User talk:Gryffindor/Archive3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Naming conventions[edit]

I noticed your edit comment on your recent edit of Tegel International Airport "(Tegel International Airport moved to Flughafen Berlin-Tegel over redirect: move to native name according to Commons policy on articles)". Can you explain what that notion is based on? All I can find on naming conventions is in Commons:Naming categories: "Therefore, the name of a matching English Wikipedia article will be a reference for naming a category in Commons."; I haven't found anything specific on Commons:Naming articles that would suggest that different rules would be applied for articles (or galleries for that matter) than are being used for categories. JdH 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Requested moves[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. I'm writing you this message to ask for attention on a backlog. As you are active already on User:CommonsDelinker/commands already, you may be able to help in processing the 300+ category move requests that are waiting for attenion on Category:Requested moves. As always, any help is appreciated. Please let me know if you require any information. Cheers! Siebrand 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monarchs of Hawaii[edit]

Between you and Siebot you have created an incredible mess with Category:Monarchs of Hawaii; all subcategories are dupes now, and the pictures are in limbo. Please fix, and turn off that silly bot. btw: categories should have the same name at the en:wiki article, remember? thanks, JdH 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear JdH,
Commons does not necessarily follow naming schemes from the English Wikipedia. sincerely Gryffindor 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Naming categories the name of a matching English Wikipedia article will be a reference for naming a category in Commons, and I have been following that rule consistently. Following rules like this one is the best way to avoid disagreements like we are having now. Also, I believe it makes much more sense: Commons is supposed to be multilingual, and needs to be easily assessible to everybody, regardless of language. By having categories named the same as the en:wiki article makes it much easier to find the corresponding Commons category; introducing unnecessary irregularities is not particularly helpful. In case you wonder: No, I am not a native speaker of English. JdH 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what you have referred to is a draft, it says so on the top. I restate again, the Commons does not follow or even have to follow naming schemes on the English Wikipedia. Gryffindor 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to come to your senses about this. Basically what you are doing is making up your own rules as you go, and it is a complete mystery what those rules may be. All I notice is your obsession with titles, but you have failed to explain why. Indeed, following your own private rules completely defeats the purpose of Categories & Galleries.
Categories and Galleries exist for one reason only, which is: To make it easy to find pictures/media that pertain to certain articles on Wikipedia. As a result of your private naming conventions there is no correlation whatsoever between names of categories or galleries on Commons and the corresponding articles on Wikipedia. Therefore, the only way to find the misnamed Categories is by surfing (which is cumbersome, and hardly ever works), or by searching.
By following the simple convention that categories and galleries have a name that is identical to either en:wikipedia , or native language:wikipedia it is very simple to navigate from the wikipedia to commons: all you have do is use the same name as it exists on wikipedia. Deviating from that simple rules only makes it more difficult, and there is no valid reason whatsoever to do so. JdH 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About wrong names (Category:Coats of arms of Austria in History)[edit]

Dear Gryffindor:

I am really very sorry. Please be free to change the names according with a proper language. It is not necessary to discuss this issue. Thank you for teaching me.

Best regards

--Gustavo 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gryffindor:

I presume the proper name is Category:Coats of arms of X on History. Is this OK? If it is I will change the names myself. please tell me.

Thank you and regards --Gustavo 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Griffindor:

I would like to correct my mistake in the category-naming "Category:Coats of arms of X-country IN History". I believe the discussion is already ended, but I do not know is there is a new name finally accorded.

I presume it could be "Category:Coats of arms of X-country ON History" or "Category:Historic coats of arms of X-country". I do trust in your common sense, so, please, let me know what name is better.

Best regards

--Gustavo 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I will correct the mistake. Thank you again

--Gustavo 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did it already! Thank you. --Gustavo 05:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galicia[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. I'm a regular contributor to gallery Galicia and Category:Galicia. I don't agree with your way of doing things related this gallery and this category.

The reasons for my disagreement are:

This is not true. Native name is Galicia (Source: en:Xunta de Galicia. Galician government), Galiza is allowed but the main name is Galicia. (Source: Real Academia Galega "is an institution dedicated to the study of Galician culture and especially the Galician language; it promulgates norms of grammar, spelling, and vocabulary and works to promote the language". From Real Academia Galega document cited in gl:Normativa oficial do galego - Sufixos e terminacións: "Galicia, denominación oficial do país e forma maioritaria na expresión oral e escrita moderna. Galiza é tamén unha forma lexitimamente galega, amplamente documentada na época medieval, que foi recuperada no galego contemporáneo"; translation: Galicia, official country name and main way on talk and write expression on modern language. Galiza is legitimate Galician way also, extensively documented in the Middle Ages, revive on Galician language in the Modern Age).
  • Category Galicia: "(←Replacing page with 'see: * Category:Galicia (Central Europe) * Category:Galicia (Spain) {{Disambig}}')".
This is not a trivial edit, before must be discussed on Commons:Categories for discussion or where it may concern. Several hundreds of pages, history pages, messages from Galician Wikipedia link to Galicia and Category:Galicia, hundreds of image description pages in Commons link to these gallery and category (I want to make it clear that the solution is not related with bots). Furthermore new category for Galicia (Spain) break category scheme and make difficult the work of current contributors to Galicia gallery and Galicia category.

I know that english English Wikipedia is the reference naming categories, but there is other solution that fulfill this requirements without problems (e.g. through disambiguation link). If you check interwiki of English articles about Galicia (Central Europe) and Galicia (Spain) you can see that Galicia (Central Europe) is not native name, virtually nothing (interwiki) use Galicia to name Galicja quite the opposite Galicia for Galicia (Spain) is the same native name, also mostly interwiki link to Galicia. I mean that a disambiguation link is not underestimate Galicja. It has the advantage of not interfere with current effort, in addition that does not mean undone what had been done. IMO gallery Galicia and category Galicia must be restored, please if you believe changes must be made suggest discussion about this. I apologize for my english. Best regards. --Prevert(talk) 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. There are many subcategories with “Galicia” in their name, so this move is questionable. --Juiced lemon 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siebot move[edit]

Sorry Gryffindor, but for the request "Rename Category:Maps of Sullivan County,, Pennsylvania as Category:Maps of Sullivan County, Pennsylvaniayous" in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands Siebot did the right operation but in the wrong direction (see Nmb Category:Maps of Sullivan County,, Pennsylvania‎; 23:13 . . (+173) . . SieBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Moved from Category:Maps of Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Authors: Ruhrfisch)). The confusion came probably because the source cat was empty and has been deleted before the bot started its action. --Foroa 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) --Foroa 06:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. over and out. --Foroa 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Galiza[edit]

Hello Gryffindor. Thanks for your reply.

