User talk:Juiced lemon

ARCHIVES: 2006

December 2006 (archived)

X in heraldry

Hallo. We have a whole system of categories of heraldic figures, where the naming convention so far is "X in heraldry", where X is a plural, denoting a group of items. Please, do not change this. --AtonX 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Switzerland vs. Category:Churches of Switzerland

Hi Juiced, I've seen you started a new Category with the in while 99% of all images are categorized in the of Category. My english is not so good to judge wether in or of is better, but please stick to an international convention and use a bot if you like to rename a category. Categorization becomes very cumbersome if some pages are called in and others of. --Ikiwaner 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

as with Category:Churches in Italy.--Bo-rhein-sieg 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you still continue renaming cats while a deletion request is pending. Please stop immediatly! I can follow your arguments but you're doing it the wrong way. Wait a few days until we've found a compromise and let's do a bot do the work that renames all categories. Thanks in advance. --Ikiwaner 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to Ikiwaner. Stop your changes of the categories from of to in until there's a decision.--Bo-rhein-sieg 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See my answer in Ikiwaner talk page (Your message). --Juiced lemon 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing my best getting your commands executed. Let's see what happens after this. --Ikiwaner 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vie di Roma & Tevere categories

Hi Juiced. I've added <Category:Rome> to this galleries because I need link them to this cat - what don't occurs with unique presents. Let stay additional categories, please, or explain why one unique category is necessary. Thanks. --Lalupa 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Catalan flags are not catalan?

Hi. I don't understand why you are removing categories for Perpignan rugby catalan flags.jpg, without reasons or messages in my talk page, and after that you write that i'm doing vandalism. An image called "perpignan rugby catalan flags" it is not ok in a catalan category? --1997 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert war with Reisio (talk · contribs)

Revert wars are not good for the Commons. Please stop them. I have posted a message on the AN and also on User_talk:Reisio. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I complained here about this vandal on 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC). I stopped the edit war during about ten days. No administrator reacted or even deigned to answer.

So, the repeat of this edit war is all, except a surprise. What do you suggest to resolve the problem? --Juiced lemon 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, this was not a vandalism but an apparent dispute. I've moved this to the dispute section. Please comment there explaining the nature of the dispute (which cannot be determined from all of these nondescriptive reverts. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pourquoi Category:Maps of Bretagne ?

J'ai laissé un commentaire à Category talk:Maps of Bretagne ; je te prie de t'y adresser. Salut, QuartierLatin1968 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro City and Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

Hi,

I'm working on subcategories of Municipalities of Brazil, Maps of Brazil, Coats of arms of Brazil and Flags of Brazil and I didn't understand why you reverted this. The main category should be the state, like Category:São Paulo and Category:São Paulo city. Another thing: There's no logic in "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)" 'cause obviously all municipalities will be of the state, what I'm trying to say is: the City of Rio de Janeiro has no municipalities, no microregions and no mesoregions. The maps, flags and coats of the city can be placed in "Rio de Janeiro City" and those from others municipalities of the same state can be placed in "[Location maps|Coats of arms|Flags] of municipalities of Rio de Janeiro".

I will apreciate if you could place a note in my talk before reverting my edits.

I'm still learning how to write in English and sorry for any gramatical mistake made here.

Thank you,

Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another pair: Category:New York for the state and Category:New York City for the city. Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Commons, categories are in English. The reference for place names is the English Wikipedia. As you can see there, São Paulo is the name of the city in English. Therefore, Category:São Paulo is a category for the city, and I'll create a new category for the state. --Juiced lemon 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. São Paulo is also the name of the state and there will be a lot of media for the state and a lot less for the city. Even if you had answered in my talk page (I don't watch yours), even if this rule really exists (I'm not a commons expert) and even if you have showed me where it was written, you can't simply just "move" a category like that without talking to the ones that are working there. It doesn't matter what is the name of the page in wiki XX: "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)" is wrong just because there will be no other "Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro". I have a lot of work to do and I will apreciate if you could at least talk to me (in my talk, obviously) before start moving things around. (again, sorry for misspelling) Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We choose category names according to subjects and Commons rules (like Commons:Language policy). They are not affected by the amounts of media. Sorry, but I cannot waste my time to speak to users who don't read the rules and create non-English categories.

Category:São Paulo was indeed an English category, but with a wrong subject, that is the same thing. In this category, there were medias about both the city and the state: I don't care to ask to anybody to clear up the mess!

