User talk:Paulo rsmenezes/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Copyright status: File:Flôres em Arambaré.JPG
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Flôres em Arambaré.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) 14:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Flôres em Arambaré.JPG
|
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Flôres em Arambaré.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) 14:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Identificação de bandeira e outros
Paz e bem!
1 É a bandeira do Vaticano, já categorizei-a.
2 Que tipo de a judas precisas?
Em todo o caso eu uso a minha própria página pessoal
para notas e referências -- fica estranho, mas não tô nem aí.
3 A categorização em Photographs by Paulo RS Menezes é automática?
Caso afirmativo como fizestes?
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Categorização de Igrejas
Paz e bem!
Por favor fotos ou categorias de igrejas
categorize pela geografia (cidade, estado, país)
e pelo patrono (e.g. Igrejas de Santa Rita de Cassia)
E quando criares categorias no nome já indiques petrono e geografia
(e.g. Igreja Santa Rita de Cassia, Morro da Borússia, Osório, Brasil)
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Category:Zea_mays_farming_in_Rio_Grande_do_Sul 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! |
Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Zea_mays_farming_in_Brazil 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! |
Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| Para a foto da Igreja Matriz São João Batista em Camaquã! Aarp65 (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| Para a foto da Secretaria Municipal de Educação em Camaquã! Aarp65 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
Hello Paulo, i am sorting some heritage/history/buildings/sites categories at the moment (many countries, aspects). I hope you can help me, because you created most of the subcategories for Category:Historic buildings in Brazil. Can you tell me what the criteriums are for "Historic buildings in Brazil"?
Is it for every historic = "more or less old" building in Brazil? if yes, how old (built before which year)? Or are there official registers for these buildings (like for cultural heritage monuments)? if yes, can you give a link for more information? (i did not find a official term for "historic buildings" or one list in ptwiki where many of the images are used, but i don't speak Portuguese)
Also, can you maybe have a look at Category talk:Historical buildings and Category talk:Historic buildings? The problem with the name "historic buildings" is that it is very broad (too broad) and nearly every already existing building can be called historic because it was built in the past (= not today or not in the future). An other problem is, that sometimes people (mis)understand "historic" as "no more existing" (we have other categories for this, "abandoned/former/destroyed/ruined etc" buildings).
So i think it would make sense
- either to put these "historic buildings in Brazil" categories in Category:Listed buildings by country (only if true, and then the name has to be changed a little bit to the official term, maybe "registered/protected historic buildings" or so)
- or to adapt the contents to fit into the standard category scheme Category:Architecture of Brazil by century (and subcategories "built in Brazil in…" decades/years etc, see Category:Buildings in Brazil by year of completion).
Holger1959 (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- thank you very much for the helpful reply and the suggestions! Holger1959 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- now Category:Historic buildings in Brazil is a disambiguation, and for Category:Historic buildings in Rio Grande do Sul by city i changed this. Maybe you can decide later if you could change all the subcategories there from "Historic buildings in [city]" to "Cultural heritage monuments in [city]"? Or to a similar category name if you know a better translation for this kind of building protection status in Brazil? Holger1959 (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)