  • Cases for Wikipedia disambiguation pages:
  • Disambugation pages use the model Pagename (disambiguation) :
  • hr:Galicija (there is not article Galicia)
  • nl:Galicië (nl:Galicia redirects to nl:Galicië (Spanje))
  • pt:Galícia (Galicia redirects to Galícia. In Portuguese Galicia is Galiza. From en:Portuguese language "Portuguese is a Romance language that originated in what is now Galicia (Spain) and northern Portugal from the Latin spoken by romanized Celtiberians about 1000 years ago". Remenber my previous message: "...Galiza is legitimate Galician way also, extensively documented in the Middle Ages...".)
  • tl:Galicia (there is a Galicia in Negros Occidental, Philippines),
  • zh:加利西 ?

From en:Galicia (Central Europe):

"Galicia and Lodomeria in different languages:

  • Latin: Galicia et Lodomeria (Note: In la.wp Galicia there is not article Galicia. The article la:Gallaecia —roman name— explain that is Galicia in Spain)
  • German: Galizien und Lodomerien
  • Hungarian: Gácsország (or Halics) és Lodoméria
  • Polish: Galicja i Lodomeria
  • Slovak: Halič a Vladimírsko or Galícia a Lodoméria
  • Ukrainian: Галичина і Володимирія (Halychyna i Volodymyria)
  • Romanian: Galiţia şi Lodomeria
  • Yiddish: גאליציע און לאָדאָמעריע"

From en:Galicia: "Galicia (Central Europe), an historical region which is currently divided between Poland and Ukraine." In Ukrainian: uk:Галичина (there is not article Galicia), in Polish: pl:Galicja (Polish article pl:Galicia is for Galicia (Spain)). Native name Galicia only match up with Galicia (Spain). Gallery Galicia must be for Galicia (Spain) and include a link to Galicia (Central Europe) (e.g. For other uses see Category:Galicia (Central Europe) or Galicia (disambiguation)). There is no reason Galicia will be a disambiguation page except for Galicia page in English Wikipedia. I believe we keep it simple, it is unnecessary to add brackets to Galicia, Spain. In your own words: "Commons does not necessarily follow naming schemes from the English Wikipedia."

More about Category and Gallery Galicia:

>"What exactly are the efforts that are being interferred with?"

  • Year in, year out we work spreading category scheme. All documentation in Galician Wikipedia refers to Gallery Galicia and Category Galicia (help, edit summaries when we add images form Commons, messages to users about Commons, Galician Signpost, Galician Village pump, etc) Not only in Galician Wikipedia but also in other Wikipedias.
  • We explain users how to add files, how to tag pictures, how to find media, this change is an obstacle to our current work.
  • The change is inconsistent with Galicia categorization scheme.
  • Wikipedia's Commons templates related Galicia link to Galicia and Category:Galicia for Galicia, Spain.

I insist (respectfully) you can not take a decision unilaterally about this subject. IMO Galicia gallery and Galicia category must be restored next if you believe you are right open a discussion about this. Thanks. I apologize for my english. Greetings. --Prevert(talk) 11:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Galiza (2)[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. This is not a issue about relevancy or about monopoly (hint at "...Spanish Galicia does not have a monopoly on that name..." or unknown policies is offensive to me). This thread is about to treat users work with respect and about to follow community rules. I don't known you, I don't known why you refuse to restore gallery and category to start the discussion from beginning on an equal basis. In your English Wikipedia user page one of your userboxes say: "This user's ancestors hail from Galicia (Central Europe)" and you have used administrative tools ({{move cat|Galicia|Galicia (Spain)}}) for this move without previous discussion about a subject you had part in it. I believe it is not right act like that. My previous messages provide a detailed statement of facts you don't reply any of them I imagine that you don't consider to be necessary.

With regard to La Rioja is not the same case as Galicia (La Rioja, Argentina and La Rioja, España are the sames ones in English and native name; Galicia, Spain is the same one in English and native name; Galicia, Central Europe is not the same one in English and native name). Moreover, if there is consensus it's not for me to say.

I remain thinking the solution is:

  • Category Galicia: restore category, add disambiguation link at the top of the page, open discussión if you believe are right.

I'd be only too pleased to reach an agreement, even so this thread help me to known more about Galicja. I apologize for my English. Best regards. --Prevert(talk) 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galicia is also on the map of Diplomacy (board game). However, the autonomous community of Galicia is the only current territory with the name “Galicia”. In Wikipedia Commons, we don't write articles, but we classify media files, in particular according to their location. So, current territories are more important for us, since we use them first for categorization. I am not happy to have Category:Maps of Galicia in Category:Galicia (Spain). So, I advise you to initiate a public discussion about this issue. --Juiced lemon 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qutb complex[edit]

Hello,

I disagree with the moving of the contents of this category. Names, and particularly category names, are choosen according to Commons rules, and it doesn't matter if the place is an UNESCO World Heritage Site or not. So, I request you to restore the files in their original category. --Juiced lemon 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tree_Topkapi_02.JPG[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 09:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tree_Topkapi_03.JPG[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Subway station categories[edit]

There are multiple stations with the same name, for instance 86th Street. I'm also not sure that it makes sense to make a category for each station; how about a category for each line (e.g. IRT Lexington Avenue Line, not 6), with one for the station for only the transfer stations and a few other major ones? --NE2 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama[edit]

I made Image:Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge panorama.jpg from your images, enjoy! :) -- Editor at Large • talk 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so there is. I noticed the other day there's some movement blur on the boat as well, I'll fix those up... this is what happens when you try to do things at 3 in the morning ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Topkapi Palace 02.JPG[edit]

I don't remember exactly. I didn't take notes. It was in the garden somewhere inside the palace. --82.155.75.38 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Freeware[edit]

Hi, you can stich pics with the freeware Autostich. If you try, you will know how to take pics for better stiching.

Category:Willem de Kooning[edit]

Hi Gryffindor, I have uploaded a new image from a Willem de Kooning sculpture in Rotterdam/The Netherlands (freedom of panorama) in this Category.Is it possible for you to move the FOP-template from Cat:Willem de Kooning to your upload: Image:Willem_de_Kooning_001.jpg (where it belongs in my opinion). Thanks--Gerardus 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Berlin[edit]

Hello Gryffindor, I would like to make here a page Alt Berlin and use your nice images of Alt Berlin. I have some more . What do you think about it.? --Simone 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willem de Kooning 001.jpg[edit]

There is no "freedom of panorama" in the U.S. for sculptures, so I don't see how that can apply. Postdlf 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I hope...[edit]

Okay... eight hours later, I think I got it fixed! I fixed the motion blur on the flag on the nearest boat (left of the picture) as well as the bridge break. Let me know if you see anything else, they'll likely be easier to fix :) -- Editor at Large • talk 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* I should say that it is on Image:Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge panorama.jpg. You can compare: previous and current. -- Editor at Large • talk 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Sigmund_Freud_bust_Vienna_Oct._2006_001.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sigmund_Freud_bust_Vienna_Oct._2006_001.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-3.0}} 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. Polarlys 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Sigmund_Freud_bust_Vienna_Oct._2006_002.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sigmund_Freud_bust_Vienna_Oct._2006_002.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-3.0}} 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. Polarlys 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Dear Gryffindor, I invite you to visit and to colaborate in Ars Summum web-site: http://www.arssummum.com/ I think it will be interesting for you. Thank you. Best wishes. Manuel de Corselas User:Manuel de Corselas

Categories[edit]

I have read all that about catagories. I have been frustrated because I just found out yesterday by accident that there were two more galleries of pictures on the subject I have wanted that all these months I have not known about. What I tried to do was link the three galleries that are on the same subject but never show up together. Fortunately, I have linked the three galleries on wikipedia, so the fact you have removed their collective affiliation will not harm me now.

