User talk:Verdy p/archive12

Template:Countries of Europe[edit]

Hello! Thank you for optimizing Template:Countries of Europe, but when you added Jersey, Guernsey, Man and Kosovo it seems you added them at the random places. I checked ukrainian, russian and belarussian translations and in all of them these states were on wrong places, so I think all other languages need to be checked for right alphabet order. I already asked my friends to check georgian and polish, others we need to check ourselves. --Tohaomg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use "random" place, but they were missing in the list; see the previous comments above (since 26 May) on the same topic. I've made sure that the list were complete, but other people have also made their own change. Note also that the exact name displayed may have been changed in Wikidata and may now sort differently. Strictly the orting is not necessarily the exact country name but the significant part of the name igfnoring terms that may be removed such as "Isle", "the", "Republic"... Initially the lists were compeltely unsynchronized, containing duplicates or missing country names, now they all display the same list, only in different order and it is easy to check that all lists are complete. I have fully documented the process to change the display order. Read the doc, everything is there. My edits were complete 8 months ago... verdy_p (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelles régions françaises[edit]

Bonjour @Verdy p: .

Merci bien pour template:Regions of France/sandbox, que j'ai utilisé pour finir de recatégoriser la Nouvelle-Aquitaine (vaste travail manuel, qu'un robot ou AWB n'aurait pas pu faire, car il fallait créer 1 catégorie pour chaque 3 transférées; j'ai fait appel à des programmeurs sur les bistro fr et en, mais aucune réponse).

Il restera les points suivants :

certaines catégories des anciennes régions administratives continueront d'exister; il faudra alors peut-être renommer, comme Category:Aquitaine vers Category:Aquitaine (former region) (et alors modifier ton template), pour distinguer l'Aquitaine (région historique) et l'ancienne région administrative. Idem pour Limousin (cuisine limousine, etc.). Il y a déjà Category:Poitou (pas d'ambiguïté).
as-tu une idée de la future évolution de ce template au nom provisoire ? Remplacera-t-il à terme template:Regions of France ? Il est maintenant très employé en tout cas...
y a-t-il eu des idées d'autres contributeurs, des débats ?
je ne compte pas m'occuper des catégorisations des autres nouvelles régions (commencées ponctuellement par d'autres; on peut faire confiance au temps, mais c'est long... ;-).

Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non aucun renommage pour les anciennes régions. L'Aquitaine reste l'Aquitaine, indépendamment de la "Nouvelle Aquitaine" ou de l'Aquitaine historicao-culturelle dont les frontières ont pas mal bougé dans l'histoire selon les régimes (pas toujours dans le Royaume de France, avec plus ou moins d'extensions sur les territoires voisins et plusieurs scissions). Cette culturelle historique (tout de qui précède la création des départements juste après la révolution) tombe dans une catégorie "histoire" difficile à classer autrement et qu'on liera plus ou moins selon les dates et événèmenents localisés, ou personnages, ou batiments historiques et les collectivités qui en ont aujourd'hui la charge ou la responsabilité administrative. Mais il est en fait très difficile de classer géographiquement cette ancienne Aquitaine qui ne correspondait à aucune des limites actuelles, pas même les départements ou le pays.

Bref Aquitaine doit rester sur l'ancienne région composée des départements actuels (même si dans le détail il peut y avoir des ajustements frontaliers entre départements suite aux actuelles fusions de communes ou créations de communes nouvelles: ce sont des différences mineures. Et sans ambiguïté la Nouvelle-Aquitaine est composée des anciennes régions. Seuls certains contenus localisés dans une commune ou fraction de commune seront également reclassés et liés à d'autres collectivités en cas de besoin. Note qu'on a aussi des catégories pour les anciennes provinces du royaume de France, mais ce ne sont pas et cela n'a jamais été des "régions", ce sont juste à la limite des régions culturelles. verdy_p (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sur wiki:fr, l'Aquitaine risque d'être renommée en "Aquitaine (ancienne région)" ou "Aquitaine (région administrative)", et Aquitaine (homonymie) en Aquitaine (question posée au projet:Nouvelle-Aquitaine), car la région administrative appartient aussi à l'histoire et n'aura vécu qu'un demi-siècle comparativement à ce que toute l'Aquitaine, aux contours fluctuants, mais qui a toujours été une réelle entité, embrasse au cours de son histoire : province romaine, royaume, duché. Et oui en effet, il s'agit d'un contour géographique à un instant t...

