User talk:Periegetes

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why do you keep removing Category:Saimaa from pictures taken on Saimaa? It would be completely OK if you added a more specific category (such as Category:Puruvesi or Category:Islands of Lake Saimaa at the same time. In addition, if you disagree with my (or any other user's) edits, please explain in the Edit summary but do not just revert the changes. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 10:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I was using hotcat. There are a lot of pictures that could be categorized in Saimaa (with or without a stretch of water of Saimaa in it). Should they all be in category Saimaa? I was wondering, what is the point of categorizing a picture of a mushroom in category Saimaa? Thank for your guidance. --Periegetes (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about pictures of mushrooms (which file are you referring to?) but for example this image depicts a bridge crossing a bridge that is a part of Saimaa. So yes, it should be either directly in Category:Saimaa or preferably in a more specific subcategory if one is available. ––Apalsola tc 10:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For instance: What is relevance of this in category Saimaa? Or this? I find these irrelevant to the theme of Lake Saimaa. --Periegetes (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in answer.
First, I did not say that all your edits would be bad. I mainly referred to cases you repeatedly removed the category without giving any explanation. For example, this is an image of a bridge crossing a strait part of Saimaa, so it definitely needs to belong to Category:Saimaa (unless there exists a more specific subcategory).
For File:Boletus in Finnish forest cropped.jpg you are partially correct: it should be Category:Islands of Lake Saimaa instead of Category:Saimaa as it is taken on an island of Saimaa. ––Apalsola tc 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Nature of Lake Saimaa 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!


Apalsola tc 10:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Finland[edit]

Hei. Olen osallistunut tässä kuussa Wiki Loves Monuments -kilpailuun ja tallentanut valokuvia muun muassa Ylihärmän, Uudenkaarlepyyn, Nurmon ja Alahärmän kirkoista, jotka ovat Museoviraston Rakennusperintörekisterin kohteita sekä Orisbergin kirkosta, joka kuuluu Orisbergin ruukinalueeseen, joka on yksi Museoviraston inventoima Valtakunnallisesti merkittävät rakennetut kulttuuriympäristöt -kokoelman kohde. Sekä rakennusperintörekisterin että RKY-kohteet ovat tämänvuotisessa WLM-kilpailussa kuvattavia kohteitä ja ovat Suomen kulttuuriperintöä. WLM-kilpailun järjestäjät ovat helpottaneet kilpailuun osallistumista niin, että kuvattaviin kohteisiin tulee automaattisesti kuvia kilpailusivuston avulla tallennettaessa oikeat Commonsin kategoriat. Miksi poistit otsikon kategoriat ottamistani valokuvista? Terveisin Htm (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Htm: Kun tähän viestiin ei ole vastattu tartuin toimeen. Merkintä kuitenkin kuuluu kohteelle, eikä mielestäni yksittäisille kuville, joten laitoin kirkot perintöluokkiin (kunta- tai maakuntakohtaisiin). Saattoi jäädä osa merkitsemättä. –LPfi (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyvä muuten että kirjoitit. Löysin syksyisistä kuvistasi joitakin joita olen kaivannut. Onko ruskalle jotakin luokkaa? –LPfi (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moi! Raapustin keskustelusivullesi vastauksen. --Htm (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Hi Periegetes. 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), you must 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. please ping or talk to me 21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Palosirkka (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Palosirkka (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Smaller rivers"[edit]

What are "smaller rivers" as in Category:Rapids in smaller rivers of Finland? It isn't obvious, e.g., that Juutuanjoki is to be counted as minor on the Finnish scale. This kind of category needs a good definition, to enable people to use it.

Please add a definition to the category.

LPfi (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that! Periegetes (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "smaller rivers" is confusing if the intension is to include "rapids that do not fit into categorization by river or by watershed". And Juutuanjoki rapids would fit perfectly in Category:Rapids in Juutuanjoki or Category:Rapids in Paatsjoki basin, once either is created. On the other hand, there will probably be categories on rapids in quite small rivers, while quite big rivers might be without, especially rivers (and watersheds) not known for their rapids.
The normal way of handling this is to put files in Rapids in Finland unless there is a more specific category, and if some rapids or the rapids of some river or watershed gets many files, then create that category. "Rapids in smaller rivers of Finland‎" kind of just hides away those files, regardless of quality and importance.
There is the general problem at Commons, that files in main categories will often be those with insufficient description and about less well-known locations (so nobody will complete the description), and often of lesser quality. I don't think we should solve the problem for this one case by this category. We could have a category for truly minor rivers (brooks), which probably never will have a category and at least not a Wikipedia article other than in special cases.
LPfi (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical charts[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to ask you for your rationale behind removing the Category:Nautical charts from several files a few days ago, including for example File:Seekarte Kadetrinne.gif or File:Plateau de Rochebonne.PNG which both look very much like nautical charts to me. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
In the category there have been hundreds of files that are extracts of charts/maps of local interest mainly. When I was trying to clean the root category, I could not find appropriate sub-category/categories where to place these files. You are probably right that they should be under nautical charts, but should we then start creating sub-categories. The problem with these also is that they are in general quite poorly referenced, so finding appropriate category for them can be difficult. But ok, maybe you should revert the edits, I dunno. Periegetes (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further comment that placing files in the high-level categories, is contrary to guidelines. If everyone postring a nautical chart on here places it in the top-level category, there will be thousands and thousands of files and it will be impossible to find anything. So instead of reverting the edits, I recommend you create a relevant sub-category. Periegetes (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creating sub-categories is the right thing to do. But if files are moved away from the main category, the need becomes less obvious and the files to populate sub-categories with become hard to find. –LPfi (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I created the two per-country categories and fixed the categories of the two charts. But when I got ready to move a bunch of German and French charts to the new subcategories, I found only ten other charts in the main category. Where are the thousands and thousands of files among which these two charts would be impossible to find? We usually create subcategories only as needed, when the main categories become crowded. –LPfi (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet checked the new sub-categories, but it makes sense to have Category:Details of nautical charts as a sub both there and of Category:Details of maps, like Periegetes suggested. There were at least several more that were removed recently. (And personally, I see the limit at "hundreds", not "thousands" of maps, not to mention that categories grow a lot once they exist and can be found) Best, --Enyavar (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Enyavar, this probably is a good solution for the situation. Periegetes (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done quite a lot of cleaning there. But it is true that there is not too much for the time being. Periegetes (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How far back goes your clean-up? Was there much before May 2022? All I found in your history was the good work with the portolan charts. I now created the "Details of" cat, and moved some charts there. Also, maybe this is of interest here. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could not trace the clean-up, sorry. Thanks for the discussion and clarification in the category issue. No acute problems in this category at the moment. Periegetes (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout Commons there are categories "by country" and "by continent" that coexist, while the subcategories are in both categories. That is easy for users, they only need to see one category to find the one they are looking for. I do not know any category where that is not the case, uptill this one. (See for instance any subcategory of Category:Apartment buildings in Europe by country, they always are in this one and in Category:Apartment buildings by country.) Why is that here different? JopkeB (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did not respond, I suggest the subcategories in Category:Old maps of countries of Europe get again Category:Old maps by country as a parent as well. Without a response, I'll do so over two weeks. --JopkeB (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) ✓ Done --JopkeB (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JopkeB for setting it right. Periegetes (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Surnames from Belgium 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!