It is very difficult to find images on wiki commons. Whenever I find one, I have learned to link it to Wikipedia page if I ever want to see it again.

Also, I notice on my talk page that there are a number of image upload messages. Just to let you know, I have never uploaded an image to Wiki commons so I do not know what all those pertain to. I did not upload them and I wish you would not send me messages saying I have.

I have asked questions in the past and never received a reply. I guess the way to get a reply is to try to put galleries in some category so I can find them again.

WhoNose 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fumimaro Konoe[edit]

Hi. Please do not move images from Category:Fumimaro Konoe back to Category:Prince Fumimaro Konoe as the it is incorrectly named.

en:Fumimaro Konoe was not a HIH. His aristocratic title of Prince (Koshaku) is similar to that of British "Duke." In Japan only imperial highnesses bear the title of Prince (Shino or O), such as en:Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko.

You can see below that there were five other Prime Ministers who had the same title of "Prince (Kōshaku) as Konoe, but none of them has "Prince" in its category name:

Thank you. WTCA 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello there and thank you for your message. Well AFAIK Prime Minister Konoe was known with the title of "prince" in the English language, not "duke", see [1] and [2]. Although with koshaku arguably "duke" was also used, however this is not the case in the context of Konoe. And good thing you pointed out the other koshaku prime ministers, the categories should be renamed in that case as well since titles are used. Gryffindor 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you misread what I said. Fumimaro Konoe should be "Fumimaro Knoe," not "Prince Fumimaro Konoe" nor "Duke Konoe" as per Wiki style (no title such as Sir, Dame, Baron, Viscount, Count, Earl, Marquis, Duke, Prince, etc.). WTCA 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons do not follow naming schemes or conventions from any Wikipedia and is independent from that. The only policy that exists is that categories should be in English, articles in native language, see Commons:Language policy. Gryffindor 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed categories should be in English. So what is your justification for naming commons category different from the English article ( en:Fumimaro Konoe)? WTCA 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just named the reason in my previous message, categories do not follow the scheme in the English Wikipedia or any other for that matter. If he had a title, then it should be used. Gryffindor 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all the aristocratic titles should be included in category names? Or you would rather make inconsistency by making Konoe an exception? WTCA 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I orientated myself after the category Category:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Even dukes, earls, marquess and lords are shown, included with their title. So why should Japanese nobles be treated differently? We should be consistent, so I think adding titles is the best solution. Gryffindor 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) Do you have any idea how many categories you have to rename if you are to include all the aristocratic titles in category names? And how are you going to assure that there will be no confusion or inconsistency as a result of doing so?

b) Why the Japanese have to follow the English? We're not talking about the language here, it's the system and tradition. If you think what the British does is the way for others to follow, then I must say I'm very disappointed by your rather arrogant rationale.

WTCA 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, where is this coming from, "arrogant rationale"? No need to use such language, ok? I happen to know Japanese culture very well, and I know for a fact that not using titles is highly disrespectful. Since we can't use the Japanese version of the titles, we should use the English version. I am not proposing to rename all the kuge and what not with their japanese titles. Besides, what other cases are you referring to? Again, Commons does not follow any Wiki convention. Gryffindor 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing is coming from nowhere. My point is just this: leave out what the British does. We are talking about the Japanese here.

And I'm sorry, but I happen to be a Japanese for over four decades and I know about my culture very well myself. And I happen to have been born in a family which used to have one of those aristocratic titles (this is true). It is, on the contrary to your belief, not disrespectful at all to omit such titles in the post-war Japan; it is rather weird and unusual if you don't.

Speaking of being disrespectful, mixing up HIH Prince (王/親王) and Prince (公爵) is actually considered more disrespectful to the royals.

I understand Commons may not follow any Wiki convention. But that doesn't mean you can come up with your own convention for Commons and push it knowing that it would result in creating huge inconsistency and chaos.

Chaos indeed: if you start adding Prince (公爵), then you'll have to add Marquise (侯爵), Count (伯爵), Viscount (子爵) and Baron (男爵) as well. Can you be responsible for that? And who's going to follow that?

Again, as far as the Japanese is concerned, titles should be reserved for the royals only (namely, Emperor, Empress, HIH Prince and HIH Princess), just as most books and publications, both in Japanese and English, does.

WTCA 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the problem lies. Titles were used back then, I am not talking about today so please don't mix up the issues. And besides, Prince Konoe was indeed related to the imperial family, therefore you are contradicting yourself. And yes, if there were other nobles with Meiji titles such as baron, viscount, etc. what is wrong with using them when all the other noble categories (regardless if they be Chinese, Japanese, British, ...etc.) use them? The point is to be consistent. Either eliminate all titles in the naming, or have them. Gryffindor 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Hence I eliminated "Prince" from Fumimaro Konoe, the only non-HIH to be tied with the title. WTCA 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

You removed categories I had made the other day. Now a Chinese door that I had put in some categories (door, china, architectural element) is lost and I cannot find it. What is the method of finding a lost image? I only found it by accident after six months of trying to sort through the Commons and I have no idea of how to find it again. Is there a record somewhere, so that I can retrieve my effors? Otherwise I will never find it again and I am so sick of hunting through the Commons. --WhoNose 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angkor[edit]

Hi Gryffindor, I am trying to distribute all the Angkor media into subcategories of „Category:Angkor“. And I would like to transplant the maps from „Category:Maps of Angkor Wat“ into a new „Category:Maps of Angkor“. Do you think this is OK? Thank you --Joo Bee Lee 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great help! --Joo Bee Lee 07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, concerning category and page. Personally, I would wish a redirect from Angkor to Category:Angkor. At the moment, there are some 73 files on the page, compared with some 219 files in the category (the relief and sculpture subcategories not counted). I guess many people end up on the page; at least I did so for quite some time.
Two subcategories could be deleted: Category:Ta Keo (Angkor) (because of the much prettier Category:Ta Keo) and Category:Gates in Angkor (because of lack of enthusiasm). And if we created a subcategory for the Bayon reliefs, what would be the name? Maybe Category:Reliefs of the Bayon? Thank you very much --Joo Bee Lee 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. And many thanks again: for your very helpful advice. --Joo 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica Cistern[edit]