However, if you find any problem in my changes, we can discuss about it. Of course, I speak about real problems (not like “Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (state)”: see w:Rio de Janeiro (state)).

At last, people will not answer in your user page as long as you'll not provide, with your signature, a link to your Commons user page. --Juiced lemon 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with you? You reverted what I did and didn't wrote a single line in the running talk page. It's writed "It has been proposed" and "Upon reaching a clear consensus". You can't move without "CLEAR CONSENSUS". I think you don't even know in witch continent Brazil is. Stop now! Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (p.s.: now you can find my talk in my signature)

You reverted mine and as I can see in "It has been proposed below" and "Upon reaching a clear consensus" no clear consensus was reached and no move should be made. It's easy to talk about rules that I don't known that exists without showing me where they are. Witch rules are you talking about? Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. This is not working.
2. You said "The move request concerns the media files.", sorry but you may be reading wrong:

It has been proposed below that Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo be renamed and moved to Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo (state). It obviously concerns the category AND the media.

1. I need you to do not revert without a consensus (not with me, but with other users). We need to concentrate all those discution pages in some place to be easy for other Portuguese users to opine.
2. Hey! Look at Category:Washington and Category:New York. Almost everyone thinks that "Washington" is the capital of US and "New York" is the big apple. Please! Correct that categories for me. If you do that and if you survive to tell your history to your grandsons I will agree with "São Paulo (state)".
3. Why our states categories have different treatment?

Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still moving things without consensus and say that don't know about what user:Lmbuga is talking about. Don't even think in start messing with other states like w:Tocantins (state) or w:Amazonas (Brazilian state). Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem: Category:Brasil

Please, You must not make changes in the category Category:Brasil and subcategories. I'm studying what you have done. The work in Commons must be based on the collaboration: you must not impose your criterion, please: there are many people to whom you bother. Where are the policies on which you base your decision?. Greetings --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Castagnetten.jpg

Hello, Juiced Lemon. I agree with you that castañuelas were not invented in Spain. Nevertheless, Spain is the country which has incorpored then most to its popular and classical music. They are recognisable wherever you ask as a typical Spanish instrument. Besides, the castagnets of the image look like the typical Spanish castañuelas (The have even the colors of the flag!). Other musical instruments, like flutes, bagpipes, guitars or drums, were not strictly invented in certain countries but they are considered instruments of their local music all over the world. Therefore, I plead for the restitution of the category.

Yours sincerely, --Balbo 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

You removed Johann Sebastian Bach from the Category:Music sound.

Have a look at the category. Why do you think it shouldn't be a part of it?

Isn't that category intended for all pages and categories containing sound files that can be called "music" ?

Have a nice day, Teebeutel 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutly no! --Juiced lemon 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This answear is not sufficient. I guess you didn't do what I told you, so again: Have a look at the category !

Maybe this problem must be discussed within a larger audience. If Category:Music sound is not the category for pages and categories containing music files, as you say, then which one is ?

No offence ment, Teebeutel 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Music sound is a category for some pages and categories devoted to sound files. It's completly different. --Juiced lemon 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a category for sound files - but why have you cleaned only Johann Sebastian Bach and not all the other wrong subcategoies? Working on the cageries is a hard work. But I don't understand your way through the cagegories... From Munich to Brazil to Brittany and mano other parts. Please finish one work, and than go to the next! And please talk a little more friendly to the other users! And assume good faith for the intentions of others. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Ogg files and Category:Classical music? Is there a convention, which file to place in which category? If no category complies Teebeutel's thought then maybe one should be created. The idea is not that bad, is it? The other wrong subcategories could be moved to that new category. 129.187.192.86 09:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mess on Category:Artists from Brazil/Category:Artists of Brazil

Sorry for my recent mess on these cats. I tried to unify them but I didn't know which one was preferred. Are we sticking to Category:Artists from Brazil? If so, why is it a sub cat of Category:People 'of Brazil instead of Category:People from Brazil? I, for one, don't have a favorite one. I just wanted it to be consistent.

In a related matter, don't you think Category:Musicians from Brazil should really be a subcat of Category:Artists of Brazil, as musicians are artists, just like dancers, actors, filmmakers, etc?