You specifically created Category:Surnames from Finland which is related. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Category:Carl Axel Gottlund gravestone[edit]

Hei. Tein kategorialle siirtopyynnön, josta voit keskustella sivulla Category talk:Carl Axel Gottlund gravestone. Vaikka Gottlund asuikin paljon Juvalla, niin (Wikipediankin mukaan) hän kuoli Helsingissä. Helsingin seurakuntayhtymän hautahaun mukaan Gottlund olisi haudattu Hietaniemeen hautaan, johon on haudattu muitakin Gottlundeja vuosina 1885-1927. Muistomerkki Juvalla ei ole hautakivi. Htm (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hei. Hienoa että jollakulla on tietoa asiasta. Kategorian korjaaminen on varmaankin paikallaan. Periegetes (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kiitos. Noo, joskus sattuu silmään jotain. Ilmeisesti tuo osa Juvan kirkon ympäristöä ei ainakaan enää ole hautausmaa. Mukavaa, että jaksat pukertaa täällä. -- Htm (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kerimäen ison kirkon urut 3.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!

Periegetes (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old-maps category[edit]

I'm confused. Is File:Providence original home-lots (spliced).jpg not an old map? You removed Category:Old maps without explanation. I re-added it, because it is an old map and it is no other category that seems to be in the maps tree. I used an edit-summary. You then re-remoated it again without explanation. DMacks (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check rules for categorization, please. You must located the file in appropriate sub-category (e.g. regional). Old maps is meta category that should contain only sub-categories. Periegetes (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rule says "Please add maps to the subcategories below, not to this parent category...If you are still unsure how or where to categorize them, then it is OK to put old maps in this higher category." Seems like you over-looked that sentence I emphasized, and only acted on the first. It's definitely important to help help readers and other-wiki editors find content with specific categorization, and over-full cats are also a problem. But simply un-categorizing is a detrimen to readers/editors. That's why my edit-summary said "Feel free to diffuse into one or more subcats." DMacks (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you do some comparisons between these top-level categories - on the global level, it makes not sense having files related to one locality/topic in the main category. In this category, there were 9000 files in the beginning of the year, this does not serve any purpose whatsover. Instead of arguing, why can't you help finding the appropriate sub-categories for those files? Periegetes (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ categories[edit]

Thanks for your sort work - but please name the cats "Pipe organ of (church building)", that's common for that. Greetings, --Subbass1 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Organs by Johannes Magnusson 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!


Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Music Production of Finland 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!


Estopedist1 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category[edit]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Sandtner organs in Norway. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for Category:Olavinlinna by night. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I will take heed. Periegetes (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please experiment in the sandbox[edit]

العربية  বাংলা  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  Frysk  עברית  हिन्दी  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  occitan  polski  português  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−
float 
An edit you made seemed to be a test, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Feel free to visit the community portal if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thank you!

A.Savin 14:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please: COM:OVERCAT. Thanks very much, --A.Savin 14:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Can you hear me? --A.Savin 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Periegetes (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read COM:OVERCAT first. If a file is already sorted in "Some manufacturer's organs in Estonia", it may NOT be sorted under "Pipe organs in Estonia" at the same time, because any "Some manufacturer's organ" is itself already sorted as a pipe organ (logically). --A.Savin 14:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Thanks. I adapted the practice from some other countries classification. But I see what you are saying. Periegetes (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes of categories[edit]

Hello Perrigrietes, I have seen, that you changes some categories, but unfortunatelay not correctly. Not all with german linguage correspong Germany. In these cases it subject Austrie ;-) ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl, thank you for pointing this out. I have tried to be super careful because I realize the danger of confusion. Could you point out where the problem is, than I can we more aware. Thank you. Periegetes (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find out the corresponding photographs and corrected there - there were not so many. regasrds from Austria -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 09:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]