Par ailleurs, depuis la nouvelle réforme territoriale, les regroupements de communes se font toujours dans un même département (donc dans la région). Mais peut-être que certains départements demanderont à changer de région (aucun bruit là-dessus pour l'instant, mais la loi le permet). A suivre...

Jack ma (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aucune raison de renommer: l'Aquitaine est renée vers les années 1970 (d'abord en tant qu'entité adminsitratives sans conseil) puis dans les années 1980 en tant que région réellement. Pendant 2 siècles elle n'existait plus du tout administrativement, mais seulement culturellement sans contour exact. Avant ça ce n'était pas "l'Aquitaine" mais la province d'Aquitaine (sans le Royaume de France), et avant le Duché d'Aquitaine (là ses contours ont été très changeants selon les guerres du Moyen-Age avec l'Angleterre, la Normandie, et l'Espagne (avant l'annexion de la Navarre pour la rétrocession d'une grande partie à l'Espagne). Bref il n'y a jamais eu "l'Aquitaine" toute seule (culturellement le mot a pendant 2 siècles désigné surtout le "Duché d'Aquitaine" dans son extension maximale avant l'annexion au Royaume de France).

L'Aquitaine toute seule aujourd'hui ne correspond qu'à notre ancienne région administrative depuis les années 1970 jusqu'en fin 2016, et elle n'a aucun successeur sous ce nom (la Nouvelle-Aquitaine c'est encore autre chose et bien plus grand), toutes les référence à Aquitaine sans précision sont donc sans ambiguité à l'ancienne région (correspondant à peu près à la région culturelle).

Renommer pour faire référence à des éléments très flous d'il y a plus de 2 siècles auxquels ont est obligé de donner une précision de titre et de date selon les occupations et vassalités... je me demande pourquoi verdy_p (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinon le modèle /sandbox je l'ai créé il y a déjà des mois. Il est maintenant très utilisé pour référerncer les noujvelles région adminsitratives, mais l'ancien (régions d'avant 2015, que j'avais créé aussi) est abusivement bloqué depuis des lustres. J'ai fait une demande de débloquage en demandant de mettre le contenu du /sandbox mais ça n'avance pas.

il ne devrait donc y avoir qu'un nom mais au vu du blocage abusif, je me suis résolu à référencer le /sandbox en attendant car il y a beaucoup d'élagages et de regroupements à faire sur les nouvelles régions (je l'avais commencé bien avant qu'elles soient effectives, le /sandbox mentionnait au début des "futures" régions devenues actuelles et avant il référençait les "régions" devenues "anciennes régions", puis j'ai mis à jour les noms des noms finals des nouvelles régions. Les différents cas d'homonymies et redirection je les ai gérés pour faciliter les transitions.

Sinon si le nom de l'ancienne région Aquitaine doit changer ici, c'est le nouveau modèle /sandbox qu'il faudrait changer, mais aussi l'ancien aussi qui ne contient QUE ce nom (malheureusement impossible de le faire au vu du blocage adminsitratif). D'ialleurs l'ancien modèle est bloqué aussi sur l'ancien de l'ancienne région Centre qui a changé dès début 2015 sans changer de frontière : le modèle /sandbox y pallie pour le moment.

Je ne vois pas pourquoi il devrait y avoir deux noms (et on ne référencera pas dedans les noms de provinces ou duchés historique dans cette palette qui concerne la France actuelle : ces autres entités sont dans une sous-catégorie Histoire de France, difficiles à classer sinon par date... verdy_p (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. L'Aquitaine aujourd'hui ne correspond plus à aucune région administrative depuis le 1^er janvier 2016, remplacée par la Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Donc merci de ne pas rattacher les catégories des cinq départements concernés à la catégorie:Aquitaine, ou à ses sous-catégories. Donc, lier à la fois des communes ou autres entités de la Dordogne, par exemple, à la Nouvelle-Aquitaine et à l'Aquitaine est un anachronisme. Père Igor (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je désapprouve aussi totalement ces résurrections de catégories inutiles telles que Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes, sous prétexte qu'elles apparaissent dans un modèle appelé à évoluer, mais protégé pour l'instant. Voir discussion plus bas, en anglais, "Reason ... ? ". Il faut simplifier : un lac est en Charente et en Nouvelle-Aquitaine, il n'est plus dans Poitou-Charentes (qui n'existe plus, tout comme Languedoc-Roussillon, Champagne-Ardenne, etc. depuis 2016). Par contre, des catégories pourraient être créées concernant les divisions administratives actuelles, et il y a beaucoup à faire ne serait-ce que dans les nouvelles communes, intercommunalités, arrondissements, etc. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union[edit]

