User talk:N.Longo

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, N.Longo!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Crassula alpestris.jpg

Copyright status: File:Crassula alpestris.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula alpestris.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 21:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories

According to Commons:Categories#Modularity_principle "the files should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)" - in case of files with plant species - put them only in their own categories, not also genus, family, all plants... Kenraiz (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula bergioides.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula bergioides.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula bergioides.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/15215178. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula badspoortensis plant.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula badspoortensis plant.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula badspoortensis plant.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/90589646. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula barbata flowers.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula barbata flowers.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula barbata flowers.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/85344991. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula barbata.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula barbata.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula barbata.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/104756637. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula barklyi flowers.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula barklyi flowers.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula barklyi flowers.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/15173080. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula deceptor small plants.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula deceptor small plants.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula deceptor small plants.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/31144599. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula deceptor with conophytum calculus.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula deceptor with conophytum calculus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula deceptor with conophytum calculus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/31144597. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crassula dentata leaves.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crassula dentata leaves.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Crassula dentata leaves.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-nd-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/58577319. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Crassula columnaris on a stamp.jpg

File:Crassula columnaris on a stamp.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!

Htonl (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dogi di Genova

Ciao N.Longo, intanto già ti ringrazio per il lavoro che stai facendo sulla categorizzazione dei dogi genovesi. In it:wiki mi sto occupando di una revisione delle voci dopo tanto tempo, voci che ai tempi avevo creato io. Ecco, ho solo un dubbio sulla categorizzazione: perché mettere la versione Category Doges of Genoa|Giustiniani, Luca (che sicuramente è corretto, eh...) quando basterebbe solamente il cognome? Dico questo perché poi, nella categoria Doges of Genova, la categorizzazione alfabetica risulta poi non in ordine alfabetico e, nel caso dei Giustiniani, il doge Luca Giustiniani finisce in fondo elenco dopo Giustiniani Longo e Giustiniani Moneglia, quando andrebbe invece in cima. Cosa che accadrebbe se lasciassimo solo il cognome nella categoria - senza il cognome, nome - in quanto il sistema farebbe poi da solo la giusta categorizzazione alfabetica. Chiedo così per informativa... :-) --Dapa19 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dapa19: le key in realtà sono un piallativo temporaneo considerando che su Commons la categorizzazione è data dall'infobox ma, mancando una serie di proprietà su wd (delle quali mi occuperò a breve), ciò non viene fatto correttamente. Direi che il tl opera nella categorizzazione automatica con un ordine simile ma, comunque, con le key così messe si mantiene per il momento l'uniformità infra-categoria con quanto era già stato fatto; salûi. --N.Longo (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Postcards

Thanks for uploading postcards. Did you know Commons:WikiProject Postcards? Best regards --sk (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: Yes and I have to (assuming that you're one of the founders of the project) thank you for creating its main page, I've found it very helpful. I'd like to ask only a question: for the categorization of Italian postcards by year would be, in your opinion, a nice idea to divide them by region (maybe, sometimes, also by city), like the German ones? Alêgri! N.Longo (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hallo N.Longo, thanks for the info that the projectpage was helpful. If you want you can insert your name as Project participants. My main focus at the moment is the sorting by topography. (Countries, regions, subregions, cities, ...) Becouse I think the most user will search postcards by this topography. But some user will find maybe all postcards of Rome from 1905. So it is a good idea to divide this in regions. At the moment I create subregion everytime, but deeper like for cities only if I found 8 images. I think later when we have more postcards, then we have also for every city an one category. Best regards --sk (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: Thanks for the reply; I think that for now I'll follow your advice since actually there aren't so many postcards of Italy to justify the creation of these new categories, I'll keep uploading new ones, salûi! --N.Longo (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

