User talk:Jeanhousen/Archive 2

Category:Week-end gastronomie, Hermalle-sous-Huy, août 2012

Bonjour,

Merci de ne pas enlever la catégorie Category:Week-end gastronomie, Hermalle-sous-Huy, août 2012 sur les fichiers qui la contienne. Elle permet de référencer les photos prises lors d'un week-end rencontre en Belgique. Merci ! --M0tty (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Trois-Ponts train station

Hi Jeanhousen, when filing cats for badname-speedy-deletion, you should first correct the interwiki-links on other projects. Otherwise, after deletion of the original cats, these links will be dead and users from the other projects angry. --Túrelio (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry !.. it's done for all the stations on the Ourthe or Amblève lines - --Jean Housen 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. All deleted now. --Túrelio (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be somewhat okay *if* User:Foroa did not silently restore the old categories afterwards *without* updating again links in Wikipedias. Now I have good reasons to be angry. Renaming categories without very good reasons nor wide agreement is a very easy way to disrupt other Wikimedia projects and waste contributors' and users' time. — Bjung (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Renommage de catégories d'anglais en français

Bonjour,

Je vois que tu "traduits" de l'anglais vers le français des noms de catégories. Je ne sais si ceci est opportun à chaque fois.

Pour une chapelle classée, connue sous son nom français dans de décret de classement, oui. Mais traduire "Dampremy-La Planche train station" vers "Gare de Dampremy-La Planche" moins. Et ce ne serai certainement pas opportun pour l'ensemble des stations de métro de Charleroi, par exemple. Un nom tel que "Beaux-Arts metro station (Charleroi)‎" dit le nom de l'objet, le quoi et où. Et permet d'avoir la liste en ordre alphabétique sans code complémentaire.

Bien à toi.

--Jmh2o (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Je t'invite également à attribuer une catégorie à bon essentient : rien de plus frustrant que de faire de recherche par catégorie et de voir que la photo est mis dans une catégorie pour un détail insignifiant, à la limite du visible. Comme par exemple cette photo File:Dampremy-Maison communale 1869.jpg dans la catégorie "Post boxes in Charleroi". Ou celle ci File:Jumet - Hôtel de Ville.jpg dans "street mirrors in Charleroi". Il en va de même pour car parks où l'on voit une voiture parquée sur une photo dont le sujet est tout autre. Merci de "bien" choisir les catégories. --Jmh2o (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour, Pour les stations de métro, bien d'accord : il suffit de se conformer à l'usage, et pas seulement à Charleroi : à Paris, on parle de prendre le métro au "Châtelet", de descendre à "Bercy" etc, à Bruxelles ce sera "Arts-Lois / Kunst-Wet", etc. Par contre pour les gares de chemin de fer, il me paraît beaucoup plus judicieux d'adopter le nom du bâtiment tel qu'il est d'usage là où se trouve, comme dans la catégorie "Train stations in Paris", on trouve la "Gare du Nord" et pas "Paris north train station", et à "Train stations in Berlin", on trouve "Berlin Hauptbahnhof" et pas "Berlin central train station", et cela vaut aussi pour les ponts, le nom "colle" au bâtiment ; dans la catégorie "Bridges in Florence", on a le "Ponte Vecchio" et pas "Old Bridge", etc.

Pour ce qui est du mobilier urbain et autres objets ou éléments que l'on trouve dans les vues de villes ou de campagne, je m'attache principalement à dresser un état des lieux au point de vue de l'aménagement urbain et de la qualité des paysages en général : quand il y a un aménagement expressément conçu pour y parquer des voitures, avec plaque "P", aménagements au sol etc, pour moi il s'agit bel et bien d'un aménagement, qui a nécessité une préparation (plan, terrassement, etc); et qu'il s'agit bel et bien d'un "construction" au sens strict un "building" ; cela vaut aussi pour les boîtes postales et tous ces objets de mobilier urbain qui structurent notre environnement, et dans ce sens il est d'autant plus intéressant de les avoir dans des vues "contextuelles", plutôt que des gros plans. Imaginez par exemple qu'on dispose de photographies de rues dans le passé, il y aurait un tas d'éléments qui ont aujourd'hui disparus et ces photos parleraient des paysages urbains avec tous ces "détails" significatifs ; pour prendre un dernier exemple, il est vraisemblable qu'au train où vont les choses, les cabines téléphoniques, et peut-être les boîtes postales plus tard, vont complètement disparaître.