Hi, I've moved the Vehicles of the Soviet Union back to that category. Please compare to the two categories for the US Category:Vehicles of the United States and Category:Vehicles in the United States - these are quite different concepts.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note "vehicles built in <country>" might be a better name, judging by Category:Vehicles by country of manufacture.

But the problem is that you want now a distinction. Before I made any change, one category was redirected to the other and their content merged, but this redirect did not work for subcategories using "in XXXX" and that would fall "in the Soviet Union"

All I wanted was to empty the redirected category (this redirect was done before me and the distinction you want was simply lost).

My edit was consistant with this previous merge of both categories (not made by me!).

So it's not just my edit that you have to revert, but the previous edit (made by someone else) that merged both categories (and you'll have to sort again all the contents between the two distinguished categories) !

~Do you understand ? I did not make anything wrong. This merge was already done but inconsistantly, and it was already not working! verdy_p (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By switching the redirect you introduced an error, by changing the meaning. "X of Y" means "X belongs to Y"; "X in Y" means "X is inside Y".

The split is easy: If the category name includes "of" it needs to go to Vehicles of the Soviet Union. If it includes "in" it stays in Vehicles in the Soviet Union. If it relates to a brand - like Category:KAZ vehicles it is "of", just as Category:Chrysler vehicles is in vehicles 'of the United States. As the Soviet Union no longer exists, but it built a lot of things, "of" will have most of the content.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No this was not an error because it was impossible to move a subcategory in the new redirected category. Very few categoeries in fact support the distinction you mean (I know what each expression means, you don't need to explain that, but even with your revert, you were still confusing both as they were one meaning, so you did not solve anything).

The real error was with the person that initially decided to merge the two categories (it was not me). I jsut wanted to clean categories and use the scheme already used for all sister categoies in the parent categories, to be consistant. And it was not clear (with the existing redirect) that TWO distinct categories were expected (but the new category had itself incorrect categoization, breaking the naming scheme as well as navigation bars creating red links...

Since then, I see that someone else has in fact reverted the merge, and both categories are now coexisting and their content have been sorted correctly; so your revert was in fact not correcting anything: there's no more any redirect, and it's fine and navigtion still works as expected (including for children subcategories). verdy_p (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSicon categories[edit]

(pinging Useddenim, Tuvalkin) Hi, why did you move several BSicon "set grey" categories to "set gray"? I understand the wider issue of consistency with the parent "gray things" categories, but the BSicon categories should probably match the filenames. Please move them back. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The names of BSicon colours were discussed, rationalised, and agreed upon after months of work. Unilaterally and arbitrarily adding an alternate spelling will just create en:WP:FORKING.
It clearly states on Talk:BSicon/Colors:

Any changes to icon colors should first be discussed at Talk:BSicon/Colors.

Please revert your changes.

Also, you changed Template:BS-color/category without any edit summary. What were you trying to do? Useddenim (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are handling the obvious homonymy of "gray" and "grey" used in a lot of categories, aand with many existing redirects that fill up. I have cleaned all of them to use a single name (this does not change the names of icons themselves (which are also inconsistantly using either variants). Also nav templates were broken and did not correctyly handle synonyms, or were pointing users to the wrong category one, or were missing ones...

