User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 3

Uploads by Amararshad

Aloha! :) I restored the two files in question and nominated for deletion again: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amararshad. Let me explain how I found this DR in the first place. Varied Surf Igloo nominated files by this uploader for speedy deletion. I always check all other uploads as well and found the DR. It has nothing to do with picking the easy ones out of the pile of DRs. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I was not (willingly) accusing you of being too fast, although that was a really fast closing! -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but it will happen sometimes when digging in the copyvios. No hard feelings. :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Express rail services

What on earth is this catgeory meant to represent? The British photos you added seem entirely random. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is meant to aggregate categories about express services, prompted by my creation of Category:Express trams in Brussels. I run a quick search and from it I added a few images and a couple of categories to it to “seed” the idea. The images I selected, based on their descriptions, show coaches, cars, and locos assigned to express services (i.e., routes/services which wont stop on every station & halt). Of course, proper categorization of this notion needs to be done through categories for each rail named service within each network/company, but it is a start. (And this discussion better in the talk page, right?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have a couple more ;) YLSS (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a really stupid idea to me. So "express" is for anything which on occasion omits one or more stations. That's pretty much every train in Britain. Hell, even branch line trains omit services (eg 1/3 Severn Beach Line trains omit Lawrence Hill), but no one would call such trains express services. Then let us consider the example of First capital Connect services from London to Cambridge. There are two distinct services - one which stops at all stations, one which is fast. But they're both routed the same way, they look identical, there is no way to tell them apart unless you actually see it stopped at a station. On the other hand it would include every train operated by East Coast, Virgin Trains or CrossCountry, and most of the trains operated by everyone else!

This category is completely unworkable. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Guy, you may think it is alright to call me stupid in my own talk page, but at least try and not be that yourself and keep the discussion about this category in the proper RfD page, thanksverymuch. (Ah, Mattbuck, one more for the disappointment heap.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Express_rail_services

Category:Express_rail_services 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!

94.223.178.12 15:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Tram and three smiths (100102075).jpg

File:Tram and three smiths (100102075).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!

Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Helsinki tram at the Three Smiths (233601153).jpg

File:Helsinki tram at the Three Smiths (233601153).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!

Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use sub-categories

---

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, guy, are you serious? Are you telling me to be careful about categorization? Did you even glimpsed my contribution history? -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheer up, Tuválkin! At es.wp, I have just saved {{right}} from speedy deletion, which was placed by the same guy who had previously successfully deleted (and thus disrupted a couple of templates) {{BS-2}}, as a recreation of a previously deleted template (it had indeed been unused for a couple of years). YLSS (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Tuvalkin, Thank you very much for adding Category Igor Janev! My Best Wishes! Sincerely, -Игор Р. Јанев (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

azure+lime

Ahh, I wanted to get these two deleted silently, before anyone notices ;) But you did... Well, as you wish. I don't think it's possible to name them satisfactory (which colour should the station be for each possible name?), but I'll leave that to you. I can only note that eKBHFxe isn't good. YLSS (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey for Esperanto Wikipedia / enketo pri Vikipedio en Esperanto

1. Kiel vi aŭdis pri Vikipedio en esperanto? Kiel vi alvenis al Vikipedio en esperanto?

Kune kun la cetero de Vikipedio.

2. Kial vi decidis kontribui al Vikipedio en esperanto?

Mi apenaŭ kontribuas: vd.: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Tuvalkin

3. Pri kiuj temoj vi kutime kontribas?

Ne estas specifa temo: simple foje mi trovas hazarde iun tiom nekredeble kretenan eraron ke mi ne povas rezisti la tenton ĝin korekti.

4. Kial vi aliĝis al Vikipedio en esperanto?

Kiel parto de unified login.

5. Ĉu vi ĉeestis aŭ organizis kolektivajn sociretajn kunvenojn? Kiu estis la rezulto? Kiuj estis la pozitivaĵoj kaj negativaĵoj de tiuj kunvenoj?

Ne. (Ve.)