Best regards, --Abu badali 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Okay, instead of us playing revert ping-pong, how about you actually justify your reverts to hide the subcategories of Category:Maps, and maybe we can come to an understanding? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorising chemical compounds by element

Hi Juiced Lemon. Thanks for your hard work on adding categories to Category:Chemical compounds by element. I noticed, however, that in the process, you deleted categories such as Category:Nonmetal compounds. I don't think this move was such a great one, as people may want to seach by broader criteria than just individual elements. if it's OK with you, I'd like to reinstate those categories. Let me know.

Cheers

Ben 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits, they were good. A nonmetal compound is any chemical compound containing atoms of a nonmetal. I'm a chemistry student so I'm familiar with the terminology. Also, you commented on my user page. You should comment on talk pages. Sorry for sounding angry, but you're behaving in a provocative manner.

I hope we can sort this out and get on with making the Commons better.

Cheers

19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The category nonmetal compounds is not useless - a nonmetal compound is not any compound without a metal, it is any compound that contains a nonmetal, even if it also contains a metal. NaCl is a nonmetal compound. It is also a metal compound. This is well established, I am not mistaken. Please don't start a revert war, it's a waste of time. Some people will want to see what categories are part of nonmetal compounds. Please allow them to do so.

Ta

Ben 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop this tirade now. Chlorine IS a nonmetal. This is a fact. Wikipedia says that chlorine is a halogen. On the halogen page it says that all halogens are nonmetals:

The nonmetals are halogens, noble gases and the following elements in order of atomic number (nonmetals as chemical series):

• Hydrogen (H)
• Carbon (C)
• Nitrogen (N)
• Oxygen (O)
• Phosphorus (P)
• Sulfur (S)
• Selenium (Se)

Therefore Wikpedia is saying chlorine is a nonmetal.

Ben 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You've really annoyed me now. Stop reverting. Your sources are poor quality. Some dodgy website is not a good enough source. I use proper chemistry textbooks. Your personal opinion that Category:Nonmetals is useless is not shared by everyone. Let's have a discussion with other users of the Commons. I'll ask for you to be blocked if you carry on like this, it is very bad form.

Ben 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: The category Category:Nonmetal compounds is for the chemical series, because it's the classification in the English Wikipedia. Your categorization is wrong and useless, so stop your edit war. We can discuss if you stop to revert my edits.

Firstly, sorry for reverting your edits, I did it because I thought that until the dispute is settled, nonmetal elements' compounds should exist as subcategories of both Category:Nonmetal compounds and Category:Chemical compounds by element.

Secondly, my categorisation is not necessarily useless and is certainly not wrong. It is factually correct. For instance, all sulfur compounds are automatically nonmetal compounds. That cannot be changed. As far as usefulness is concerned, you personally feel the a nonmetal compounds category is useless, but I don't, so what are we going to do about it? You can't just tell me to go away and let you have what you want, I just won't. We'll have to either compromise or have someone else decide for us.

I won't revert your edits any more, otherwise I'd contravene 3RR. But stop reverting my edits, too.

What has classification in the English Wikipedia got to do with anything?

Sorry for being aggressive, I'm tired.

Ben 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Don't revert when I put Category:Halogen oxides in Category:Nonmetal oxides. It belongs there. Unlike Category:Nonmetal compounds which covers the vast majority of chemical compounds, most oxides are not nonmetal oxides, so the category is not even slightly redundant. Nonmetal oxides are very notable and worthy of a category for their acidic properties. If you have a good reason, let's here it. Otherwise, let's not carry on edit warring, it's dumb.

Why are you so determined to guard the chemistry categories? Are you a chemist or are you just eclectic?

Ben 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Halogens and noble gases are nonmetals. It says that in the English Wikipedia, you're just reading it wrongly. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. A textbook or journal is.

I know you think I'm wrong, but that's not a good enough reason to revert my edits. We have to agree a policy along with all other interested editors. This is not about me vs. you.

Ben 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Juiced, I've replied to your latest message on my talk page.

Cheers

Ben 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Juiced, halogens are really non metals. Please do not start a revert war without talking to the user you are having a revert war with. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Juiced, please don't revert war on this. Please! We don't have a formal revert rule here but it's just not good. Maybe you're not the only person warring over this, whoever is reverting you back should also stop but please don't ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The other person warring is me, but I know it's stupid so I've stopped. Instead, I started a discussion at Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories. That's where the action is! Sorry.

