-and-feel. But that's another point. Furthermore, using templates allow various possibilities for the future: bots can easily process big templates, but not plain text.

You probably agree with me: average quality in image names and descriptions is low on Commons. And it won't grow up very fast... So let's not wait, and take advance. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have a nice rest. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman emperors

hello there,

I started some work on the categorisation of Roman emperors, maybe you might want to take a look? sincerely Gryffindor 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I started at least one dynasty, based on how it is done on the English-language Wikipedia, see Category:Constantinian dynasty, there is more to come obviously. With the empresses I agree with you as well, we need to create a specific category for them, with Latin names obviously. I chose purple because of the imperial purple of the roman emperors, I changed it now to red, I hope it's better. I have also started moving the articles to the native Latin name (as given in the Wikimedia policy on articles), orientating myself on the Latin Wiki. So for example emperor Constantine I the Great's article is at Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, while the category is shortened to Category:Constantinus I Magnus. Could be confusing, but I think this is the most consistent way. ciao Gryffindor 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

invito

Ciao Giovanni è un po' che non ci si sente eh? Ho passato un periodaccio pieno di impegni, ora spero di recuperare un po' di tempo... Una volta ti avevo buttato lì un invito per passare a firenze che era un po' caduto nel vuoto. Il fatto è che il prossimo 13 maggio ci sarà la domenica delle ville e palazzi aperti, un giorno solo su 365, e cercando di pensare a chi mi potrebbe essere d'aiuto ho pensato a te.. fosse solo per insegnarmi come non fare foto "blurred" e "overexposed"! a parte gli scherzi se avessi tempo e voglia ci possiamo organizzare per un raid fotografico domenicale, il pretesto ci sarebbe. Fammi sapere qui o via email, ciao! --Sailko 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grazie, Venezia la conosco proprio poco, speriamo di trovare un tempo.. per firenze mi arrangerò x-) Cercherò un po' di proseliti al Progetto Firenze. Per i problemi alle foto mi sa che dipende dallo stabilizzatore... senza forse verrebbero meglio, ma dovrei farne almeno 5 per averne una decente.. poi il problema è che la mia macchina ha un obiettivo piccolo piccolo... un mio amico mi diceva che più piccolo è più le foto sono standard.. però mi piace perché è una macchina tascabile, la posso portare sempre dietro. Il cavalletto non posso usarlo, però cerco sempre di appoggiare i gomiti e anche di trattenere il respiro mentre scatto.. vabbè, speriamo che con la bella stagione un po' più di sole giovi. Ciao --Sailko 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Api in bicicletta

Ciao Giovanni (a Venezia si direbbe Nane),

Vai a dare un’occhiatina alle mie Image:- Bee swarm on a bicycle (1-5) -.jpg api in bicicletta e dimmi se ti piacciono.

Scattate nel centro di Amsterdam. Tante belle cose --Nino Barbieri 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Di sicuro ho fatto casino io. Allora Vai nella pagina Category:Nino Barbieri e troverai le foto nella terza riga - Ciao--Nino Barbieri 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ma come si fa? Non sono molto pratico di queste cosette. Forse me lo insegni tu e se fai la galleria sulla prima poi imparo guardando e le altre le faccio io. Grazie in anticipo! --Nino Barbieri 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSC00072 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:DSC00072 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Dodo 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSC00071 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:DSC00071 - Campagna anti-pizzo mafioso a Palermo - 9-9-2006 - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Dodo 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues

See your messages. I'll answer tomorrow. Good night. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered the second issue on my talk page, to keep the debate in a single place. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from E@L

I'll cross-post my message here as this was to you more than to Bibi Saint-pol.

To clear things up on the last point, the deletion of the former category names was my decision and I performed the deletion. I take full responsibility for that; Bibi Saint-Pol had nothing to do with the deletion of the categories after they were moved. The contents had been moved and were now empty, so I deleted them after moving the info, as is usual with empty categories (unless in certain circumstances where a cat name is likely to still be used, in which case a redirect is left in place).

As to the Ancient Greece vs. Hellenic debate, I was not aware of this and had I been I would have certainly discussed things in more detail. Bibi Saint-Pol and I discussed the syntax of the categories, not their names; it was a move from "[place] [item/profession/other]" to the proper "[item/profession/other] of [place]" and another term for "Ancient Greece" or changing this term never came up.