6. Kiu estas via sperto en aldono de enhavo kaj en instigo al kontribui enhavon pri iuj apartaj temoj?

• Tre malbona sperto aldoni enhavon al la esperantlingva vikipedio:

• La uzo de la "x"-sistemo por surogati la diakritajn literojn estas neopcia: Mi do tajpas normale kaj tamen devas elteni tiun ŝtonepokan fuŝaĵon kiam mi redaktas jaman enhavon. Devus esti ja male: Oni opcie entajpu "x"-sisteme sed la redaktinterfaco montru la jaman enhavon normale. (La tamen nepra neceso tajpi na "xx" por atingi veran "x" en iuj kazoj montras kiom la sistemo estas mallerta kaj neintuicia. Aliflanke, ja aliajn surogatojn uzi anstataŭe estus eĉ malpli bone — nome la "h"-sistemon aŭ la apostrofsistemon.)
• La esperantlingva Vikipedio uzas revizion kaj aprobon de versioj. Tio estas polemika, nevikieca ero, kiu eble taŭgas por iuj grandaj vikipediaj lingvkomunumoj, kiel la germana (kvankam la angla ne uzas ĝin), sed laŭ mi tute ne akceptebla por nia lingvo.

• Min neniu instigis al iu ajn specifa temkontribuo. Se/kiam tio okazos mi respondos malafable: Volontula laboro estas volontula laboro — ies “amata ĉevaleto” ne estas nepre mia.

7. Kiuj estas la teknikaj malfacilaĵoj/problemoj por via lingvo? Nun, ĉu estas facile por novulo ekkontribui al Vikipedio en esperanto?

• Estas tiuj du ĉefaj “malfacilaĵoj”, ambaŭ facilege eviteblaj, ambaŭ (bon)intence enŝovitajn en la esperantlingvan vikipedion — notitaj ĉisupre en 6.1. Pro tiuj du eviteblaj malfacilaĵoj min ege frustas eĉ la plej eta kontribuo.
• Mi ne estas novulo — nek pri esperanto, ne pri komputado.

8. Kia estas la interfaca traduko en esperanto kaj aliaj aferoj?

Ĉu la “interfaca traduko”, aŭ ĉu la interfactraduko (t.e., la traduko de/pri la interfaco)? Se la dua, ĝi sufiĉe bonas. (Malkrom la tamen apenaŭ evitebla elekto traduki "Wikipedia" kiel "vikipedio" anstataŭ "ŭikipedio".)

9. Ĉu vi povus kontribui pri iuj ajn ideoj - etaj aŭ grandaj, sukcesaj & ne tiel sukcesaj - kiujn vi opinias utila por konduki esperantajn kaj alilingvajn projektojn?

(Ĉu tio estas serioza demando? Ĉu mi do kontribuu per^{(ja ne "pri", ĉu?)} ne sukcesa ideo?!) Mi sugestas ke oni ĝustigu la ĉisupre menciitajn problemojn — nome, forigon de versirevizio kaj de neopcia X-igo de la redaktinterfaco.

10. Ni petas vin indiki vian uzantnomon (kaj via reala nomo kun via geografia situo, se eblas)?

Tuvalkin; Portugalio (nepre ne aŭdacu ŝanĝi la landnomon al “Portugalujo” se vi iel publikigos tiujn ĉi respondojn).

Muzammil (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

-- Tuválkin ✉ 10:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dankegon! --Muzammil (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:CCFL563@VCordón2009.ogv

Hi Tuvalkin, the source of File:CCFL563@VCordón2009.ogv is incorrect; it links to another file. Could you please check this link and fix it? Thanks in advance. Regards, JurgenNL (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the heads up! Fixed now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Empty ctgr

On 12 June you have created some ctgr, that are (still) empty. Do you plan to fill them or I should delete them? Regards, --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You should not. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Then filled them up. Regards, --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT

Saluton! Bonvolu iom pli atenti pri COM:OVERCAT. Tiaj ĉi redaktoj estas tute malĝustaj. Mi pensas, ke la tramojn de Aarhus mi nun riparis. darkweasel94 09:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Kaj mi pensas, ke vi sabotis mian planitan kaj faratan laboron. Mi kopodos korekti vian korekton. Min konsternas la aŭdacon atentigi min pri overcat kaj pri aliaj misfaroj pri kategorioj dum mi estas la sola kiu, per mia laboro dum la pasinta jaro kaj duono, povis meti iom da ordo en la trama fako de Commons. Danke al mi estas nun pli facile trovi ion ajn elinter milo da fotoj pri lisbonaj tramoj ol inter deketo da fotoj de preskaŭ ĉiuj aliaj sistemoj, pro fuŝa kategoriumado de aliaj interesatoj pri tramoj en Commons. B.v. ne ĝeni min dum mi laboras — estas multo farenda aliie, se laboro mankas ĉe vi. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mi lastnokte jam rimarkis, ke vi tion faras, kaj jam suspektis, ke vi intencas tion kiel provizoran solvon, kaj tial tiam ne malfaris viajn redaktojn. Sed kiam mi vidis neniujn pliajn ŝanĝojn, mi pensis (kaj ne malracie), ke vi nun finfaris, kion vi volis fari; pardonu, ke mi ne povas legi vian menson. :) Via nuna solvo (provizora kategorio) estas verŝajne la plej bona kaj ne-miskompreniga, kaj mi ne plu ĝenos vin. darkweasel94 13:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(Mi haltis ĉar finfine devis iom dormi.) Havi ĉiujn fotojn de Orhuso en unu kategorio necesas por ilin enkategoriigi pli detale (ĵus mi aldonis pri flagoj, sekvas pri remorkoj) — la lasta farendo estos finfine forigi ilin el tia centra kategorio, dume iĝinta ja overcat-a. Sed mi uzis kiel centran la kategorion Trams in Aarhus ĉar ĝi estis tio, kion mi trovis, kiam mi eklaboris pri tiu ĉi urbo: Mi aldonis, antaŭ ol forigi. (La unu aŭ du orhusaj tramoj ekster ĝi, kiujn mi ree tien metis kaj kio atentigis vin, estis verŝajne rezulto de fuŝo mia en antaŭ laborsesio.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Here, you're welcome to these"