Ben 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Juiced Lemon. I see you have not contributed anymore to Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories. Can I conclude from that that you have no further objections about my last comment regarding the fact that non-metals can both mean all elements that are neither metals nor intermediates and also a chemical series? -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

in/of

See User talk:Siebrand.--Borheinsieg 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voivodeships

Hi,

I see You want to change Polish names for administrative divisions into English ones. I don`t think that simple fact that current names already exist is an argument for You. But there is still this aspect, well ... I don`t think such name helps non Polish speaking users understand what this Voivodeship is. What is more, I think every intelligent human being will understand from context that this Voivodeship is the biggest division of country. But Polish name helps Polish people. It`s better to use Polish names instead of quarreling. Sfu 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I`m not all that shure voivodeship is more English than województwo, at all. But there is this ó. Ok, maybe it`s better. Sfu 11:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Basilica di san Zanipolo in Venice

San Zanipolo is a dialectal an archaical form, no longer in use. The official name of the church is "Santi Giovanni e Paolo", and to it must remain. When in doubt, please ask. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your objection made sense, so I followed your advice and renamed the English entry. I also profitted from the occasion to put back into the category the pictures of San Giovanni and Paolo I had shot, and that mac9 had "kindly" cancelled... Love --G.dallorto 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

National parks of ...

Hi Juiced lemon; I nominated Category:National parks of Texas and several similar categories that you created some time ago for deletion. Please see my contribution history. The capitalization of "parks" is inconsistent with Category:National Parks of the United States, and should be upper case. However, I'm not convinced that state categories are needed since most will have only one or two entries. California, Washington, Alaska and Utah are probably the main exceptions. Anyhow, if you feel strongly that they are needed, I'd be happy to create them (with "park" capitalized) and categorize the relevant gallery pages. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Park is spelled with a first upper-case letter in the name of a specific park. If we gather several parks in a category, “park” becomes a common name and is spelled in low-case letters (see the English Wikipedia en:Category:National parks of the United States). --Juiced lemon 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This official site does not use the same conventions than Wikipedia: en:Category:National parks in the English Wikipedia, Category:National parks in Commons. --Juiced lemon 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Belatedly, I see that the move tag that you added 13 October 2006 to Category:National Parks of the United States garnered no opposition. Category:National parks suggests broad support at Commons for the lower case convention and it is the convention on enwiki, as you point out. I'm sure that I will become accustomed to it in time. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-December/001175.html Lugusto • ҉ 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Deleted message

Hi, be careful with the history manipulation, you deleted one of my message.. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=3944658 - I restored. Dake 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Karlův most - renaming/moving categories

I would like to warn that you apllied three reverts in 24 hours, see history.

If you think that another name of category is better, please, write your reasons to talk page of that category, it means Category talk:Karlův most. As you can see, there are two users, that do *not* agree with renaming, but you are alone. So you are obliged to write reason. Maybe you are right, but I (still) do not see the reason, why new name of category should be better than old one. Users that disagree with renaming works with old categories, uploads pictures to these categories, sort them etc., but you only came and gave template move - you don't work with the category, your contribution to content is zero. You almost do not participate in discussion in talk pages.

I noticed that some other users don't like your behavior - you often acts aggressively and you ignores opinion of other members of community.

Please STOP aggressive renaming/moving categories. Please try to argue on talk pages when some other users disagree with your proposed solution. Please try to find consensus. --Ludek 08:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember you...

... shouldn't edit any change on Catalonian related things (French and Spanish) because of an unclosed arbitration because of content dispute. I give you two days to restore changes to the previous version before arbitration, in order to avoid more disruptions. You're adviced. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Altough you decided yourself in your own way not to recognize the arbitration started by NielsF, you've accepted already a third party opinion offered by pfctdalyse, and accepted also his claim not to edit any changes on those related things with Catalonia. If you want, you can to purpose for another new arbitration, but I'm still waiting you make undone the changes to the last previous version before the arbitration in two days. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Churches .. Prague

We have categoriess "YYY of XXX Region" for all 14 regions of the Czech Republic (Prague being one of them). If you change Prague from "of" to "in", it doesn't fit into this scheme. --Miaow Miaow 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As for me, the "in" or "of" question isn't so important. If you wish to put it through, then do it, but completely (all files within Mountains, Rivers, Cities, Villages, Churches, Chapels, Castles etc.) and quickly. It is very uncomfortable to have images scattered through several categories with (or even without) different prepositions. You need a bot for it, because there are dozens categories and about thousand files involved within Czech Republic category only - too much work for a human being. Hoped to get all churches from overcowded Olomouc category tonight, but now postponed this plan. I'm going to do something with overcrowded Public transport, Praha category. --Miaow Miaow 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, To empty the Public transport is exactly what I'm going to do. Trams in Prague within Transport in Prague etc. Is the Prague Metro category (and other categories within Rapid transit in Europe) OK? --Miaow Miaow 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Record labels