Your most common naming convention is kept as is, but now regularized more strictly. verdy_p (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero BSicons with titles containing "gray" and 866 icons with titles containing "grey". I'm not sure what you mean by "your most common naming convention". The category name should match the set name, or we'd have to swap all the purple/violet categories because the set violet icons are actually closer to purple and vice versa. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many issues in those categories that do not link properly, their names are still not fully regularized. Once again I have not changed any image name. On Commons we don't follow any pattern for file names, only for categories, because files cannot be redirected. So I've not broken any existing usage of images on Commons or in any other wiki. verdy_p (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the categories have red links or are named inconsistently because we're migrating the categories from the Icons for railway descriptions/ root to the BSicon/railway/ root (along with other assorted changes). It takes time to rename 1,000 categories and re-sort files. None of the categories were named "gray", however. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, I've found many of them and made sure to handle the synonyms (the two terms are frequently mixed on Commons, they are regularized, and we can properly display them as synonyms, as I did, without duplicating the contents. And you can then find the categroies with either terms, they will all go to the same target. verdy_p (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the category template and the thing which adds Category:[color] icons, I don't think it was configured properly (there were several categories which were sorted into "u icons", "f icons" and "g icons" because those were the set names which were input). Please elaborate on where I'm wrong. There are also still a lot of categories named "set grey". (For what it's worth, I created at least 40 of the 51 set grey categories in March and April and I don't think any of them were named "gray".) Again, the spelling has nothing to do with other Commons categories or we'd need to change every "uw" to "diagonal", every "BHF" to "station" and every "k" to "circular" (and there are still some categories named partially in German). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not complete, I just find where redirects were already applied but left non-empty. I just make sure they are merged correctly. Both names may be used in searches but we will reach the relevant category independantly of the GB vs. US Engliish orthography used (both are also synonyms in HTML, I've not found any case for now where this should mean something different, except in proper names for people and places). So it's best to support both orthographies with redirects, but still use a consistant naming for navigation (we'ell still display both aliases in nav templates), because we all know that people will want to use either. verdy_p (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still misunderstanding the point that the BSicon categories are named after the icons and that the naming is entirely abstract, but I don't really mind as long as it's all consistent. There are still about 30 of the categories named "grey". Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that abstraction of categories, Commons is not made for that. What is important is to be able to find the images with their effective names which can be abstracted because they are used through tempaltes generating their names. But locing them in Commons in categories is a separate problem and we need a broader consistancy and must still avoid redirected categories with contents. And these categories are linked to others outside the icon set, in a way that must be consitant with these other contents and where synonyms of both terms are expected, but redirected. There were thousands categories cleaned up, now there remains only categories where the redirect is not obvious and simple to fix, notably for (Wiki)species. I've dropped the total number of non empty redirected categories from several thousands to ~40 with basic edits (something that bots were supposed to fix, but that did not occur because Mediawiki still has difficulties to count members in categories, so bots don't detect these cases if we don't perform at least a temporary dummy edit in them and immediately revert it). Doing this also helps image imports, because import wizards know where to go and can propose more relevant categories directly. verdy_p (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although well-intentioned (but wrong), none of the above explains this change you made to Template:BS-color/category. Useddenim (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong as what ? verdy_p (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, as in "grey" is simply a natural-language descriptor for icons coloured #cccccc. These icons could have just as easily been named "set charcoal" or "set smoke". The consensus was to use "grey". The fact that there is an alternate spelling for the word is completely irrelevant. As noted above, if we were to allow the creation of

(BHF gray) in addition to

(BHF grey), it would create unmanageable forking. If you want Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set grey to be a member of Category:Gray icons as well as Category:Grey icons, fine; but the simple fact is that all of the BSicons within the category are BSicon_XXX_grey.svg. Period.
Since you don’t appear to be willing to stop this disruptive renaming, I am going to have to take this to ANI. Useddenim (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which fork ? This properly detects the common alternate spelling and sets correctly what is wanted. Once again the file names themselves are not changed at all. verdy_p (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does what you want, with no regard for consensus or rationality (grey items in Category:Gray). Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I think the edit to the template was largely housekeeping; nothing involving grey/gray was in the edit. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects[edit]