Enfin pour terminer, je dirai qu'une photographie, si ce n'est pas un gros plan, est souvent polysémique, et qu'il est réducteur parce qu'elle présente principalement 1 aspect du réel de négliger toutes les autres informations qu'elle véhicule. --Jean Housen 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas du tout d'accord de mélanger les règles de nommage des stations de train en Belgique. --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bon : en tout cas, je ne vais pas me lancer dans une guerre d'édition ; mais je dirai cependant que "ne pas être du tout d'accord" est un argument un peu mince, sans justifications, que par ailleurs ce qui vaut pour les "églises", "château", "cimetière", "pont", etc en français, pour les "kirche", "schloss", "burg", "bahnhof", "friedhof", "brücke" etc en allemand, pour les "kasteel", "kerk", "begraafplaats", "brug", etc en néerlandais, ne vaudrait pas pour les "gare" ou "station" en Belgique ? Il y a là une subtilité et un illogisme que je ne comprends pas. --Jean Housen 16:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Moi non plus je ne me lancerai pas dans une guerre d'édition. Je souhaite simplement "la moindre surprise". Quand j'ai créer les catégories et à l'exception du patrimoine classé (mais là aussi, pas de soucis pour modifier ce qui existe), j'ai pris le "nom" tel que dans la langue du pays y ajoutant ce que c'est et où cela se trouve.

Donc : "Charleroi-Sud train station", car "Charleroi-Sud' est le nom. Tout comme "Maison Dorée (Charleroi)" ; "Golden house" me poserait problème. Et je n'aime pas "Church of the Conversion of Saint Paul (Mont-sur-Marchienne)‎", Je peux toutefois accepter "Conversion de saint Paul (Mont-sur-Marchienne), church" si "Église de la Conversion de saint Paul (Mont-sur-Marchienne)" pose problème.

Bien à vous.

--Jmh2o (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Il me semble tout à fait évident que c'est pour tout le monde plus intéressant et plus simple d'avoir une structure de nommage symétrique à travers tous le pays dans Category:Train_stations_in_Belgium, indépendant s'ils soient du côté Wallon, Bruxellois, Allemand ou Flamand. En plus, des trajets qui impliquent plusieurs gares en plusieurs langues seront beaucoup plus facile à "lire", comme le Category:Line 34 (Infrabel), Category:Line 36 (Infrabel) (incomplets il me semble). --Foroa (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:De Silani vaart Hasselt uit in 2012 (02).JPG

You categorised the ship in Hasselt Belgium. In fact, it was Hasselt in the Netherlands. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Big mistake ! Thanks.--Jean Housen 19:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I make my own. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Category system for Koblenz

Dear Jeanhousen, you created a lot of new categorries for Koblenz. Please note that there is a Category:Buildings in Koblenz by function‎. Don´t sort them to main Category:Buildings in Koblenz. And please it would be fine if you sort ALL photos to the new categories not only yours. Otherwise we will have a big chaos. Thanks and greetings from Koblenz --Schängel (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:20131001 cheratte106.JPG

File:20131001 cheratte106.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buildings_in_the_Netherlands_by_location

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

Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Please, consider reading [Commons:Categories#Over-categorization the rules on categories] before redoing edits such as this or [1]. Overcategorisation should be avoid, otherwise we would end up with thousands of articles and files listed under the same category, which turns it useless and is what is explicitely intended to be prevented by creating specific subcategories. Best, Qoan (dis-me!) 03:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dublin Airport categories (Category:Vehicles in Dublin Airport)

Hello!

You have created many grammatically incorrect subcategories. I had to let them all moved to the correct one. PLEASE keep in mind: vehicles are at an airport not in one. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a specialist in english grammar, but an aircraft land at an airport (where there's an anchorage), I'm not sure an automobile, or a Shell tank truck do that, they are indefinetely or temporarily located in this airport.

Copyright status: File:20140415 ioannina127.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:20140415 ioannina127.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Castles_in_Ioannina

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

Constantine ✍ 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

When you create an article about a greek municipality, please use the world municipality in it when it has the same name with a city in it. This is how it is used in greek. --C messier (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Kastoria

Danke für die großartige, mühsame Arbeitǃ -- Kürschner (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Danke, es ist interessant und ich lerne eine Menge über das Geschäft der Pelz und Kastoria, wo ich noch nie gewesen (obwohl ich viele Orte in Griechenland zu sehen).--Jean Housen 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Besonders für mich als Kürschner waren es spannende 14 Tage. Ein Besuch dort lohnt sich auch sonst. -- Kürschner (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cathedral Basilica of St. Dionysius the Areopagite