"Basilica cistern" is not a name (the name is Yerebatan Sarayı), it is a description. How can you be so positive that there is no other cistern built in basilica form, when this was a rather common form of cisterns in the ancient world? Just to give you but one example, a "cisterna-basilica" in Turkey exists also at Silifke http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/segr/ntz/2005Turchia/silifke_cisternaBig.jpg --User:G.dallorto 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Dear Gryffindor, I only have one life, and thousands of pictures of Italian places to categorize, I'm not going to be involved in a squabble about Turkey. My experience shows me that whenever a common name for a building is used, the name of the town soon or late becomes a necessity, therefore let's use it since the beginning. I had similar discussions about Saint Mark in Venice, or Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, with people who said it was useless to mark the town since the church of Saint Mark in Venice was THE most famous Saint Mark church in the world, ditto for Palazzo Vecchio (whose name in Italian merely means "the Old Palace", therefore there are scores of palaces around Italy bearing it). The point is, the most famous item reaches WikiCommons first, so it can grab the no-town name, but then little by little the others are added as well, and here the mess begins. Exempli gratia, currently the Italian Wikipedia lists no less than nine "San Marco churches", and the list is growing in time: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_San_Marco This said, do as you please. Turkey is not my area of intervention, I was merely a tourist in Istanbul. If those who are dealing with Turkey want to screw up everything, it's their business, not mine --User:G.dallorto 13:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramics[edit]

Hello, for a lot of your pics stitching is no magic it is just starting the freeware autostitch and select the pics. If the result is ok just rise scale and quality on the options page and start stitching again. After loseless crop with the freeware XNview you get pics like Komische Oper. Most work to do when combining your pics is to download and change the descriptions. --Marku1988 04:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007095.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007095.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-3.0}} 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.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villa of Mysteries[edit]

Hallo, I guess there is only one famous "Villa of Mysteries" in Italy, the one at Pompeii, however "Villa of Mysteries" is also the name of a film, of a book, of a wine, plus several other items that one day could claim a category of their own. http://www.google.it/search?num=50&hl=it&safe=off&q=%22Villa+of+mysteries%22+-Pompeii&btnG=Cerca&meta=

My point is however that, since in cataloguing the several scores of thousands' images about Italy that have been uploaded without any category, to make a very long story short and to spare work we need to have a rule to know in advance the category to sort the pictures accordingly without guessing or checking each time. My proposal, so far, has been to settle for "Nameofthemonument (town)", e.g. "San Pietro (Rome)". It seems to work, since you do not have to know in advance by heart thousands and thousands of names, according with the caprice of the person who created the category each time.

In our case, a correction should be made indeed --> "Villa of mysteries (Pompei)", since I accepted the objection which was made to me saying that "in" should be reserved to broader categories and I am moving Italian categories, little by little, accordingly. I understand that as far as we talk about the Tour Eiffel and the British Museum, the name stands by itself. But when cataloguing Italy, we have literally scores of monuments bearing the same name in different places. And we can't know in advance whether a wikipedian will, some day, upload his pictures of a totally obscure "Villa of Mysteries" from Smalltown. So I'd rather stick to keeping Pompei in the cat name, brevity not being good in itself. We have to be coincise, not merely short. "Notre Dame" is short, but "Notre Dame de Paris" is much better because it gives a more complate information, and it is still coincise.

"Ancient Roman Villa called "of the Mysteries" in Pompeii" is a pointlessly long cat name, whereas in my opinion Villa of the Mysteries (Pompei) is coincise enough.

If you think we should discuss about the matter at the bar, let's do it: soon or late the matter has to be settled for all of us, not only for Italy. Best wishes.--User:G.dallorto 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Please write in English[edit]

I add interwiki links to zh wikipedia in Images--Shizhao 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Japanischer Garten Schoenbrunn Vienna 2007 003.jpg[edit]

You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by replacing the {{OwnWork}} tag with a suitable copyright tag.

Same thing for other pics of serie Oxam Hartog 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Tony Smith 002.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Tony Smith 002.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

(And several others.) --Davepape 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply[edit]

I reply here HI! --Accurimbono 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category tree for churches[edit]

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

Also see Category talk:Lazio. Also no consensus yet, as I could determine. Cheers! Siebrand 09:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Ägydiuskirche[edit]

Image deletion warning Category:Ägydiuskirche has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

I created categories for Ägydiuskirche Pötzleinsdorf, Vienna and Ägydiuskirche Gumpendorf, Vienna instead. --wg 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peterskirche[edit]

As you seen in the Berlin Museum pics, moving motives create ghosts. Because in this photo this part is not very important, so I cut of this ghosts. --Marku1988 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Felix Berlin April 2006 123.jpg[edit]

It is impossible to combine these two pictures. Jan Arkesteijn 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neue_Pinakothek_Munich_2007_073.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Neue_Pinakothek_Munich_2007_072.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Neue_Pinakothek_Munich_2007_071.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007033.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pergamonmuseum Vs. Pergamon-Museum[edit]

Please take a look, what's written at the Front of the Museum. Then take a look at the Official Side. And then please tell me, why you do this. Please change it back. Marcus Cyron 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topkapi[edit]

I have no objection in the name change, so please go ahead in the renaming. I used the existing names wherever they already existed, and created new categories only where they were not available already. The only thing I ask you is to add "(Topkapi Sarai)" after the names of the categories, since all around the world there are scores of apartments named "Hall of the fountain" or "Apartment of the princes" or the like, especially when they are all traduced from their original languages into English, so that in the future we risk clashes or mixing up of images. Also, knowing the Turkish original name would help, not necessarily in the category name, but at least in the category description page. Translations may be deceitful...

In the forthcoming days I will be adding the rest of the images of the Harem I shot during my visit. I already prepared the gallery page for the addition: Topkapı Sarayı#Harem. If you want to change the names and to prepare the categories accordingly, please go ahead. I shall put my images in the categories you created. I don't want to create clashes with other wikipedian at work on the same project, I'm merely asking for consistency in the choice of category names.

If you notice mistakes of mine, please do correct them.

Mu best wishes. --User:G.dallorto 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre of Austria[edit]

Stitching is made with Panoperfect. This program is good for photos like this without enough patterns for Autostitch. Or if you change the perspective like with Knopfkönig and others. Sometimes it is a mix of both --Marku1988 08:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First courtyard[edit]

Unfortunately I have not: I was sparing memory card space for the inside... :-( All that remains to add deals with the fourth court alone. --User:G.dallorto 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topkapi completed[edit]

Dear Gryffindor, I have just completed the upload of all of the pictures of the Topkapı Sarayı still pending. If you want to have a look and check, I have nothing else to add, so you can settle the organisation in a definitive way. Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category:House of Hesse-Darmstadt[edit]

Image deletion warning Category:House of Hesse has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Deletion of the categorys[edit]

Sorry, I deleted the categorys, because I wanted to order the Gallery Freiburg im Breisgau new.

First I deleted things, and I would later order the pictures new galleries with the quarters of Freiburg. After that I would putted them in relevant categories. Sadly you stopped me at my work.