Hi. Almost every image in Category:Record labels shows the paper label on an old gramophone record, and I suspect the few that don't are miscategorized. That's why I think having Category:Gramophone records as a parent label is appropriate. You removed it with the comment "a label is not a record". True enough, it is a portion of the record. I'm not quite sure I understand your objection, perhaps we need to adjust categories some how? I think we can work something out. Might a "Category:Record companies" be helpful? Other suggestions? Thank you, -- Infrogmation 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men of France and the rest of them.

Bastique told me on IRC that you have a more intimate knowledge of the commons categories and that's why I ask you: is there any particular reason people are categorized as "men" and "women" in categories, like Category:Men of France, instead of doing the style of people classification we use on en.wiki? Bogdan 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week.

You've been blocked by me for one week because to starting again a cross-edit war in Catalan related categories. You should discuss first any disappointing with disputed content. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked Juiced lemon because it is obviously inappropriate for you to use your admin tools in dispute with this user, Martorell. It really reflects badly on you that you do this. If Juiced lemon's actions are worth blocking, then it will be very easy to find another admin who will agree with you and perform the block. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Macedon, Macedonia (Greece), Republic of Macedonia, Yugoslavia etc

I did some shorting out regarding the categorization of certain images especially in the "Category:Macedonia". The category was populated with images that should have been in the "category: Republic of Macedonia" and some of them (pre- 1992) also in the "Category: Yugoslavia" etc. I have redirected the said images in their respective categories. There is one image left associated with en:Macedonia (Greece) and the en: Macedonians (Greek). Clearly that image should be in the "Category: Greece" and possibly in a new "Category: Macedonia (Greece)", therefore I've decided to modify your move/rename request. I hope you don’t mind. The "Category: Rep. of Mac." was already there (thus making it easy to direct respective images there) so there was no need to rename it and move it to an the already present category. On the other hand I think that the "Category:Macedonia" should be renamed/moved to "Category: Macedonia (Greece)" which should be a subcategory of "Cat: Greece." Please, have a look at the Category_talk:Macedonia page and the rest of my contributions and tell me what you think. - Thomas C. 172.200.61.194 12:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mosques in Spain

Hello, you have deleted the Category: Mosques in Spain (or of Spain or whatever) from this two images:

Image:Cristo_de_la_Luz.jpg and Image:Granada san jose torre alminar.jpg.

The former is the mosque of Bab-Al-Mardun in Toledo, later transformed in the Hermitage of Cristo de la Luz. The latter is the tower of San José in Granada, a Caliphal minaret, later transformed in church tower.

Considering that even the Mosque of Cordoba is now a Christian Cathedral, denying the category to these constructions, built for the use of mosque is mistaking, unless you create a category called Former mosques in Spain to include them all. Until then, I put the categories back.

Yours sincerely,--Balbo 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: this question is not about this image only, but about all the buildings with a use evolution through times. Therefore, if it is as you say:

• Hagia Sophia shouldn´t be categorised as a church or as a mosque but only as a museum!
• The Mezquita of Córdoba shouldn´t be categorised as a mosque but only as a cathedral!!
• Louvre shouldn´t have the category Palaces, but only Museums, nd Musée d'Orsay shouldn´t be a train station....!!!!

Furthermore, Acropolis shouldn´t be categorised as a citadel, because it has not that use by now, but only an exposition of (superb) ruins!

I hope you see the absurd that way of categorising would reach to. If we only categorise by the modern use, no matter why and who constructed the historical building, a basic information about them is missing. Many of them are relevant to be in an encyclopedic project more for its former use and constructors than for the later transformations.