Here, you ask if I can point to any improper deletions.

No I can't. However, I can point to some unfortunate deletions. Here's the successful deletion request for one. I only noticed this some time after it was concluded as delete. The image was of a photograph by Rob Hornstra, with a longish text by Hornstra. It was uploaded, with Hornstra's warm encouragement, by somebody who at that time was an intern of Hornstra's. I don't remember the details, but there wasn't an OTRS communication. Thus there was indeed no immediate evidence that the uploader was the copyright holder, and the deletion request was reasonable. (I'm not saying it was unfair; I just say it was unfortunate.) I believe that the lack of OTRS communication was at least in part because the description of the application process made it sound complicated.

Commons deletion requests can be a mystery to me. Consider the most recent one in which I participated. Let's put aside the reasons for deletion and instead look at the reason for retention: "in use by a sister wiki". In the context, this must mean "in use by en:Wikipedia". I had never realized that being in use by en:Wikipedia was a reason not to delete. If it really were a reason, then I wonder why it didn't also apply to the deletion request of the previous paragraph (for a file in use in both en:Rob Hornstra and nl:Rob Hornstra). -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me talk page stalking: "In use by a Wikimedia project" is a reason not to delete for reasons of lack of educational value, which includes "mere self-promotion". It is not a reason not to delete for reasons of copyright. The first DR you link to is a copyright DR, the second one is an educational value DR. I hope this makes things less mysterious to you. darkweasel94 10:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nenia problemo, Darkweasel. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, Hoary, you cannot point to examples of photos by notable photographers which were in use in an article on a sister project, and that got deleted in spite of acceptable and confirmed licensing. Too bad, for there are probably a ton of them — it is only logical due to the bad habit of idolizong deletionists and giving them free reign to ransack the repository of Commons as an inept and pusilanimous way of counter-acting the identically trollish approach by WMF pushers of mobile uploads and other such “easy” ways of “contributing” random media to Commons.

On the other hand, and adding to Darkweasel’s explanation above, you did find a case of a DR that was closed to keep and yet where there were raised points indicating a possible copyright violation, or at least so it looked to me after curosy reading. A case for a new DR, if so.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 05:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There may indeed be pusillanimity. (A cromulent word!) As for Benteaching.jpg, I hadn't realized that whoever closes DRs here does so purely on the merits of the arguments for/against the original objection. The realization surprises me; but there are so many DRs that energy has to be conserved, and on reflection I sympathize and understand. A new, separate DR for Benteaching.jpg? Not from me. It's merely a screengrab from a video released as a PR exercise. The screengrab is employed in a WP article that itself was seemingly created as a PR exercise (see here). I think that we all have better things to do than point out a flaw within a PR campaign, and I think that a second DR would merely show how the PR campaign had failed to tie up loose ends.

But back to Hornstra (and Meadows). I sense that a lot of people are favorably disposed toward Wikipedia (etc) and would like to contribute graphics. (Viewed very cynically, this could be questioned as self-PR; but both these people have achieved critical acclaim and a degree of commercial success; crudely, they need coverage in WP less than a self-respecting encyclopedia needs coverage of them.) As I read what was required for a known photographer to contribute JPEGs to Wikimedia, have them credited to him, avoid their later deletion, and keep on contributing without any need for repeated OTRS communications, I got lost. No wonder people with even less experience of Commons than I have are deterred. Perhaps the system is better than I think; perhaps it has been improved. But my alternative -- a CC page within the person's own website -- seemed promising. I'm grateful for having certain misunderstandings corrected, and after their correction the idea still seems promising. (I'm not knocking the established, OTRS route, just hoping to avoid it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nigra-blankaj fotoj de tramoj