--Hendrik128 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:COA Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.PNG[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FJ BH[edit]

Hi. Just for info, can you please tell me what or why you did this change: [3]? Thanks, --Thire 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Birthday.gif[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Birthday.gif 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--escondites 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cell phone images by Gryffindor[edit]

Image deletion warning Cell phone images by Gryffindor 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Image:Istanbul.Bosphorus004 small.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Thanks for the friendly advice. I have never yet uploaded an image here and found a satisfactory category set waiting which did not need sorting out. One of the images I transferred this morning inherited categories from the category choosing system, another didn't get any. I noticed while rooting about that the pictures of british royalty are in a mess, and havn't had time to do anything about it. There seemed to be a category for cavalry, yet no british cavalry images. remarkable. Someone else's similar images had a big set of categories, yet with what seemed omissions. I imagine that is a problem many people have. If they get so far as realising there is a big mess, they don't have time to fix it, or know what, simply, to do for the best. Sandpiper 15:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comment, if an image is in category A, then it should not be in category B which already contains A. However, I think I am correct in saying it should still be placed in C, D, etc where this is relevant. For example, one of my images might end up in 'Cavalry of the UK' (which doesn't exist: apparently there is also a controversy over whether it ought to say 'cavalry of the british army', but it should exist as a sub category of 'cavalry'), in 'British military' (where most UK cavalry pictures now are, 'cavalry' and 'british military' are both relevant and yet separate branches of the category tree), in 'images of queen Elizabeth', in 'trooping the colour' (which doesn't exist, but ought to somewhere). Unless the image is placed in multiple categories it will not be found by people seeking different topics through the category tree. Sandpiper 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In theory the regiment concerned should be known. the BFI even has a library entry for the video of the event in 86, which was when my pics were taken. There is another website specialising in this stuff who may be able to help. I was browsing the categories this afternoon and shall have another go now. The trouble always is the wider you spread looking at how the categories interrelate, the more difficult become the choices of how to organise them without repetition. Sandpiper 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Sandpiper[reply]
Been nosing about. There is a category 'Admiralty', and another parallel category 'Horse Guards', both listed in 'national government buildings in London', and others. The trouble is, while the two names are different buildings on different sides of horse guards parade, they join up and many of the pictures are of the two buildings. I think the two categories need to be merged somehow because otherwise they hopelessly overlap. yet...strictly they are different buildings which people might hunt for. There are other government buildings part of the same complex with different names to which this problem also may apply. (For instance, the ivy covered building next along from the admiralty is the citadel, and so on.

Image:Egypt flag 1922.png[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Egypt flag 1922.png 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 06:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kronprinzessin Cecilie von Preussen 1908 2 .jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Kronprinzessin Cecilie von Preussen 1908 2 .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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palaces and castles[edit]

Yes, palaces and castles could be different, but some buildings (example: Hotel de Sens; the Conciergerie -considered as a gothic palace- in Paris) can be located in one or the other category Regards - Francis --FLLL 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also: the "Chateau" de Versailles is not stricto sensu a castle but a palace!

Trento[edit]

Hi Gryffindor! I have proposed to move Category:Trent back to Category:Trento. I think you might be interested because you were the one who created Category:Trent and put Template:Seecat in Category:Trento. May I ask you why you did that? See Category talk:Trent. Bye! --Jaqen 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. --Jaqen 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting categories[edit]

Hello. You 've deted the category "Category:Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of Poland". What's about the broken redirect in Category:Elżbieta Rakuszanka. Please, if you delete a page, you may also look about redirects to it. Cäsium137 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Palais Royal Paris Mai 2006 002.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Palais Royal Paris Mai 2006 002.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roi Juste Paris Mai 2006 001.jpg et Image:Roi Juste Paris Mai 2006 002.jpg[edit]

Salut Gryffindor. J'ai supprimé ces deux images parce qu'elles représentent une œuvre de Jean Cardot, qui est encore en vie… Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Emperor_Khai_Dinh_1916b.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Emperor_Khai_Dinh_1916b.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Mønobi 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illustrated Handscroll of The Tale of Genji[edit]

Hello Mr./Ms. Gryffindor, Thanks a lot for your contribution : Category:Illustrated Handscroll of The Tale of Genji. I have another 4 images which have not edited for WIKIMEDIA, yet. I upload them later. Sincerely, ReijiYamashina 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your comment. Really, some images are not good. I will approved them. By the way, if you are interested in far-east ancient arts, I introduce images in my HP Especially, http://reijiy.hp.infoseek.co.jp/horyujif/horyujig.html Sincerely, ReijiYamashina 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some pictures[edit]

Could you please check the deletion requests for these pictures. They were finished some weeks ago and nobody voted since then, but no body closed them. Could you please close them and tell me when you do it.

The pictures are:

  1. Image:Himmlerphoto.jpg
  2. Image:RibbentropNSDAP.jpg
  3. Image:Hitler & Hindenburg.jpg
  4. Image:Pavolini & Goebbels.jpg

Please check and close these requests when you have the time. Thanks in advance. --Clockwork Orange 13:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Suedtirol_CoA.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Suedtirol_CoA.svg 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

abf /talk to me/ 14:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bjh44 yokohama det top.jpg et. al.[edit]

I tried to stich it, but it's too little vertical overlap. It could perhaps be possible, but it would probably make it look awful :/ →AzaToth 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check[edit]

Someone got a little agitated over a change you had Siebot execute. Please double check. Cheers! Siebrand 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept over the matter one night I have cooled down a bit, which does not change my opinion, that changing Category:House of Baden into House of Zähringen was not a good idea. The House of Zähringen was a Dynasty which ruled the Dutchy of Zähringen. The House of Baden was a line of counts that seperated from this line at the very beginning and continued as a countal dynasty of their own right. The House of Zähringen became extinct in 1218. Through inheritance a few noble families draw their traditions to the House of Zähringen. Since Zähringen at its time was quite a hegimonical power in Southwestern Germany incorporating most of the allemmanic speaking people of the region the drawing of the name of Zähringen is a political claim to be the rightful representative of these people. So when, at the time of the napleonic reorganizations of the map of Europe the counts of Baden where elevated to dukes they activated this claim. We don't have to ignore that claim, or think it is unrightful. But I think that putting the House of Baden as a sub-category under the category House of Zähringen is a better way of representing this historic matter, than it is now after your bot-revisions. By the way the House of Baden should also be subdivided into further categories to represent the different lines, but that is another matter. --Wuselig 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Wappen Habsburg-Lothringen Schild.svg[edit]

Hi!
I've created an SVG version of your original PNG image and i want to know what you think of it. --Oren neu dag 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping you in the Loop: i've made a separator between the parts of the duchy of austria and the rest, but as for the lion - this has to be left to the care of someone more capable in vector graphics then me.
I hope u are overall satisfied with the result. --Oren neu dag 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
only a small question: what is an "ifc"? --Oren neu dag 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Study room Harem Dolmabahce March 2008 pano.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French monarchs[edit]

Hi,

The application of the naming rule is clear: fossilized names are not translatable. See for instance Category:Palais du Louvre or Category:Pergamonmuseum.

