User talk:LBM1948/Archive 2

Category:Association football ball boys

Hi there. Our Category:Association football ball boys is for images of boys who help with the players to give them back the balls that go out of the football pit. It is not for kids who are playing football. Please kindly remove that cat from the File:Abd al-Qádir 16.jpg and in these cases use instead categories about children playing, children with balls etc. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

CML

Ora então, o que é que se passou aqui? Trata-se claramente de veículos em serviço municipal, claramente indicado. Qual o motivo para descategorizar? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Narrow_houses

Narrow houses 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

E4024 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Writings_in_Uzbek

Category:Writings_in_Uzbek 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

E4024 (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Stubbles

Category:Stubbles 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!

El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2019 (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:Liubliana 40.jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:05, 9 March 2019 (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:Liubliana 06.jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Torres del Paine, Grey 16.jpg

Hi LBM1948, try to re-upload this image, as it shows JPEG file corruption. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Categorization

I noticed you removed several categories in Lisbon photos recently — example. Please do not do that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Niagara falls

Not sure I agree with [1]. Assuming Viewmaster counts as "stereo cards", the main reason these are all so old is just that newer images would still be in copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Andamos a brincar

, …é? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Não estou "brincando", querido companheiro (ou devo dizer Ex.mo Senhor?)

Estou respeitando o direito dos usuários a encontrar cardos em uma categoria de cardos: Commons é um repositório de imagens e não um artigo de filologia. Para as imagens da Rua do Cardal acho que você devia usar uma categoria do tipo "Things named after..."

Não vou entrar em uma guerra de edições; eu acho que você deveria refletir sobre isto.

--LBM1948 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Refleti e, tendo refletido, decidi categorizar assim mesmo. Quando existir uma Category:Things named after thistle groves esta deverá ser o elo intermediário entre Category:Rua do Cardal de São José e Category:Thistle groves. Ficam assim salvaguardados os direitos de todos — já que esse de que fala está já acautelado: Ninguém espera seriamente encontrar imagens de cravos em subcategorias de que têm também como categorias-mãe várias Category:Streets… etc. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Why has Category:Door security in the Netherlands been deleted?

Why has Category:Door security in the Netherlands been deleted? How could we now indicate in the categories that Category:Peepholes in the Netherlands (or in Belgium) is about door security in the Netherlands? And I guess there were other categories with this category as a parent category. Could this deletion be undone? JopkeB (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@JopkeB: As matter of fact, that "category" never existed; it was in red. Then, someone pretended to create it but didn't do it right. If you think it's necessary, do it yourself; but consider before that there is no categories type Door security by country. Sorry for the inconvenience

--LBM1948 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@LBM1948: Thanks for the explanation. I was forgotten that this category did not exist. I'll make it. JopkeB (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi LBM1948/Archive 2,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi LBM1948/Archive 2,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Correo

Te he respondido a tu correo electrónico.MONUMENTA Talk 14:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Marching in Luxembourg"

Hi LBM1948, I have removed the assigning of a few of your pictures of "Vianden, Fiesta Nacional" from the category "Marching in Luxembourg" because the category "Marching" is related to the category "Military culture". In the case of your pictures the marching has nothing to do with military culture and therefore Marching in Luxembourg is not the correct designation. Better would be "Parades in Luxembourg" or something similar. --MMFE (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@MMFE:

I understand your position and, to a certain extent, I support it. In this sense, all images other than military marching should be moved, like this: [[2]]

Will you do it?

On the other hand, I believe that logic and semantics must prevail over the actions of Commons users in the past: nothing in the verb " to march" definition restricts it to military marches; herefore, the category of "military culture" could also be removed and a specific category must be created for them: "Military marching" or similar.

You might also notice that in the "Parades" category there are also a lot of soldiers marching (even in the infobox)

If you want, we can work together to organize and clean up both categories

--LBM1948 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@LBM1948:

Thanks for your understanding of my position and i also agree with your position that marching is not limited by definition to military uses, but it means a kind of walking in ordered groups. So the problem should be solved by removing the connection of marching to military culture. I have seen now that there are already a few subcategories designated for marches in relaton with military culture.