template:Bad name

Hi. If you are moving a category that has been around for a long time, please don't tag the originating place as {{Bad name}}, please leave as {{Category redirect}}. That second template serves a purpose and the consensus of the community is clear on the matter. Bad name should only used for clear cases of a bad name, not a convenience. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst Salûi! Thanks for noticing it, since it always worked I thought it was the right way to delete non-standard categories. I would only point out that, imho, these cases aren't mentioned in COM:REDCAT (the only explicit limit for categories that had not to be deleted this way referes to different cases), since users with a bit of experience I think that at first will search for the standard name (in these case, of church buildings/oratories etc.) while "new user that (my addition) might try to use the old category by accident", assuming that they know how to use categories, would probably search for a full name of the object, and so we'll have to create hundreds of redirects, that's why I don't see the point to keep these pages. Anyway thanks for the advice, best regards! --N.Longo (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Help:HotCat explains how that gadget works, and where a new name is significantly different how the redirect category means anyone following the old cat will have the new cat assigned. If the first x many characters of an old and new are the same and it is easy to find the new cat in HotCat then it becomes less of an issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Paintings in the Gallery of Palazzo Rosso (Genova)

Category:Paintings in the Gallery of Palazzo Rosso (Genova) 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 category, 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. 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!

In addition, I noticed that you've made a malformed deletion request. Here, {{Delete}} is not for speedy deletion, please see COM:DP. When you want to delete a page by manually using the {{Delete}} template (rather than the automatic Nominate for deletion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests), please remember to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy), otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Hi and thanks for reporting it; it wouldn't mean to be a speedy deletion but I've clearly made some mistake; surely next time I'll use the automatic procedure, salûi N.Longo (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ringraziamenti

Ciao, invece di cliccare il ringraziamento sulle singole modifiche che hai fatto aggiungendo o modificando categorie relative alla Liguria e/o spostando le immagini in categorie più precise, lo faccio qui, fa sempre piacere vedere che altri utenti danno una mano nel lavoro sporchissimo. Di una cosa ti prego, pur con la consapevolezza che alle volte sembra un lavoro dalla fnalità oscura se non proprio inutile. Forse avrai notato che inserisco delle categorie "per data di scatto", e l'ho iniziato a fare anni fa dopo che mi ero reso conto che i bot avevano riempito megacategorie di immagini per data senza riferimento geografico, alle volte con migliaia e migliaia di immagini. In quello stato quelle categorie non hanno molto senso di esistere perché anche con la migliore buona volontà è difficile trovare qual che si cerca se la quantità di immagini è così sovrabbondante, poi mi sono reso anche conto che mettendo le date precise, dove queste siano disponibili dai dati Exif, sono riuscito a categorizzare migliaia di immagini orfane o che erano finite in supermacrocategorie (IMO inutili o quasi) tipo Category:Churches dove dubito vi sia qualche altro pazzo come me che ogni tanto va a rovistare. Facendo facili ricerche incrociate si riesce in base alla data e all'autore dello scatto a risalire alla zona e, grazie anche a Google Maps, a dare una più corretta categorizzazione e nomefile, di conseguenza una più facile individuazione dell'immagine a chi la volesse riutilizzare, nei progetti Wikimedia e non, in quanto questo per me è il fulcro del progetto Commons (o non sarebbe molto diverso da un qualsiasi contenitore di immagini alla Flickr). Concludendo, scusa del pippone, se mi dai una mano anche a categorizzare per data mi faresti un grosso piacere, inserendo alla fine del {{Taken on}} |cat=|location=Italy}} per sostarla dalla categoria generica a quella delle foto in Italia, e aggiungere dove mancassero le categoria (esempio) Category:Train stations in Italy photographed in 2018, Category:Churches in Italy photographed in 2020, Category:Italy photographs taken on 2020-01-19, Category:June 2009 in Imperia o Category:June 2009 in Savona con lo schema mese-anno-città (io per ora lo sto facendo con i capoluoghi di provincia (o ex provincia, vedi Friuli-Venezia Giulia) e città metropolitane. Se poi mancano i template di base c'è da crearne di nuovi, ma sostanzialmente copianicollando e adattando quelli che già ci sono si risolve il problema (eventualmente chiedi a me o guarda i miei contributi). Grazie per l'attenzione :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: Salûi e gràçie a ti, anche se opero principalmente in un'area ben più limitata non ho potuto fare a meno di notare i tuoi contributi praticamente ovunque, immaginando che sia così anche per le altre regioni non posso che dire di come si tratti di un lavoro impressionante! Un poco di maneggi sui tl per la categorizzazione in anni ho dovuto impararli per forza di cose; tempo permettendo, ultimamente ero dietro a sistemare Sanremo ma ovunque si guardi c'è sempre da fare..