As for monarchs (not only French ones), they were coronated with one « nom de règne » (reign name I guess), which was fossilized as their official name. Never any king called Philip reigned on France. But there were at least 6 kings Philippe de France. As Commons does not intend to reinvent history, they have to be kept with official reign names. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.-S. : I never wanted to request for adminship :) But I know many ones sharing my concerns.

Geography has no special privilege in naming conventions. If things were made bad for monarchs since the beginning, it's just time for changing them. So of course, Category:Monarchs of France is good name since categories are in English. But of course too, Category:François Ier de France is a good name since there is no king called Francis reigning on France. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you: this problem does not only concerns French monarchs. The situation should be evaluated for each country, but this goes far beyond my knowledge and free time...
I know the accessibility argument, but you also know the multilingual argument: Commons is a multilingual project and fossilized expressions have to be respected (which imply that naming rules on Commons are necessarly different from WP en, which is an English-speaking project). That is what I point here: kings in France (or Germany or...) went on the throne with French (or German or...) names, making of them fossilized names.
As for accessibility, it is possible to create redirection pages from English names if you prefer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is not a change of rules, so there is no need to debate. There is no more rules violation by having a Category:Louis VI de France than by having a Category:Palais du Louvre. This is part of the derogation which encourages use of fossilized/official names over English equivalent. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good faith: we both know that Commons conventions (specially naming conventions) are just a kind of draft which has no meaning without the way it's used. So searching in the convention will not provide the least help for any question. Sadly, there is no Law in Commons; just case laws.
Never mind: you are the sysop, you take your decision. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position: I would say you are applying the current case law for monarchs. As it comes in contradiction with other case laws, you just decide to do nothing. This is by far the most comfortable position and as it makes sense I accept it. But another person could have made another decision: I accept it too.
And discussion... no pity: I want to save my time.
Regards. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sinan Caferaga March 2008.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave cleaning up your mess to others[edit]

Hallo Gryffindor, just restoring the category:House of Baden won't do. Will you please look after the mess you created by initiating a bot-move of all listings in this category to the historical incorrect Category:House of Zähringen. Just backing out of a discussion and saying you are tired of it is bad style. If you make a mess, you clean it up yourself. --Wuselig 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy fom Wuseligs discussion page:
I am not backing out of the discussion. As I have stated before you do not have me convinced about your points of view in any way. Since you keep on insisting on the issue, I have restored the category and that is as far as I will go. Gryffindor 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you answer on my user page, are you too embarrased about your behaviour? You have not provided any arguments beyond an "AS FAR AS I KNOW". Well as far as you know is not enough to justify the changes you made. So it is not a matter of me convincing you, but of you to revert your unsubstantiated move. --Wuselig 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it should really be the custom to rip discussions apart by ping ponging them between the two users I have truely failed to realize this up to now. I don't necessarily observe this in other discussions even on your page here. I have been very patient with you up to now and hoped to settle this matter between the two of us. I also left you enough time to fix things by yourself. I personally consider your behaviour an act of vandalism and I am afraid that if you remain as stubborn as now, we will have to ask the community if they agree with you or me. --Wuselig 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Children room Dolmabahce March 2008pano.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Hall of Royal Consorts Dolmabahce March 2008panod.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Hall of Royal Consorts Dolmabahce March 2008panoc.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Hall of Royal Consorts Dolmabahce March 2008panob.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Mysterious Museum[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. As it's a translation from Turkish, it's hard to say. I couldn't find any official translation. FWIW, I did a quick JSTOR search (same as a Google search, JSTOR is an academic journal archive) and found out "Istanbul Archaeology Museum" counts 12 hits, "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul" 41 hits and "Istanbul Archaeological Museum" 190 hits. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can help you, I have the official guide of the museum (written by its director) and its title is "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul". Μαρσύας? 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just called the museum and talked to the officials. What they say is both of them goes. Namely, both "Istanbul Archaeological Museum" and "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul" is ok. Besides, I referred to "Blue Guide Turkey", and saw that it gives the name as "Istanbul Archaeological Museum". In this case, we can omit "Istanbul Archaeology Museum" and decide between the latter two. Thanks. --Chapultepec 11:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Arch- Museum[edit]

Hi, I have no objection, I even added a cat redirect template to the cat. page. But moving all pictures will require a bot or admin help. --Nevit Dilmen 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a Google book search instead of just googling to eliminate the non-academic/unscientific sources. The resultant figures are as follows:

  • 32 hits for "Istanbul Archaeology Museum",
  • 177 hits for "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul",
  • 438 hits for "Istanbul Archaeological Museum".

Under these circumstances, we would rather do the redirect at the English language Wikipedia. Thanks. --Chapultepec 11:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the building[edit]

I am afraid I don't ... :-( --User:G.dallorto 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see it when I was there. There was an area which was not visible to visitors because it was undergoing restoration... Perhaps it was located there. Sorry. --User:G.dallorto 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topkapi Palace[edit]

Yes, it is the "Fountain of the Executioner" ("Cellat Çeşmesi"), very close to the second gate of the palace. If you need a detailed picture of the fountain, yes I can take it, but only on Sunday. I have no time on weekdays. Or I can ask my friend whether he has a close-up picture of it. I will inform you soon. --Chapultepec 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one is the "Fountain of the Executioner". But my Byzantinist friend confused me again and mentioned about the probablity. What he told me is that this one is probably "the fountain of the executioner" and it is better to say "the fountain which is said to be the fountain of the executioner". He cited the name of a book by Gülru Necipoğlu as a reference. The name of the book is "Topkapı Palace in the 15th and 16th centuries: Architecture, Ceremonies and Power". This lady is a historian and researcher of the Ottoman era, currently residing in the United States and lecturing in Harvard University. Here is the link to the Turkish edition of her book. Nevertheless, I made some encyclopedic research on it, traditional Turkish sources do not mention about the probablity, they just cite the fountain as the "Fountain of the Executioner".

8) Who is the sculptor of this bust of Hamdi Bey Image:Osman Hamdi Bey bust March 2008.JPG and when did the artist die? This is important to know, otherwise the image could be put up for deletion if copyrights still apply due to age and I want to avoid that.

Yervant Oskan, also Oskan Efendi, Ottoman sculptor and painter of Armenian descent. He was born in 1855 and died in 1914. He worked with Osman Hamdi Bey in Mount Nemrut. It is also within knowledge that he worked on the Alexander Sarcophagus in Sidon. One of his works is the bust of Osman Hamdi Bey. Here is a source in the English language mentioning about him.

12) Is it possible to have good pictures with sunlight of various palaces listed on this template [4] such as Aynalıkavak Palace, Beylerbeyi Palace . I am sure that other palaces are missing or names need to be corrected, which would be great.