Cheers, --Balbo 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you in this: If we make different categories by present use and past use for historical buildings, as Category: Former mosques Category: former palaces, or category: Former train stations, the categorisation would be more exact. It would make, though, the reseach more rambling, because, for example, when looking for images of Hagia Sophia, almost everybody would look for a church, or even for a mosque, but not for a museum. Until an official politics is defined in Commons about this, I find clearer to keep the categories of all the relevant uses of the history of the building.In the case of the Gare d'Orsay, (only one of the multiple examples of relevant uses for the history of the same building), as it is by now, the category Gare'Orsay is included in the category Musée d'Orsay, so that page has both categories: gare and museum. It is because a subtile, somehow artificial diference: the collections and sculptures and the building, but with your logic reasoning all the photos (not drawings of the construction of the Station and plans) should be included in the category Museum, because they are, by now, the photos of a museum and not of a train station. As you see, some apparently "contradictory" information can coexist in the same photo, because it refers to different stages in the life of the building. --Balbo 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

textlinks to en.wikipedia

I find textlinks to en.wikipedia not very useful. Interwikilinks ok, but link in the text are contraproductiv in the sense that new articles are not created covering the Argentine provinces. In addition: We are an international project not an English one. Please think about it. --ALE! ¿…? 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Department of the Interior of the United States

Hi Juiced lemon; are the following the correct names?

• Category:Department of the Interior of the United States
• Category:United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Are either of these correct?

• Category:Waterfalls in Washington
• Category:Waterfalls of Washington

Thanks, Wsiegmund 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

In my opinion the Commons:By location category scheme applies only when you make up a new title with a location name for classification purposes. Here, the topics is the name of an organization, and you can use the title of the matching English Wikipedia article as is en:United States Department of the Interior (here, you'll find some alternative names used for redirection pages). Even, en:United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a correct category name in Commons.

About waterfalls, I deal them as other landforms, and I use the preferred preposition of, since we can regard that landforms are irremovable. So, Category:Waterfalls of Washington is the correct name (for the state of Washington). --Juiced lemon 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Commons:By location category scheme link and help. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dioscuri

Hello,

Category:Temple of Castor and Pollux and Category:Temples of Dioscuri are NOT the same cats. The first is about one only roman temple, the other is for all temples dedicated to Dioscuri. So they must be separated. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an embarrassing point. We could create 2 cats, Greek temples of Dioscuri and Roman temples of Dioscuri? Or simply consider recategorizing Category:Greek temples: create a separate mother-cat Category:Temples of greek deities where to put the current Temples of Apollon/Artemis/Zeus/etc., since they do not only contain greek temples. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: why do you overcategorize the cat Gemini? If this is a Zodiacal constellation so it is a constellation. Why not putting Category:Astronomical objects and so on? This is forbidden. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:By location category scheme

Please do not revert and remove the two proposed concepts on this page. Note that it is a proposal at this time, so stating both viewpoints is valid, irrespective of what gets used in the end. Discuss the issue on its talk page, it not clear what the community consensus is on this issue. If you remove either of the proposals without getting community approval on the talk page first, I will block you for a short period.--Nilfanion 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: South Tyrol

I started here a discussion on South Tyrol catecory name; maybe you're interested. --mac 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories - comuni of Italy

I would like to know your opinion here. Thanks, Dantadd✉ 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Genève

Hello,

Geneva is primarly a French speaking city, so I think that the name of the category should remain as Genève. Regards, Yann 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories by country-problem

Hi Juiced lemon,
was this re-cat[1] really intentional or just a typo? Because, now Category:Baroque buildings by country appears under C not B in Category:Categories by country. -- Túrelio 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As you seem to be strongly interested in Cats, I found that in several sub-cats of the Categories by country-tree there are IMHO redundant cat-pairs like for example: Category:Gardens of Belgium and Category:Gardens in Belgium; the same is true for Canada, China, Czech Republic and the UK. Is there any consensus about this? Should they (one of each pair) be proposed for deletion? -- Túrelio 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Geneva

Les noms propres dans les noms de catégories sont choisis d'après les titres des articles correspondants du Wikipédia anglophone. Pour un nom de lieu, la (ou les) langue(s) parlée(s) par les éventuels habitants n'entrent pas en ligne de compte.

C'est justement ça que je conteste. Ça me semble totalement injustifié. Yann 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Permets moi d'être en désaccord sur ce raisonnement. Je suis d'un avis exactement contraire. Yann 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Category_talk:National_Park_Service

Hi Juiced lemon; your thoughts are welcome at Category_talk:National_Park_Service. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This edit[2] is vandalism. Do not "strike out" other editors' votes.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also do not leave disruptive "warnings" on people's user pages. Assuming that the same rules apply in Wikipedia as they do here, it is perfectyl acceptable for new editors to vote on image deletion pages.--Mantanmoreland 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the administrator's comments here [3]. My participation in the discussion -- it is not a vote -- is totally proper and your behavior has not been.--Mantanmoreland 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)