Your proposal to work together to clean-up the categories is ok for me but should not end in an endless work to verify hundreds of pictures.

--MMFE (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Fossil ripple marks

Hi LBM1948, I think that the Category:Fossil ripple marks should be called Category:Ancient ripple marks or something similar, because the concept of fossil should be restricted to biological origin remains or marks. Otherwise, any sedimentary structure or old depositional environment identified in the sediments should be described as "fossil". Regards, --PePeEfe (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@PePeEfe:

Tal vez tengas razón; no soy geólogo profesional. Lo único que tengo claro es que no se pueden presentar en la misma categoría (aunque estén todas dentro de "Ripple marks") las marcas del Carbonífero y los procesos actuales (y no hablo del cuaternario en general, sino los de hoy, hoy). De hecho, he dado este paso previo antes de crear la categoría: Ripple marks in stream beds,.

El problema es que, mientras la gente en general asocia "fósil" con restos petrificados de seres vivos, en geomorfología se habla a veces, por ejemplo, de dunas fósiles para designar a las que ya no se mueven (procesos pasados). En otro gremio, el de historiadores y arqueólogos, "ancient" hace referencia a la Edad Antigua y las marcas de las que estamos hablando son de decenas o centenas de miles de años antes.

Entiendo el problema, pero no veo la solución idónea. Tal vez, tú que entiendes, podrías (a la vez de o en vez de redirigir la categoría a otra denominación) escribir una notita en cabeza explicando el asunto.

--LBM1948 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo LBM1948. Estoy de acuerdo en separar las actuales de las antiguas. Se usa fósil cuando la estructura sedimentaria es fácilmente identificable por el profano, pero no cuando son estructuras que solo se interpretan por el especialista. Es una licencia coloquial que no debería extenderse, pues es un uso "artificial" y sesgado del término. Si se usa para ripples o playas, debería usarse para cualquier sedimento (lecho fluvial fósil, fondo marino fósil, abanico aluvial fósil, etc..), lo que no se hace en absoluto.

En inglés sí se usa ancient para estructuras con centenares de millones de años, como muchas de las aquí ilustradas, sin connotaciones a periodos históricos. Como ejemplo: Category:Ancient mudcracks frente a Category:Mudcracks, o en textos científicos.

Lo que no entiendo es a qué vas a hacer referencia con la categoría: Ripple marks in stream beds, puesto que todas las rizaduras (ripples) se producen en el lecho arenoso de una corriente (uni- o bidireccional). Podrían distinguirse las de agua de las de viento, aunque en las antiguas puede ser difícil y más en foto. Un saludo, --PePeEfe (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@PePeEfe:

Vayamos por partes:

1) Estando de acuerdo en lo de separar "rizaduras vivas" de "rizaduras muertas", haz lo que estimes oportuno con la categoría: Dejarla como está (con una nota) o cambiarla de nombre (con nota también). Como no veo que seas administrador o así, si creas la nueva, tendrás que solicitar el borrado de la vieja (amén de mover todas las imágenes). Yo no lo hago porque me pare que lo de "fósil" es correcto, a pesar de todo, y así lo entienden varios de los colaboradores en su definición de las imágenes, como este: [[3]] (y es un geógrafo británico)

2) Lo de los lechos fluviales es para diferenciar unas rizaduras vivas de otras: las las orillas de playas (de mar o lago). El agua, como agente mecánico, pasa en las primeras y va y viene en las segundas; y eso se nota. La aplicaría, por ejemplo a esta: [[4]]

Hasta la próxima, que "arrieritos somos..."

--LBM1948 (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola, intento contestar mañana, estoy con un fuerte trancazo.--PePeEfe (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@PePeEfe:

Al final ha llegado el superexperto y lo ha arreglado: [[5]]. Te da la razón a tí en lo del "fósil" y a mí en que deben seguir separadas las "vivas" de las "muertas" (litificadas). Y, además, redirigiendo, porque no he sido el primero, ni seré el último que se le ocurra lo de la falsa fosilización. Hasta la próxima (y cuídate): --LBM1948 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)