The categories starting with "Hellenic" have this problem as well; they should be "Theatres of the Hellenic (something)" to follow naming guidelines. The problem with "Hellenic" is that it is specific: "Hellenic era" or "Hellenic period" refers to the the Bronze Age period of mainland Greece spanning c.2800 - 1100 B.C., "Hellenic Greece" refers to the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC, etc.
The term "Ancient Greece" can be specific, but is the universally accepted term and is used more loosely: according to the wikipedia article on Ancient Greece "There are no fixed or universally agreed upon dates for the beginning or the end of the Ancient Greek period. In common usage it refers to all Greek history before the Roman Empire, but historians use the term more precisely. Some writers include the periods of the Greek-speaking Mycenaean civilization that collapsed about 1150 BC." I would assume that Ancient Greece is a more general term that Hellenic if you go by these guidelines, as well as being more conducive to proper category name syntax. While "Ancient Greece" can be taken as a specific term referring to a specific area and a specific time frame as historians use it, most of the world is going to know that by "Ancient Greece" you mean the area, civilization(s), and time around the Ancient Greek period. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Davvero semplice!

Grazie mille, sei un vero amico!

Negli anni 80 ho fatto il programmatore da professionista per la Graphtec, ma ho usato solo assembler. Con il gergo di Wiki (che cos’è? Java?) non mi trovo ancora a mio agio. Ma con il tempo imparerò … ho imparato anche l’italiano, bene o male. Ti auguro tante belle cose … Ciao--Nino Barbieri 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming (bis)

In fact, Jastrow works with a lot of catalogues, but I don't use much. Just like you I'm taking photos during my holidays or week-ends. So I just shoot the object and its museum notice; you know that in many museums the accession number (and sometimes dimensions and credit line) is displayed on the notice (for example, it seems to be present in Palermo). So in that cases, you won't spend any time nor money by just adding it, and you will save a lot of time for people like art students who make intensive use of this info.

Still, if you prefer to leave your name in the image title, just do it, I understand your arguments. But pay attention that when adding your own name to an image, further evolutions of this image will be "locked"—I don't find a good term in English, sorry—by your single name, which could encourage forking with a new image title rather than improving the original file. Example: if someone shoot a better version of my Nero bust, I would be glad he just upload it upon my version: there is a detailled description, and the file is already used in many projects, so this will save a lot of time. But I guess that nobody will upload upon files with an author name in title—that wouldn't be fair; and creating a new image page, and renaming all occurrences in all WP is very boring. This could be avoid, in a personal conception at least.

For DSC00201 and else, I'm not convinced at all: this information is unusefull to anybody but you, keeping it does not make sense. You ask “who is harmed by this”?—well, nobody is harmed, but nobody is happy with it too. Exactly as if you added the hour a picture has been taken in the title—who cares?

And you are right: a detailed title is a help in finding an image through Google. But we can't care only to Google logic, because we have other needs that trusting Google tops: create an open image framework and feed WPs with medias for the main goals.

Ciao. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pride agosto 2004 (Ari Gold).jpg

Hi - just found this image as marked for deletion as a copyright issue. My Italian is really non-existent but I think you may be able to clarify this? I'm taking the tag off for now but let me know will you. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My Italian isn't good but it looked something like that (maybe something in English would save it happening again?) - thanks for getting back to me - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me - I have no issues with it - thanks for the translation, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Young Centaur Musei Capitolini MC656.jpg

Hi Giovanni, why are you deleting Category:Greek inscriptions in Rome from this picture? The plinth does bear an inscription. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pergamene Gauls already includes Category:Roman copies after Greek originals, so the category is redundant in category:Dying Gaul. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. I answered you about the category scheme on Bibi's talk page, to keep things gathered in one place. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:S - 9-7-2000 - 04 - Sui muri di RomaA.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:S - 9-7-2000 - 04 - Sui muri di RomaA.jpg 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!

—xyzzy_n 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Posters

Regarding [6], I don’t think it’s quite the same thing. It’s supposed to be a picture of the building and it could be argued that the inclusion of the poster is w:de minimis; also, you’ve tagged it for speedy deletion, not regular deletion. Would you consider removing it from the deletion request at least until the speedy request is resolved? (And I suggest making a new regular deletion request for it if you are so inclined, considering that it’s not actually an Italian poster.) —xyzzy_n 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

…Actually, please don’t add any images to the Italian posters deletion request unless they are, in fact, Italian posters and my reasoning applies. I’m going to remove the ones you added—they are distinct cases. I haven’t seen the image with which the case started and, frankly, I don’t feel that my reasoning in the deletion request depends on it in any way. —xyzzy_n 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your edits. Sorry, but you’re mixing two different deletion processes (speedy and regular; please read Commons:Deletion) and several different cases of problematic (or, in at least one case, not problematic) images. There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale (but feel free to copy my nomination prose, if you find it so useful…). —xyzzy_n 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again. Please read COM:DG and COM:DEL before proceding further. —xyzzy_n 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Usw_constitution_cover.jpg

Please see the note there. Your deletion proposal was obviously made in the absence of any knowledge of the document. --Achim Hering 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek cats

Hi,

We have to finally decide about the Ancient Greek cats, because the current situation is a non-sense, it desserves us all. So if you don't oppose, I will ask Editor at Large to finish the renaming as described here. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't judge this renaming was problematic, that's why I didn't export this discussion...