Hello, Verdy p. May I ask what is the purpose of edits you have made on numerous category redirects, such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Actor&diff=242768917&oldid=101446748 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Actor&diff=242769227&oldid=242768917? Every time you make edits like this, you stop my bot from working on that redirect for a week, since it automatically waits seven days after the last edit to a redirect. If there is some useful purpose to this, fine, but it is not obvious what you are doing. In any case, I would respectfully request that you not touch the few category redirect pages that I have specifically marked as being used for testing. --R'n'B (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any special marking that you wanted this category. These edits were only to "touch" a category and revert it immediately. I don"t care at all about the few users that want to use bots that fail for non obvious reasons. Commons is not made for specific bots run by a single user. All what I have made was to cleanup the long list of non-empty redirected categories, there were so many, several thousands (and since very long). Now there remains just a few, where manual edits (such as fixing some templates) is necessary. verdy_p (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: check your bot if it's not working. All I did was a workaround for a known bug of MediaWiki which still does not always properly count the number of members in categories, leaving many non-empty redirected categories not detected by bots and stacking. These extremely temporary pseudo-edits helped fixing that: I just added a parent category and immediately removed them, using HotCat because it is much faster than using manual edits and because of limitations in existing standard bots: Mediawiki cannot fix its counts if there's not an actual change in pages to force their reindexing. All this is done. This did not costr a lot to the server, because these categories were already mostly empty or already empty (what I did fixed the broken member counters so that these empty categories are no longer visible as subcategories of their new target).

The number of non-empty categories has fallen from several thousands (very old for some of them) to less than 20: the rest can be handled manually more "easily" but are about more complex cases that bots cannot handle, or that are controversial (such as the existing redirect for "People with pigs" using a too specific taxon name instead which is almost unknown to a vast majority, and certainly incorrect for these contents where exact species are NOT so specific and may relate to other species commonly refered as "pigs". In frequent cases, we annot identify the specy, notably when these are not photographs, but drawings / paintings / sculptures / engravings, or text documents, or even scientific documents about multiples species). verdy_p (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Verdy p, maybe you should leave this "touching" activity to people who can do it without actually changing the category. For example, in the past, I have sometimes used AWB to make dummy edits to the redirected categories. That clears Category:Non-empty category redirects without changing the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fastest method I've seen, and it works. dummy edits with AWB requires too many steps for what is a very deceptive and long task. It has almost no impact on performance as the "touch" affects categories that are already empty, or nearly empty, and very few pages are affected. The result is made almost instantly, HotCat does this very fast without needing any bot (and anyway bots are missing lots of categories. We need a real touch that really edits some changes in pages: this means really adding and removing content (adding a temporary category does not affect anything in the page and it is extremely easy to remove without using any revert tool, simply with HotCat "remove from Temp category). Basix edits that don't perform any edit do NOT work! And adding random spaces in the middle of pages for such pseudoedits is frequently unsafe. verdy_p (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notre also that I did that because I saw that it was required really on LOTS of categories (where MediaWiki had quirks counting member pages during a very long period of time); it was very easy to do. Now the number is manageable (only a dozen remain, with more complicate problems, including the probably controversial redirect for "People with pigs"). verdy_p (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to test a change to an existing bot to see if it works. I was politely requesting your assistance in this task; if you saw it as a challenge or somehow threatening, I hope it was not anything I said that gave you that impression. It would be very helpful to testing if you would avoid this practice for a week or two. --R'n'B (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Temp[edit]

Category:Temp 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSicons and vehicles by color[edit]

Phillipe: I know you from the Unicode mailing list and from FotW, and I have no desire of crossing swords, or even paths, with you. Are you going to play with BSicons and vehicles by color? Go ahead, but I’ll wash my hands from it. Life is too short, and Commons is too wide, for me to be forced to put up with your antics. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antics... you want to be offensive ? What is wrong with gray=grey when both are used on Commons ? And if you think that I did not fix things, really you should look more precisely, notably when real errors were obscured by the syntax in some templates and really not easy to see. I've received thanks from multiple users for these edits, only a couple of users complain because they just created these and did not detect the quirks they left around. verdy_p (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more careful, particularly with templates, in future (note that Template:VehicleColors still contains a lot of deprecated HTML attributes like align and valign which were deprecated in HTML5, should be fixed). I think it would have been much better if you tried to discuss these changes first, in part because of the esoterism of the BSicon system. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These old attributes were already inserted by other people than me. I did not replace them ! verdy_p (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there's nothing wrong with including Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set grey/whatever in Category:Gray whatever, but there was absolutely no reason to change every instance of "set grey" to "set gray"! Useddenim (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence of names and ability to search using both equally... I have not deleted anything, they are synonyms. These are excellent reasons. verdy_p (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zur Information[edit]