Saluton! [1] [2] Kial? Tiuj fotoj ja montras tramojn, ne nur trakojn. darkweasel94 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Mi tion faras per Cat-a-lot kaj iuj bildetoj estas tro malgrandaj. Pardonu pro la eraro. Kompreneble mi planas vidigi al mi plenekrane la enhavon de la nova kategorio kiel sekvencon kaj korekti tiajn erarojn, sed b.v. korekti jam tiujn se vi emas. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done darkweasel94 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:BSicon WASSERqf.svg

File:BSicon WASSERqf.svg 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!

JuTa 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

dSKRZ-G2o/u

Just inquiring: [3] what is too tight and for what? YLSS (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I think it is too tight to do, e.g., when you could do  , which better matches . I think that narrow icons with stuff that that needs to crammed in is a bad idea. (Not the case, of course, of or , for instance, which are appropriate to have as half-with icons.) Another example, not narrow, is the whole family. Note that I’m not defending those “crammed” icons should be deleted or anything, but would recomend they sould be avoided in normal use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, of course you're right. But don't forget there's a difference between  (WBRÜCKEq) &  (WBRÜCKE1q) (at least in ru.wp, both are used to show bridges of different size, as well as  (WBRÜCKE2q)). Also, sometimes there is really-really little space, and every pixel is priceless (e. g. {{Баженово — Рефт}}). But yes, I agree that in normal circumstances, more aesthetically-looking icons should be used. YLSS (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, WRT [4]: maybe they would better be RP2+exBUE? Because AFAIK you didn't plan any out-of-use road (which I also find extraneous). Also, probably they should be RP2+BUEq & RP2q+BUE (for "standard" priority crossings), and possibly "v" needs to be duplicated... or not... YLSS (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Luca Sartoni

Hi Tuvalkin. Thank you for your message. You are quite right! I just created Category:Files from Luca Sartoni Flickr stream, for photographs by Luca Sartoni and for files hosted in this Flickr stream. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jmhullot-Ryn5wakGVkc-original.jpg

File:Jmhullot-Ryn5wakGVkc-original.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!

Yann (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Padeto.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Padeto.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jmhullot-yB4GFgJp2Lc-original.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jmhullot-yB4GFgJp2Lc-original.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jmhullot-q7zHrlK1e0U-original.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jmhullot-q7zHrlK1e0U-original.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Chicago by Dragan Maksimovic.jpg

File:Chicago by Dragan Maksimovic.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:At first Dhamma.sight.Peace Education..jpg

Hi, The source is wrong here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cu Chi tunnels.jpg

File:Cu Chi tunnels.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!

Yann (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fotopedia

Hi,

It's me again. ;o) Is there any reason why you didn't upload the highest resolution available here: File:Embalse el Yeso.jpg? And I don't think it is needed to add the direct link to images. It prevents the license review script to find the right URL. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your contact!

Resolution: The reason is that I’m dumb — or at least this first 100 batch was tentative and at first I didnt know what I know now about Fotopedia urls. Meanwhile I detected that problem and saved in my hard drive all the missing max res photos — I plan to upload them in replacement later. But that can be done after the site dies: Right now my priority is to give the opportunity for license review while it is still up.

Source links: I always like to give the most possible information about a source. Maybe the direct image link will persist longer or will be available through archive sites while the image information page will not? I think it is useful. I assumed the bot would grab the first source url first — and that’s the image info page url, not the image url (unless where I messed up, of course).

I plan to finish this in the next few hours (if I can stay awake!) and will then writeup something in the talk page to enable grabbing more than these paltry few (100/22000 = 0,4̅5̅%…) with minimum fuss, allowing license review up to the deadline. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lilins-a0254bb0bb5b5d24738c2aecf598f667-original.jpg

File:Lilins-a0254bb0bb5b5d24738c2aecf598f667-original.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!

Yann (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

File:At first Dhamma.sight.Peace Education..jpg

File:At first Dhamma.sight.Peace Education..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!

Yann (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Drako 000.jpg

File:Drako 000.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!

Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Drako 001.jpg

File:Drako 001.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!

Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fotopedia-hgVhBTEGlB4.jpg

File:Fotopedia-hgVhBTEGlB4.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!

Natuur12 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fotopedia- RSwVJVD hU.jpg

File:Fotopedia- RSwVJVD hU.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!