I don't have any pictures of Beylerbeyi or Aynalıkavak palaces, but I do have pictures of Ihlamur Palace which I am going to upload soon. Meanwhile, I noticed one thing in the Template:Imperial_Palaces_Turkey. What is the difference between "Ihlamur Palace" and "Ihlamur Pavilion"? So far as I know, there is one palace there, namely "Ihlamur Kasrı" in Turkish. The term kasır can be translated as "a summer-palace, pavilion".

This is enough for me for tonight. I will give more information at my earliest convenience. --Chapultepec 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact I am a civil engineer. Having worked in construction sites for several years, I changed my mind and switched to the computer sector, now working as a computer programmer. But I had studied history for a while before I got to the civil engineering faculty, that's where my knowledge comes from. But of course I am not an expert. :) As for the template, ok I will modify it, but I am still not sure which word to use, namely palace or pavilion. For the moment let's keep Ihlamur Palace, but I should take my friend's opinion as well, maybe pavilion will be more suitable. --Chapultepec 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13) What is the name of this building? Is it Köprülü library? Image:Piyer Loti Caddesi building.JPG? Gryffindor 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one is Köprülü library ("Köprülü Kütüphanesi" in Turkish). It was commissioned by Ottoman Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmed Pasha in 1661. The library currently contains 4,000 manuscript volumes. Here is a link for verification: Municipality of Eminönü - Libraries. Until then. --Chapultepec 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gryffindor, sorry for the delay. I made some pictures in the meantime. So far I could upload four of them. Here are the links to the photos:

Many more are yet to come. I will inform you here whenever I will have the opportunity to upload them. Happy edit. --Chapultepec 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Semailname 47b.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Semailname 47b.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.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Lynxxx 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. My answer: So, I can took everey picture out of a book, if the original is older than 70 years??? What about the photographer, the copyright holder? If a photographer makes a picture of an old church (older than 70 years), in a new book, I can scan this picture? That can't be true... sincerely --Lynxxx 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, now I've read all the (stupid) rules in Wiki, and you are exaxtly right. It's common sense, to use all the 2D-work (later than 70 years) of the whole world. Poor photografers... :-) Sorry for my fast delete-request. bye, --Lynxxx 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pammakaristos Church fragments.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Troy Collection Istanbul (2).JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Gate Felicity Topkapi painting March 2008b.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai images and Jumeirah[edit]

It is nice that you are adding many Dubai images to Commons. We need more variety. And sorry, but I do not know Arabic. Now, about the categorization; this is an interesting topic of discussion. Let me give you a quick explanation of Jumeirah. There are two different ways of classifying "Jumeirah."

The first way is the factual, true, community Jumeirah and the second way is the vernacular, commonly used Jumeirah. The true Jumeirah is found between the coast, Al Wasl Road, Umm Al Sheif Road and Al Dhiyafa Road. What many people call Jumeirah, although incorrect, is all the land along the coast from Port Rashid to Dubai Marina. So, in reality, the Palm Jumeirah, Jumeirah Lake Towers, Wild Wadi, Burj Al Arab are not in Jumeirah. They are located in different communities. Many developers and companies add "Jumeirah" because it has a wealthy, high-class connotation. It is a highly sought after area, so communities began to use the name to attract business and residents. Today, Jumeirah is used in too many places that are not even within the community of Jumeirah.

So, your reasoning for having Category:Jumeirah in the image of the Palm Jumeirah and the beach is not valid if we use the true community. But, if we use the "lazy," incorrect usage for Jumeirah, then we can readd the category. And sorry, but I do not know how familiar you are with Dubai. If my explanation did not make sense, please let me know. --LoverOfDubai (talk|contributions) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although some of Dubai's major landmarks are not in Jumeirah, the common usage is to put them in Jumeirah. Even in Dubai, people consider Jumeirah as extending along most of the coast. So, it is really up to using the correct usage or using the common, everyday usage. If people want to find an image of Jumeirah (the area commonly called Jumeirah; such as Dubai Marina and Wild Wadi), they might not be able to find anything if we use the correct usage. I am really not sure what to do. Do we want to make sure these image are categorized correctly, or categorized for the sake of people that do not know the true organization and internal divisions of Dubai? --LoverOfDubai (talk|contributions) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Papiermuseum Basel 2008 (22).jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Papiermuseum Basel 2008 (20).jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Palaeologous stele Istanbul.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zentrumspartei 1870.gif[edit]

Bist Du Dir sicher, daß das Bild von 1870 stammt? Der dort abgebildete Adolf Gröber war damals gerade 16 Jahre alt, das Bild zeigt aber einen alten Mann mit Rauschebart. Ich tippe eher auf eine Veröffentlichung im Wahlkampf zur Weimarer Nationalversammlung 1919. Bitte kläre das doch mal. --Mogelzahn 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Ja, ich weiß, daß die Zentrumspartei auf ihrer Website ebenfalls schreibt, daß das Plakat zur Gründung der Partei herausgegeben worden sei, das ist aber offenkundiger Unsinn.[reply]

Ich warte noch auf eine Antwort. --Mogelzahn 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of sub-categories of sub-categories[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. I noticed that you created a very confusing amount of new sub-categories three days ago under category:Bangkok. I am wondering about the usefulnes of a category that has just 1 (in words: one) picture in it, or even no picture at all. Example: Category:Jim Thompson (designer). (BTW why on earth did you put all those red links in it?) This category has no picture but another subcategorie: Category:Jim Thompson House. This category in turn has just one picture (and a very bad one). Why didn't you leave it with category:Bangkok?

Another example: Category:King Prajadhipok Museum, which also has just 1 (one!) picture. It is the sub-category of Category:Museums in Bangkok, which has no picture at all. What's the use for this exept for confusing users, who are looking for a specific pic. The result is mostly an (aimless) click-orgy...

A second question: you undid my edit on 15. April 2008. I put Category:Temples in Bangkok back to category:Bangkok, while you said that "temples are clearly building, should be in the proper category therefore". I disagree. Please have a look at the definition in en:Wat (which is the synonym of "Buddist Temple"). It's stated there, that a Temple is not just a building, but "a Buddhist sacred precinct with monks' quarters , the temple proper, an edifice housing a large image of Buddha, and a structure for lessons. I would appreciate it, if you could undo your revert. Thank you.

Sorry for my bad English. But I hope you got my point. --hdamm 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of Empress Elisabeth of Austria by F. X. Winterhalter[edit]

Hello Gryffindor, you added the "duplicate" template to a number of images displaying the painting of Empress Elisabeth of Austria by F. X. Winterhalter, although no two of these images are exact duplicates or scaled-down versions of each other. They differ notably in their crop rectangle and, more importantly, in colour. I am sure that some of these images do not display the original Winterhalter portrait but slightly modified copies. As long as we do not know for sure which images show the original Winterhalter work and which just show a copy, we should in my view keep them all. But even if we knew for sure which one(s) is the original, why should we discard the images of the copies anyway?