Hi Jean, you moved all files from Category:Cathedral Basilica of St. Dionysius the Areopagite to Category:Katholikos Kathedrikos Naos tou Agiou Dionysiou Areopagiti (Athens) and blanked the category. Did you have any specific reason for that? Usually, category names should by in English, so I can´t see the need for your changes. And please remember to either nominate a category you blanked and emptied for deletion or to set a redirect from an old category to the new one (or, preferably, to wait for a decision about your deletion proposal before emptying it). Thanks, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:20140805 liege01.JPG

And also:

• File:20140805 liege02.JPG
• File:20140805 liege03.JPG
• File:20140805 liege04.JPG
• File:20140805 liege05.JPG
• File:20140805 liege06.JPG
• File:20140805 liege07.JPG
• File:20140805 liege08.JPG
• File:20140805 liege10.JPG
• File:20140805 liege13.JPG
• File:20140805 liege16.JPG
• File:20140805 liege18.JPG
• File:20140805 liege19.JPG
• File:20140805 liege29.JPG

I'm very sorry, but these pictures are copyright infringement : The Gare des Guillemins is under copyright. Yours sincerely, --M0tty (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC) M0tty (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:20130425 liege03.JPG

And also:

• File:20130425 liege06.JPG
• File:20131229 liege09.JPG

I'm very sorry, but these pictures are copyright infringement : The Gare des Guillemins is under copyright. Yours sincerely, --M0tty (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC) M0tty (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:20120518 liege13.JPG

I'm very sorry, but the roof extension of the opera is under copyright. Yours sincerely, --M0tty (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC) M0tty (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:20141004 liege126.JPG

File:20141004 liege126.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera ^(talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Alsace

Bonjour,

lorsque vous créez une catégorie "Haut-Rhin", ayez toujours soin de vérifier que d'autres villes que Mulhouse puissent y être intégrées, je pense notamment aux vélos ( vous avez négligé Colmar ) et puis aussi à l'intégrer aux catégories "in Alsace" qui existent également dans la plupart des cas. Sans cela, vos efforts restent isolés et mal intégrés - ce que Mulhouse ne souhaite pas être ! :)

Cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:20110616 antwerp44.jpg

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lake_Pamvotis_(Ioannina)

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

C messier (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

category question

Why do you add [2] "Stairs in NRW" AND "Stairs in Germany" (not the only example)? Have you ever read COM:OVERCAT? --A.Savin 20:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that all these categories of architectural elements by type and location can evolve and integrate into this category: Category:Architectural elements in Germany. In my view, the purpose of categories is not to hide images in pyramid categories but to create cross-links that allow fast searches, even for those who, for example, do not master perfectly all the nesting of administrative divisions Germany.--Jean Housen 20:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point? I'm perfectly fine with our existing policy on categorization. You may create sth. like "Stairs in Germany by city" if you wish, but do not violate COM:OVERCAT! --A.Savin 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello?? --A.Savin 12:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Staircase - treppenhaus (135589271).jpg

Would you please read the description of the file ("Staircase in the Volkshochschule Tempelhof-Schöneberg in Berlin") and after that explain me why you categorize it entirely to Cologne? Either you have not understood that those two cities are 700 kilometres far from each other or you are committing willingy vandalism. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:19090902 dirschau eydtkuhnen diplodocus.jpg

File:19090902 dirschau eydtkuhnen diplodocus.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dormers

Hi Jeanhousen. I noticed you created Category:Dormers in 2014 but Category:Dormer windows already existed. I think all images in Dormers should be moved to Dormer windows and Dormers be made into a redirect. Thanks for helping. Jim Derby (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:20150412 liege029.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:20150412 liege029.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:19120916 essen stadttheater.jpg

File:19120916 essen stadttheater.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:20110824 liege03.jpg

File:20110824 liege03.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2A02:2788:44:A1D:6808:C2F9:988D:A46E 11:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Je suis d'accord avec toi concernant la demande de suppression de la photo : du grand n'importe quoi. Soit cependant attentif de ne pas supprimer des commentaires, surtout que le miens est favorable au maintient de la photo. N'oublies pas de signer tes propres commentaires. Bien à toi. --H₂O^(talk) 13:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Désolé pour le commentaire supprimé : il a été placé pendant que je rédigeais et j'ai pas saisi de suite pourquoi j'ai dû replacer le mien car la page avait été modifiée entre temps :-)--Jean Housen 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Files by User:Wayne77/Monde/Grèce

Bonjour,

Merci de pas modifier MES catégories personnelles... Cordialement - --Wayne77 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Palamidi_castle:_views_on_Nafplion

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

C messier (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Logoudi

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

C messier (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:19061214 dresden albertplatz.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:19061214 dresden albertplatz.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:19061214 dresden albertplatz.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:20150724 libramont285.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:20150724 libramont285.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:20150815 liege01.jpg and others

Hi, all those files should be renamed, but not because of the date... On Commons names should describe as well as possible the object on the photo, for example: "Mercedes C330 coupe, Liege 20150805.jpg". The name of the city tells nothing -- it can't help other users in browsers.