Tornando sul punto, avevo già cominciato a recuperare immagini da categorie generali, principalmente quelle dei file non ancora categorizzati, ma devo ancora comprendere appieno le varie funzionalità di ricerca dato che passare i file uno ad uno in categorie così ampie non mi sembra una grande idea. Come chiudo il grosso dei lavori al momento in corso inizio a rovistare tra le categorie generali per data; tendenzialmente terrei lo stesso ambito geografico (alla fine il mio lavoro qua è principalmente di supporto a lij.wiki) ma comunque vedrò di fare il possibile anche per file di altre regioni; conoscendole molto meno non penso sarà un grande aiuto ma per questioni di base come le categorizzazioni per data non c'è problema. Per concludere vorrei sapere se, oltre alle generali per data, vi siano altre categorie nelle quali andare a cercare, di modo da non perdersi dei pezzi per strada. Restando a disposizione, mi diéiva ancón gràçie e scignorîa ò, cómme dîxan da viâtri, sałudi! --N.Longo (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In realtà su immagini della Liguria c'è ancora molto da fare, sia perché ce ne sono tante, dato che c'è un utente negli anni molto attivo nel far foto dalle tue parti, ma che ha iniziato tardi a sottocategorizzare in maniera più dettagliata. Benché vi sia una regola non scritta che vuole che qqui in Commons le categorie contengano (ben) più di una sola immagine, alle volte ritengo necessario fare un'eccezione alla regola se, ad esempio, si scova una foto di un dipinto di uno specifico pittore, vedi rovistando tra le foto inserite in una singola categoria per chiesa (ecco perché alle volte faccio anche la categoria dell'interno della chiesa, serve per andare a caccia di specifiche tele e specifici pittori, venendo aiutati anche dalla dedicazione dei singoli altari (se uno è dedicato a San Rocco è quasi scontato che vi sia una pala di San Rocco come "supporto grafico" al fedele)). Quindi se resti in ambito regionale ne hai fino a stufarti (ma non farlo, se vedi che inizia ad essere noioso stacca per un po' o rischi che ti si rompa il giocattolo, parlo per esperienza). Se mi vedi capitare in una delle immagini e/o categorie che hai sistemato non vedermi come "un saccente maestrino con la penna rossa", semmai analizza il motivo della modifica (di solito hanno un senso ;-) ) e replicalo su altri tuoi "lavori sporchi". Grazie per il saluto, da un "Natalino Balasso" a un "Gilberto Govi" e viceversa :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: Grazie per i consigli e sì, ho notato più volte che, a differenza di chi lavora su ambiti più ampi, usando un approccio regionale mi organizzo in modo differente; il che mi porta tendenzialmente ad essere più conservativo sulla creazione di nuove categorie dato che, riordinate le immagini nelle categorie a livello ligure, passo a quelle per comune solo nei casi in cui ve ne sia un certo numero. Per le opere d'arte fortunatamente c'è un utente che sta facendo un ottimo lavoro con quelle conservate a Genova e, essendo un tema sul quale non ho alcuna competenza, penso proprio che col tempo riporterò quell'organizzazione anche per altri comuni, copiandola pedestremente :D N.Longo (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Descrizioni BEIC