There is still a mistake in your mind: nobody proposed to rename cat in the "FROM Ancient Greece" scheme (which would be bad) but in the "OF Ancient Greece" scheme: Category:Art of Ancient Greece, and so on. And as far as I know, Category:Art of Ancient Greece and Category:Ancient Greek art are synonyms, because "Ancient Greece" applies far more to a civilization rather than to a geographic area.

For temples and theatres, the need is a little different, because IMO the terms "Greek temple" or "Greek theater" are quite fossilized, so for these at least we should keep the old scheme: Category:Ancient Greek temples and Category:Ancient Greek theaters. But for all other terms, I don't see any disadvantage in writing "... of Ancient Greece" rather than "Ancient Greek...". And as this is the naming convention, let's go folk!

I propose you to ask the question to User:Jastrow and User:Marsyas. We four are the main editors on the Ancient Greece domain, we should try to define a common position together. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni on this matter : it would be simpler to stick with Greek art... if only because it's shorter to type ! But more seriously, this is a common and practical label. I tend to think that "Ancient greek" will be less offensive to all the nationalist trolls than "of/from Ancient Greece". Μαρσύας? 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Please take a look at this. Regards. --Dodo 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking about categories…

I wonder about making a distinction between modern Latin inscriptions and ancient ones. That would lead to a bi-categorization (Latin inscriptions by location and by period). Does it make sense for you? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Twice25

Ciao Giovanni,
non ci ho capito molto, lascio fare a voi. Però mi sembra strano che fotografie fatte per strada ad un palazzo (sia pure a particolari di un palazzo) non possano essere diffuse pubblicamente. Spero che la cosa possa essere controllata meglio e che le foto vengano salvate. Ho timore che andando avanti così, Commons possa chiudere presto bottega .... :-// --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ho provato a parlarne su it.wiki (vedi qui). Se vuoi passare a dire la tua ... --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Grazie per il consiglio Giovanni. Provvedo allora a trasferire di categoria le pogliagate genovesi sperando di porle così in salvo assieme alla storia patria ... :)) --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mi hai consolato un po'. Certi discorsi su it.wiki in parte mi hanno ugualmente consolato e in parte [s]consolato. Figli ineluttabili del copyvio, ci converrebbe davvero prendere in considerazione l'ipotesi di abbandonare la nave che affonda e ritirarci tutti in salvo su una spiaggia assolata a prendere il sole sperando che non giungano tsunami ... :)) --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreams of lovers

The inscription is a comment on the Greek myth of Endymion pictured on the grave : the eternal sleep of the Greek shepherd willed by Selene (the Moon, the woman with the torch) so she can visit him every night. Μαρσύας? 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bernoud, Alphonse (1820-1889) - Chiostro di S. A....., Firenze.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bernoud, Alphonse (1820-1889) - Chiostro di S. A....., Firenze.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. |EPO| 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancellare

Ciao “Nane” ,

ecco qualcosa che ancora non sapevo! Adesso l’ho imparata. Meno male che ci sei tu che mi copri le spalle. Grazie mille e ciao! --Nino Barbieri 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming cats, ter

Hi,

You will certainly be interested by the message I left to Jastrow: User talk:Jastrow#Et ça continue encore et encore. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Domitianus

Well, that's what I do generally. For Category:Torso, this is a mistake but for Category:Statues of Heracles, the museum notice didn't make any reference to Heracles, so I'm doubtfull about it. What is your source? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So I rather remove the cat. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Please use [[Category:Hellenic temples in <country>]] instead of what you currently are. Thanks. Lcarsdata 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorie

Ciao Giovanni, ma quanto scrivi.. Un fiume in piena ;) Sai che io sn un wikipediano e di riflesso un commoneer, per le cat mi riesce più naturale basarmi su voci che ci sn già su wikipedia.. ebbene sì c'è una sola piazza della signoria, in ogni caso cerco di mettere sempre i nomi più corti possibili, senza parentesi e senza "in X città", a meno che non sia strettamente necessario. Purtroppo (o per fortuna?) sono contributore con pochissima compagnia su firenze per cui a volte faccio un po' come mi passa per la testa, pensando che basta che me lo ricordi io dove ho messo le cose... lo so che è sbagliato e mi fa piacere se mi fai notare sviste o errori. siccome anch'io scrivo tanto e a fiume, cerco sempre di risparmiare caratteri non necessari, quindi non metto "di XXX" per scrupolo, preferisco rischiare di disambiguare in seguito. Per quanto riguarda la statua lì per lì non mi venive niente di meglio in mente... cambierò. Ciao! --Sailko 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)