Bonjour,

tous ces fichiers doivent être renommés, mais pas à cause de la date ... Sur les noms des communes doivent décrire aussi bien que possible l'objet sur la photo, par exemple: "Mercedes C330 coupé, Liège 20150805.jpg". Le nom de la ville dit rien - il ne peut pas aider les autres utilisateurs dans les navigateurs de trouver ce qu'ils recherchent. Wieralee (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

== Quelle confusion mentale  : les noms de fichiers ne doivent pas nécessairement refléter la complexité et les multiples informations contenues dans la photographie ; si vous privilégiez le contenu "immédiat", vous effacez les autres informations ; basiquement, une photo, c'est capturer un moment en un lieu : voilà pourquoi je nomme mes photos sur 2 critères : la date et le lieu. Ensuite, j'utilise les catégories pour affiner le classement de la photo. Pourquoi est-ce que "Mercédès 330 etc" devrait-il prévaloir sur le fait que la photo a été prise à Liège le 5 août 2015 : je ne suis pas un collectionneur d'album Pannini.--Jean Housen 21:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:20150904 sart tilman005.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:20150904 sart tilman005.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Jeanhousen

du kümmerst dich im Augenblick besonders um meine Bilder aus Thasos. Finde ich gut. Wieso hast du bei Medien in der Kategorie „xy in Thasos“ die frühen Jahre vergessen, z.B. aus 1.7.4 Thasos lead, zinc, silver mines aus dem Jahr 1920 ? Gruß --- Haubi (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC) == Well, it's done now :-) I find very interesting your photos: this is a good overview of daily life in Thasos ; most documentaries photos on wikimedia are very repetitive (the same monuments, places that all tourists visit , ...). Here one has a view of the rarest and least photographed aspects , such as economic activity that is the reality of a region and its inhabitants . --Jean Housen 16:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse, why didn't you answer my question ? --- Haubi (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Catégories

Bonjour, un grand merci pour cet excellent et minutieux travail de catégorisation ! JeanBono (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhônexpress TGV

Le Rhônexpress n´est pas un train mais un tram. Un autre probleme est que la gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry ne se trouve pas dans Lyon n y meme dans l´aglomeration de Lyon, mais dans la commune de Colombier-Saugnieu. D´autre part pour la categorisation ont n´est pas tellement stricte.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mairies in France

Bonjour Jeanhousen. J'ai l'impression que tu as un peu oublié le côté anglophone dominant de commons, ces derniers temps. La category:Mairies in France existait déjà sous la forme category:Town halls in France et n'avait donc pas à être créée. Et il me semble donc que la category:Mairies in France by city devrait être renommée en category:Town halls in France by city. Cordialement. Père Igor (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonsoir. Je n'ai pas du tout perdu de vue que les catégories s'énoncent en anglais : il me paraît simplement que dans le cas des bâtiments de pouvoir et/ou d'administration communale/municipale, le terme "Town hall" peut bien sûr regrouper sous son égide un certain nombre de sous-catégories, pour certaines desquelles il n'existe pas de mots de traduction exact en anglais, car les bâtiments, dans un certain nombre de cas, c'est comme les personnes : cela porte un nom et/ou un prénom, qui ne se traduisent pas et qui sont souvent liés à un contexte culturel. En allemand par exemple, ce qu'on appelle "château" en français se distingue entre "schloss" (château de plaisance) et "burg" (château-fort). Tous les "palazzi" véntiens ne sont pas des "Palaces" au sens de Versailles, de Buckingham, de Blenheim, etc.

Dans le cas des bâtiments communaux en France, la distinction entre "Hôtel de ville" (au sens premier = les édifices qui marquent l'émancipation de la bourgeoisie, avec leurs beffrois ; ou au sens des édifices à la rhétorique affirmée des grandes villes industrielles du XIXe siècle, qui recourent pour leur hôtels de ville à tout le répertoire de l'éclectisme architectural) et "Mairie" traduit non seulement une différence de statut, mais aussi des typologies architecturales bien spécifiques, comme par exemple le très intéressant cas des mairie-écoles, ou des mairie-lavoirs, qui correspondent aussi à des contextes historiques et socio-culturel.