I therefore removed the "duplicate" template and specified my reason in the summary box: "not an exact duplicate". You reverted my edit without giving any reason (and, in doing so, you also removed other information I had added to the image description page). As the "duplicate" template says "This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version", and this is obviously not true, I removed this template again. If you think that these images should be deleted, please open a regular deletion debate. Greetings, --UV 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Commons policy stipulates that duplicates or scaled-down versions be deleted so that only one version remains. There are now 5 images of the same painting, which serves no purpose. Therefore some versions will have to go which are of inferior quality. Sincerely Gryffindor 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I still do not agree that these images are exact duplicates or scaled-down versions, and I explained above that I think that not all of them show the same original painting, but some of them probably show copies of that painting. I am not aware of a Commons policy that stipulates that noticably different pictures shall be deleted. I therefore opened a regular deletion debate so that the community may decide on this. Greetings, --UV 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ancient Orient Museum Istanbul.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Ancient Orient Museum Istanbul (4).JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Ancient Orient Museum Istanbul (1).JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai ministry image[edit]

Gryffindor, I am sorry, but I have no clue what the building is. But, I may be able to help you if can provide more information. Is this near the airport? If it is, which direction is it facing: toward the airport or toward Dubai Creek? If you want to show me the location of the building on a satellite map, you can use Wikimapia (the URL changes for every view; so if you find it, all you have to do is give me the URL. But be aware that the satellite image is a few years old). What does the question mark after the road in the description mean? Are you saying you are not sure if it was Al Nahda Road or are just unsure about the spelling? Are the images you posted the highest resolution you have? If you look closely, you can see a name above the doorway. If you had a larger image, you may be able to read it. LoverOfDubai (talk|contributions) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I do not know too much about specifics in Dubai. I do not know anything about that building. Sorry again. LoverOfDubai (talk|contributions) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vann molyvann.jpg[edit]

Ok, You can delete. Thank, --Kiensvay 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda Palace[edit]

The palace name is: Sayajirao Palace. Regards, Nichalp 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning at Category:Galleria degli Uffizi[edit]

Hi Gryffindor. I'm very surprised by the warning you put at Category:Galleria degli Uffizi. Is it a new Commons policy to enforce museums' terms and conditions? Has it something to do with the tractations of the Wikimedia Italian chapter with Italian authorities? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interior images of Florence buildings[edit]

How exactly do you think this is legaly enforceable? How exactly do you think this legaly enforcable against commons and other reusers?Geni

That wasn't the question I asked. If there rules are not legaly enforceable against commons they are not our concern.Geni 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florence and Siena[edit]

Is it? I didn't know, no one told me on the site where I took the pictures. I think you are wrong. --Sailko 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't take the images yesterday, when i took them it was allowed. I am sorry for you if you could not take the pics, but you can't cancel all the pictures of this sites on the web because YOU were not allowed to take them. There is no such policy on commons. --Sailko 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to discuss this in commons before. --Sailko 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, are you admin to decide the policies of commons? Can I read WHERE is written that is not allowed to upload pictures of determined sites even if the are in PD?? --Sailko 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rule of the present doesn't affect the past, sorry, you should read more about Italian law before you mess up other people's work. --Sailko 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor, I don't think you understand. On Commons, as an admin, you work for Commons, not a museum. You must respect our policies. You are not here to reflect the rules of a museum. No museum can prohibit the distribution of photographs of public domain art. You keep quoting what you heard from museums, but not Commons. --Rob 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Griffindor, the situation is not as easy as you might think and writing to Polo Museale was a really bad idea, I'll tell you why. On Italian Wikipedia we already had a bad issue with Florentine State museums, because actually in Italy PD-Art does not apply. Well, it might not apply, it's quite confusing. The problem came also to Italian parliament quite a few months ago, and they assumed that pics and other reproductions of works of art can be used for educational and cultural purposes, at a "low" resolution (how low? nobody knows). This does not include commercial purposes that commons's GFDL or cc-licences apply. So in Italian wikipedia we had to download pictures from commons of works or art, reduce pixels and re-upload on Italian wikipedia as copyrighted-free use. With this we reached an agreement with some of the "soprintendenze" of Italy, such as Florence and Rome. Commons is different because it applies the Usa's law, which acknoledges the PD-Art... so far. So any issue about using or non-using Pd-Art makes no sense for the Florida based Commons.wikimedia.org servers. So writing again to the Polo Museale in Florence could stress even more the gap between the two legislation and create new issues between wikimedia (this time US-based wikimedia) and Italian museums.
Second, Churches: San Lorenzo or San Domenico are churches. Some famous churches like this were "musealized" (they became kind of museums) approximately five-seven years ago. As you already experienced it is really impossible to take pictures in those kind of museum-churches, because surveillance is very strict. I live in Florence, I know what it means. So there are only 2 ways to get pictures: find a picture made more than 5 years ago (Some on Flicr were shot even earlier) or to go on a special opening when they allow to take pictures. This is how I got the pictures from San Lorenzo in Florence. Every August 11 it's Saint lawrence celebration and they open the church for free, make concerts and they just don't care about people taking pictures. It doesn't mean it's allowed, but it also doesn't mean it's forbidden. That's very Italian. Also if you are registered in such Art/cultural associations which make private tours with door closed to churches and other sites you are generally allowed to take picture (I am registered in one of these associations in Florence, so I got several pictures in private sites this way).
Third, Villa La Petraia: in Florence there are 2 "soprintendenze". One lets you take pictures, the other no (Uffizi's one). Actually the Villa la Petraia management was moved something like 2-3 year ago from the "pic-friendly" soprintendenza to the non-friendly one. I took the pictures inside (very few unfortunately) in sometimes around 1998-1999. The 2 more pictures of the inside are PD-Art.
So the question is, are we going to cancel all the PD-Art's because a country decided that it wants to get money for every single reproduction of the works of art it owns, or do we want just to ignore these kind of local issues, like we did on Commons i.g. with the Partenon in Greece (where a member of Greek government asked to cancel all the pics of Greek temples in order of a recently approved law and was kindly asked to piss somewhere else)?
Will Commons cancel all the pics of churches and paintings as soon as each of them will enter in a museums-like organization? I don't know the answer, you should think about this. Definitely was maybe better if you had you vacation in France this year (joking...) --Sailko 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general attitude of commons is to turn responsibility to what uplaoded to the users.. this is why I suppose people is ignoring the question. I was a pretty concerned because I thought you were against pd-art stuff. So it's ok, if commons will decide not to allow pics taken inside private places without explicit authorization... it's gonna be bad, but I will respect the decision. Just understand it's not a matter of those 4 sites only you listed. --Sailko 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, let me know when you finish uploading, we have many pages on it.wiki that need pictures! Thank you :)) --Sailko 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent full page protection[edit]

Hello Gryffindor. This message is about your recent full page protection of the category "Galleria degli Uffizi" which you protected without consensus reached. Instead, you protected the page for your own winning. See COM:OWN for more information. You should never get into edit wars, instead discuss the issue on the talk page. Please keep this in mind next time, best regards --Kanonkas(talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gryffindor/Archive3&oldid=174906191"