Vgl. User_talk:Birne1993#Lemma_Category:Werdenberger_See. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Spain[edit]

This seems wrong to me. Normally, when you refer to the "regions" of Spain, you mean the historic regiones, which are not 1-to-1 to the present-day autonomous communities. See en:1833 territorial division of Spain. I don't know the history on what may have happened to the previous subcats of Category:Regions of Spain, but at least a few years ago they were correct by this understanding. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previosu was referintg to even smaller entities, the comarcas, which was worse. I changed that redirect to something more significant and that more or less matches the historic regiones (that have no categories themselves unless I did not see them). verdy_p (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think File:España - División provincial y regional de 1833.svg and a lot of other maps would belong there, but probably Category:Territorial evolution of Spain and Category:Maps of former provinces of Spain suffice. Still, it's weird that we have Category:Prefecturas españolas de 1810 (with exactly one image!) and no category for the 1833 division that lasted (with minor changes) over 140 years. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are effecvtively historic regions, the ancestors of today's autonomous communities. Unless there's a category created for these long-lasting former regions, there's still no better choice. I just replaced the redirect to comarcas which were completely wrong (and there were already comarcas subdivisions in these former regions).

If you want to create another specific category, it should be named "Former regions in Spain" (sorted within "former subdivisions of spain", itself within "subdivision of spain") and you'll then change the redirect to it. It may be useful for historical documents or old maps, or for properly categorizing old personalities in their former regions instead of today's autonomous communities. Additional categories for former regions may also be added and sorted within one or more categories "History of autonomous community name" as well as in "Former regions of Spain". The "former subdivisions of Spain" would be sorted in "History of Spain" and in "Subdivisions of Spain". verdy_p (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Module:File[edit]

Hi, you had been the last one editing the module; and Rillke seems not being active. I need a small expansion to the module, a function that returns the file extension as-it-is, e.g "PNG" as "PNG" or "JpeG" as "JpeG"; currently the only function "extension" returns the extension of Date Fukushima chapter.JPG as "jpg". Can you please add this function? Thanks for your answer --sarang♥사랑 07:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not LUA-capable but in the meantime I tried to add the case sensitive function "csExtension"; it seems to work well. Please repair or smoothen the module if I made something wrong, or too much. Thank you --sarang♥사랑 12:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you need a "case-sentitive extension". Even the extension functions have been deprecated in favor of mimeType(). Filenames otherwise should be used "as is" without trying to parse them or split them. In Wikimedia we need either **full** file names (most often not readable), or caption names (that will be translated). The full filenames are just used as is as default descriptions, but technically they are only opaque identifiers. Adding case variants will not simplify their reuse. In my opinion you new function should have used "extension()" directly with the same loggged message about its deprecation (that you have circumvented). verdy_p (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good that you repaired and simplified the module! I needed the new function after some problems with defaulting the extension, as in {{Superseded}} which uses the extension option of template {{F}}. Now it works fine. --sarang♥사랑 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments_historiques_in_France_by_former_region[edit]

Monuments historiques in France by former region 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandy[edit]

Coats of arms of Normandy 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-- User: Perhelion 11:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandie[edit]

Coats of arms of Normandie 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-- User: Perhelion 11:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cours de la république – panoramio[edit]

Transféré sur la page de discussion. verdy_p (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Verdy p/archive12

Contents

Template:Countries of Europe[edit]

Nouvelles régions françaises[edit]

Soviet Union[edit]

BSicon categories[edit]

Category redirects[edit]

Category:Temp[edit]

BSicons and vehicles by color[edit]

Zur Information[edit]

Regions of Spain[edit]

Module:File[edit]

Category:Monuments_historiques_in_France_by_former_region[edit]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandy[edit]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandie[edit]

Cours de la république – panoramio[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Verdy p/archive12

Template:Countries of Europe[edit]

Nouvelles régions françaises[edit]

Soviet Union[edit]

BSicon categories[edit]

Category redirects[edit]

Category:Temp[edit]

BSicons and vehicles by color[edit]

Zur Information[edit]

Regions of Spain[edit]

Module:File[edit]

Category:Monuments_historiques_in_France_by_former_region[edit]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandy[edit]

Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Normandie[edit]

Cours de la république – panoramio[edit]

Navigation menu

Search