Donc j'essaie d'ouvrir mes yeux et je vois que dans le grand sac des "Town halls" il y a plein de choses très différentes, que j'essaie de ranger avec la plus grande pertinence, car il me semble que catégoriser c'est en quelque sorte créer du sens en assemblant des choses appareillables ; je ne vois donc pas du tout en quoi il faudrait supprimer ces catégories distinctives, qui, à l'aune des 36.000 communes de France, pourraient rassembler des photos de séries de bâtiments ayant entre eux des trais communs... --Jean Housen 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Moi ce sue je vois, c'est qu'un petit tour sur des dictionnaires basiques (Larousse, Petit Robert) indique que le nom générique du bâtiment est mairie, et que hôtel de ville n'est qu'une mairie particulière (celle d'une ville, étonnant non ? ), donc que la catégorisation actuelle n'est pas correcte. De plus, certaines municipalités ambitieuses ont fait graver à une certaine époque « Hôtel de ville » sur leur façade même si la commune en question est loin d'avoir été, ou d'être, qualifiée de ville. Père Igor (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Town hall of " vs "Mairie de"

Bonjour Jeanhousen

je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous renommez les categories "Town hall of xxx" par "Mairie de xxx " sachant qu'il est convenu que d'une manière générale on donnera un nom en anglais aux catégories communes à un maximum de langues.

D'autant plus que l'expression anglaise "Town hall" inclut les expressions françaises "hotel de ville" et "mairie".

Ce sujet ayant fait l'objet de très lognues discussions, je reverte vos changemenets (non discutés préalablement ou non justifies en commentaires) pour les categories don't je suis le créateur intial

Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lisez le commentaire juste au dessus ; par ailleurs il est TOUT-A-FAIT erroné de dire que "Town halls" englobe "Mairies" et "Hôtels de ville"' : pourquoi existe-t-il des mots différents, si ce n'est pour cerner des choses différentes ? voir la remarque ci-dessous à propos des "schloss" et "burg" en allemand qui sont des "castles" mais d'un type très différent : je pourrais multiplier les exemples à l'infini. Je ne suis pas du tout opposé à une uniformisation par l'anglais, mais quand elle crée un perte de sens, il faut recourir à des dénominations appropriées. --Jean Housen 17:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

En français (en France), le terme "hôtel de ville" indique précisément le bâtiment ou le siege de la mairie - le mot "mairie" étant l'organisme municipal. Mais il est vrai que l'on emploe souvent le mot "mairie" pour parler du bâtiment.

Ce n'est pas une raison pour casser les catégories mises en place depuis des années et surtout (sauf si j'ai raté quelque chose) de procéder à des changements aussi profonds dans les arborescences des categories sans concertation préalable. Ce que vous venez de faire a de très fortes conséquences que vous n'avez peut-être pas mesurées.

Il existe énormément de categories ayant des noms en anglais dans Common et qui englobent des lieux, des personnes, des objets,... situés en France. C'est un choix communautaire pour qu'une certaine uniformité de classification puisse profiter à un maximum de contributeurs ou d'utilisateurs de photos de Commons.

Je ne suis donc absolument pas d'accord avec vos choix de noms ni votre méthode de contribution

Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Je viens de voir que vous avez procédez de la sorte (remplacement de ""Town hall of xxx" par "Mairie de xxx ") pour de nombreuses sous-catéegories relatives aux communes françaises. Comptez-vous faire la même chose pour "Churches of xxx", "Streets of xxx", "Train stations in xxx", "Bridges in xxx", "Buildings in xxx", "Events in xxx", "Landscapes of xxx", "History of xxx", (et j'en passe des dizaines et des dizaines) où "xxx" est le nom d'une commune française ? Si tel est votre projet, je vous souhaite bon courage.

Il serait sage, avant que les retours en arrière deviennent vraiment trop compliqués, que vous procédiez vous-même aux retours aux noms précédents. --Poudou99 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparemment, vous soutaitez poursuivre vos changements de catégories unilatéralement. Ne pensez-vous pas cependant qu'il serait consensuel d'en discuter plus largement, notamment sur le bistro de Common (vous avez remarqué que nous sommes deux à vous avoir fait part de notre désaccord initial). --Poudou99 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Je vous invite tous à venir en parler au bistro. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 21:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)