JurgenNL (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fotopedia-bUphRNuEHPo.jpg

File:Fotopedia-bUphRNuEHPo.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!

JurgenNL (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:GrinderPuppet(Lyon).jpg

File:GrinderPuppet(Lyon).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!

JurgenNL (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Objects on rugs

FYI I added it here instead. HelenOnline 08:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Category:Photos from Fotopedia - license review needed. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

JurgenNL (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Files from Fotopedia

Hi, I was surprised to see some on Commons some of my pictures transferred from Fotopedia, because Fotopedia itself did`nt initiate any transfers. So, from one side it is good, because it was placed under one correct category and (wow!) under my name , but from other - there is no date, no description, strange name (File:Neĝa domo.jpg) and, moreover, that particular file (File:SvirzhCastle EasternCorner.JPG) was already loaded by me to the Commons with all that additional info. So, now there are sitting side-by-side two identical pictures with different descriptions. Now, my question: is there any possibility to inform me about my files transferred to wiki? In that case I`d have a possibility to add some information I have as an author in my disposition. Thanks, Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mykola, thank you for your message! (It is, by the way, great to found one more of Fotopedia’s fotonauts also active here in Commons.) Some points:

• The copying of material from Fotopedia to Commons is, on one hand, routine, as we here strive to gather all available media that is both in scope and that has a suitable copyright status (public domain or free license) — just like it is done for outher surces, such as Flickr, and on the other hand because it was announced that Fotopedia was about to close on August 10th, and there was a rush to grab as most material as possible. (Meanwhile all content was salvaged elsewhere and the usable fraction of it will eventually added to Commons, with less haste.)
• This hurry caused some of the importing/uploading details (incl. duplicates) done by me to be less accurate than they normally would be, as you noticed.
• Lack of information for some files — namely those you mention, is due to lack of information in Fotopedia itself. I suggest you go on about improving that, by adding to the information box and categories in your photos.
• Duplicated images should be merged, of course, that’s a routine operation in Commons.
• An author category for your photography work should also be created.

Thanks again! -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that Category:Photographs by Mykola Swarnyk already exists: I added to it your photos newly brought over from Fotopedia and also some others that were already in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt answer! It`s a pity to hear that about Fotopedia! Who could expect! It was a very good school for me and now I understand the situation. So, good luck with transferring all the goods from there to here. Now, as I understand, I can go to my hidden autorship category and check the imported pictures? By the way, don't you think, these pictures have to be marked as particular category Category:transferred from Fotopedia? Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see, it is under category Category:Photos from Fotopedia. Good! Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that’s right. I’m not sure, though, if in that cat should also go photos which were also available in Fotopedia, but have been uploaded to Commons independently of that. Probably so. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

About requested deletion, I understand it`s not a good step. OK, please help me to be correct. How do I link these files, which are duplicating existing files? I am quite illiterate in these things. Also, am I not entitled to confirm the license? Another question, the link to "my Fotobedia account" shows nothing - is`nt be better to replace it with Mykola Swarnyk, because the category "Transferred from Fotopedia" is there? Also, most of these files are not showing any geotags or geographic places - should I add them manually? Also, I don't see many of my pictures from Fotopedia - are they already lost or they still will appear here? Thanks for your help and patience. Mykola Swarnyk (обговорення) 18:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:YewThree.jpg

File:YewThree.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!

Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:SaigonPort2011.jpg

File:SaigonPort2011.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SaigonPort2011.jpg

File:SaigonPort2011.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!

darkweasel94 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:กาะสมุย(2เรือ).jpg

File:กาะสมุย(2เรือ).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:OraBudho.jpg

File:OraBudho.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Hi Tuvalkin, I've blocked you for making personal attacks: [5], [6]. This is not the first instance where you have been blocked for gross incivility, but I do hope it will be the last. Please use this time to think about why personal attacks are not tolerated on Commons and how you will edit in a collegial fashion when this block expires. Have a nice day. Regards, FASTILY 07:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your valuable time to block me, especially since you did it in such a way that the usual boilerplate template is not showing in my userpage — the one which includes instructions for me to ask to be unblocked. Never mind, I will find it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That should help. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattbuck. (Seems that the thank function is absent from my talk page history, probably due to the blocking, maybe?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "I think I learned the lesson, giving the history of this and my previous (very similar) blocks. I promise that in the future I’ll curb my “passion” and other such misplaced emotions when reacting to what I percieve to be threats to the project, channeling those strong[fixed typo] feelings into reasoned arguments and polite engagement, instead of into creative insulting. In the long run, I acknowledge, such dispassionate behaviour is far more productive. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "