User talk:Jane023/Archive 2

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

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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

190.50.106.32 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_glas-in-lood-leiding_bedryf_vervoer.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!

Teofilo (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum-_1881-1981_De_Leidse_Fles.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!

Teofilo (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Herman_Moerkerk_-_Beijnes_wagenmakerij_aan_de_riviervischmarkt_haarlem.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Herman_Heijenbroek_-_jj_Beijnes_-_werkplaats_Haarlem-_1938.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum_-_Tram_door_Beijnes_gebouwd.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum_-_model_Tram_door_Beijnes_gebouwd.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Stoomvaart_Maatschappij_Nederland_-_De_Oranje.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Single_screw_motor_cargo_economy_ships_-_William_Doxford_and_sons_ltd.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_model_Tram.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_herdenkingsdoos.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_glas-in-lood-leiding_bedryf_vervoer.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_dienstregeling_1954.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_de_kikker_1913-1954.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_de_blauwe_tram.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_Rijnsburg_station.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH-Vervoer_Museum-_Hillegom_remise.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum_-1940-1945_herdenkingsbord.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum_Marken_Express_Hilversumse_Tegelbakkerij.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NZH_Vervoer_Museum_-_Electrische_Spoorweg_Maatschappij_-_tegeltableau.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Henk_Meijer_-_Cornelis_Hofstede_de_Groot.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bouwkundig_Weekblad_Architectura-July13-1935.png 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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Maquette_1910_-_Coen_Cuserhof_Haarlem.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!

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Same question in more than one place

Generally most Commons denizens, and particularly the Administrators, work very hard at being helpful to newbies. We react badly, however, when people ask essentially the same question in more than one place as you have done at

  • The Help Desk -- PD-US-not renewed (Netherlands) and
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herman Heijenbroek - jj Beijnes - werkplaats Haarlem- 1938.jpg

Please be assured that your images will not be deleted until and unless there has been a thorough examination of the issues and the licenses have been found wanting. Please don't shop for answers in more than one place, as it simply wastes time of other Commons users to answer the same question twice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but believe me, I am certainly not being creative in my responses here! I only placed the inquiry at the Commons helpdesk after being requested to do this via email received this morning through the OTRS procedure. Jane023 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Again on painters from the Netherlands: I got some feedback on the new category scheme from User:Foroa. According to this user some of the categories are too specialised and too deep. For example users who are looking for Rembrandt have to work their way through several countries at the moment. Maybe this user has a point. So I was thinking about moving some of the subcategories (like Category:Rembrandt) up one level. So in effect that would mean that categories like Category:Renaissance painters from the Northern Netherlands, Category:Dutch Golden Age painters and Category:18th-century painters from the Northern Netherlands would disappear. The end-result would look something like Category:Draughtsmen from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830). Just one super category containing just names. Do you think that's a good idea or are there any of these categories you wouldn't like to see go?

Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Vincent, as long as I can still see and understand what you're doing, I can live with any decision you take. Having proceeded to work with what we have so far, I get sometimes confused myself. Doing this will make it more difficult to see who was a colleague of whom, but I don't think most people tried using the cats on commons anyway. Most people view the pictures through their native-language Wikipedia. It will be easier to administer lists of names and hopefully easier to track doubles. Are you going to keep the century categories like Category:17th-century painters from the Netherlands? Because I guess you can put all the DGA ones in there. I am not sure where the Southern border to France is now though! Jane023 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of only keeping Category:Early Netherlandish painters, because they are so similar in style and the Netherlands weren't divided in north and south back then. For the sake of 'easier navigation' I would like to put all the others in two main categories: Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) and Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1815). So yes, DGA painters would go, but also "17th century painters from the Netherlands". Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the Netherlands were not considered divided until well after 1830 (and I think most Americans still don't get it and see Belgium & Holland as one country). When I look at Category:17th-century painters there are a bunch of subcategories in there and I think one for the Flemish painters would be handy. I think it helps to have a few categories based on time periods. I have given up though trying to make sense out of categories like Mannerism and Baroque as time periods. I am also confused by the 15-year gap between 1815-1830. I think it should all be 1830 since you can only split them once. And then the split into two official countries that still exist today is of course after 1830 and not before. So my logical choice would be to lose the split before 1830, since that causes confusion - there were lots of painters who moved around a lot in the 17th century, working on large projects for various courts, and they are mostly considered Flemish, not Dutch. Jane023 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
ok, so basically you want to keep Category:Dutch Golden Age painters and rename it to something more suitable. That's ok with me. What about Category:Renaissance painters from the Northern Netherlands and Category:18th-century painters from the Northern Netherlands? Should I keep those as well? And yes, you're right. 1830 is better than having two dates. I will keep that in mind from now on. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I think it may be useful to rename both renaissance cats to 16th century Netherlandish (that correctly leaves Early Neth to refer to 15th, 14th and earlier). I noticed several people using Early Neth for 16th century, which now is supposed to be "renaissance" while lots of it is early Baroque. Then you get the 17th century which could be 17th century Flemish - what do you think about that? Then 18th century Flemish, 19th century Flemish, and then after 1830 Dutch or Belgian. The trick is choosing between Netherlandish or Flemish as terms. I interpret Netherlandish as starting in Northern France all the way to Strassbourg and up to Denmark. I suppose that is too wide an area however. What do you think? Jane023 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine I think. As long as Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) is kept. I am aware that the term "Flemish" is much more widespread than the term "Southern Netherlandish", but the term "Flemish" remains problematic as it is an anachronism and excludes the French-speaking people. But a category like "17th century painters from Flanders" might be easier to understand than "Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands".
About Early Netherlandish painters, don't forget that I made a sort of objective definition of those (born before 1490). So far this works fine, so I don't think this category needs to be changed.
About the definition of the Netherlands, I would say the en:Seventeen Provinces plus Liège. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. The seventeen provinces is fine, one needs to draw the line somewhere. The difference of language is interesting. From about 1560 onwards, French was spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of Haarlem, and even during the Spanish occupation until 1572 the official language was French. It wasn't until the 1640's that Dutch started making a comeback in official documents, but Haarlem still has a French Walloon church dating from that period. I don't think that Flemish means "not French speaking", except in the Netherlands, and again that's because of the sensitivity of the Belgians. I guess I am not quite clear on what you really want; do you want to keep the separation line French-speaking/Dutch-speaking in two big categories from born 1490-1810 and drop the century time periods? Or do you want to drop the geographical categories and keep just century categories? Jane023 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was more thinking about the present situation in Belgium. Calling Rubens a Flemish painter is one thing, but calling a 17th-century Liegois painter Flemish is another. My initial proposal was to keep two main categories (Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1815) and Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)) without any time periods. My question was if that is ok, or if you want to keep categories by period. I take it from your response that you do. Is that right? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I get it now. The strange thing is that I am a heavy category user, but I gave up on categories as a tracking tool and I keep my own lists now, which I assume you do too. I have no problem with lots of categories, but I don't really need them. When I see categories split into countries, I tend to add the Netherlands in there. If you feel this is too many, then I'll stop doing that. So what you propose now then is to have these two big categories (North vs South) stretching from birthyear 1490 to approximately 1810? I'm OK with that. Jane023 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
ok, great. Then I'll work towards that from now on. Thanks a lot. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem - Happy categorizing! Jane023 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)