Ciao N. Longo, se per caso noti altre categorie rosse come questa, quella parte puoi eventualmente spostarla in descrizione (originariamente sarebbe dovuta finire lì). Un caro saluto,--Spinoziano (BEIC) (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spinoziano (BEIC): Saluti e grazie per l'annotazione; in tal caso vedrò di dare un'occhiata alle foto dove sono già passato per recuperare le altre descrizioni, scignorîa! --N.Longo (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Grazie, gentilissimo! Preciso che le descrizioni utili sono quelle con parole divise da un punto (esempio), mentre quelle con i trattini si possono semplicemente rimuovere, come hai fatto bene a fare qui, ma appunto credo che tu l'abbia già notato :D Grazie ancora,--Spinoziano (BEIC) (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spinoziano (BEIC): Vedo che hai preceduto la mia domanda, perfetto :) Inoltre, è questione di poco conto ma nel mentre si può fare senza problemi, è da aggiungere anche il {{int:filedesc}} in cima alla descrizione? Per ora non lo sto toccando ma se è preferibile ci vuole poco ad aggiungerlo, böna! --N.Longo (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Intendi come titolo di sezione? Sì, certo, e mi accorgo solo adesso che l'intestazione "Dettagli" manca in molte immagini BEIC, hai ragione! :O Grazie, --Spinoziano (BEIC) (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spinoziano (BEIC): Segnalo che con le ultime modifiche ho concluso una prima sistemazione delle foto nella categoria di mia competenza, spero più avanti di riuscire ad aggiungere anche un minimo di dati strutturati (per i titoli sezione delle descrizioni non ho molto idea di come funzioni su Commons ma immagino sia uno dei classici lavori per i quali chiedere il passaggio di un bot).

PS: nel caso, prima o poi, tiraste fuori "dal cappello" altre belle immagini della Liguria mi metto sin d'ora a disposizione per la loro riordinazione :D, cordialissimi saluti, alêgri! --N.Longo (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Grande, meriti più di un ringraziamento! A presto, --Spinoziano (BEIC) (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Durazzo Family Coat of Arms.svg

Hi and thank you for your reset! Please note, that the white color drifts out of the frame on the left side. Can you fix it please? Kind regards, ~~~ – Doc Taxon Disk. • 05:53, 29. Jun 2022 (UTC)

@Doc Taxon: Hi and thanks for reporting the layout problem, I hadn't noticed it! Unfortunately I'm not able to edit a svg file, I'll try to contact the author of this CoA, alêgri! --N.Longo (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

oh, the user is not really online at Wikipedia/Commons any more. But I'm able to fix it. – Doc Taxon Disk. • 09:27, 29. Jun 2022 (UTC)

Belin che occhio

Vedere che la foto era degli anni 80 mica era facile (ok le auto, ok la colorazione, ma lo striscione m'era proprio sfuggito), mitico :-) (arrivooooooooo) :-) --teatroge (dm) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Teatroge: E de cöse; ad averci il tempo per far tutto nel dettaglio ci sarebbe una mole indicibile di lavoro tra qua e wd, per cui sono minuzie sulle quali di rado mi ci riesco a soffermare; basta vedere, per un lavoro abbastanza completo su un numero non elevatissimo di file, da quanto tempo son piantato su Savona ː)

Allego inoltre i miei complimenti per il riordino, quanto mai necessario, su Via Venti, avevo giusto sistemato Deffe zenéize viâxo eh ːD ed edifici confinanti ma nulla di più, ne ho già abbastanza limitandomi alla Riviera di qua (comunque l'é ciæo che, laddove servisse un mano per delle categorie un po' ampie, basta chiedere e mi aggrego volentieri). Se sentìmmo fîto, bonaǃ N.Longo (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Noack, Alfred (1833-1895) - n. 8554 - Genova - R. Marina Italiana. Incroc. Coatit.png

Hi N.Longo, I came across this image, and noticed an obvious problem with the description. The photo is pretty clearly mislabeled as a work of A. Noack, given that the photograph couldn't possibly have been taken until 5 years after Noack died (he died in 1895, and work on the ship did not even start until 1897, and it was not completed until 1900). The photo does appear to be of the ship in question, so the photographer must be wrong. Do you have any other information about the image that might help us track the right name down? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Parsecboy, thanks for reporting itǃ Unfortunately, I have not found much to narrow down the date of this photograph or to identify the author; Noack's atelier, since 1895 run by his son Ernesto Gualtiero and Carlo Paganini, continued to operate under his name until 1926, when it closed and the atelier's collection was donated to the Municipality of Genoa. This is not the case, but Carlo Paganini seems to have also published a number of photographs taken by Noack himself, so I am not sure that even photos with a date such as No. 6918 (September 1892) were published with a serial number consistent with the date of the shot. I could only assume that the photo is post-1900 since the long building on the right (the "Magazzini del Cotone") is completed or nearly so, considering that its foundations were laid in 1899 and it was inaugurated in 1901 (ref). Therefore, as Ernesto Gualtiero died in 1903, leaving the running of the atelier to Carlo Paganini alone until his death in 1926 (ref, although not that reliable), it's likely the latter that took it; bonaǃ N.Longo (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought to check the buildings in the background (but I probably don't have enough knowledge to be able to track these things down!). Based on the paint scheme, it must have been toward the later end of the range (Coatit was scrapped in 1920). Compare to this photo of the sistership Agordat; the black and buff paint scheme was typical for most European navies up to the 1890s/1900s. Unfortunately, I don't know when exactly the Regia Marina made the change – France made the switch from black/buff to blue-gray starting in 1908, the British did in 1902, but Germany did the same in 1895, for instance, so that doesn't help us narrow it down a whole lot. I'm not having a ton of luck looking at other photos available, but this one of Puglia is dated 1901, and it still has the black/buff scheme. I'll keep digging around to see if I can find anything more concrete. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Pesto

Ciao :-) su Commons abbiamo Category:Pesto (per quello genovese) e Category:Things named after pesto (per tutti gli altri). Non si potrebbe/dovrebbe uniformare a it.wiki, dove "Pesto" è il termine generico per un condimento pestato, e poi c'è il pesto genovese come caso più rappresentativo? --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 11:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Superchilum: Salüiǃ Nel riordino complessivo della categoria mi son semplicemente rifatto all'ordinamento/significato preesistente, da una seconda occhiata ho comunque l'impressione che sia meglio così: al di fuori di it.wiki non c'è progetto dove per "questo" pesto ci sia disambigua rispetto ai condimenti per la prima parte omonimi. Inoltre terrei nome e ordinamento ripresi da en.wiki per COM:CAT#Category names, comunque va da sé che trattasi della mera impressione del sottoscritto, pe cuntu mè m'adatto alla soluzione che sarà ritenuta più opportuna (nel caso rinominando anche le subcats, ofc). Chiudo complimentandomi per l'evento fotografico organizzato, c'era una notevole mancanza di foto di qualità sull'argomentoǃ --N.Longo (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

ps: per chiarezza, la "Things named after pesto" serve solo come sottocategoria (standard) di raccordo tra "questo" pesto e ciò che da esso ha preso parte del nome, "gli altri" ovviamente sono considerati in primo luogo come salse a sé, con il nesso così chiarito che è prettamente di tipo etimologico.

Un compromesso potrebbe essere:

• Pesto sauces
  • Pesto [quello genovese NDR]
  • Pesto trapanese
  • Pesto di rucola
  • ecc.

Cosa ne pensi? --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 13:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Superchilum: a mio modestissimo parere è una valida soluzione per avere il Commons di d:Q114645430 (nel mentre si potrebbe creare anche la dab), sarebbe inoltre da controllare (più per wp che qua, comunque porterebbe di riflesso ad una categorizzazione più precisa) se e quali degli altri "pesti" prendano effettivamente il nome da quello ligustico, sia per ragioni storiche - come si sostiene nella pagina di quello trapanese, fontata per modo di dire - che per recenti scelte di marketing; ho provato a verificare la questione ma le competenze e la bibliografia nel campo sono pressochè nulle, grasie e bonaǃ --N.Longo (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Va bene, intanto possiamo cominciare con l'abbozzare quel ramo di categorie :-) per quanto riguarda il pesto, sia Treccani sia Sapere parlano in generale di battuto, e solo come caso particolare quello genovese, ma non indicano prestiti di nome. Servono fonti sicuramente più specialistiche. Grazie e buona serata :-) --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)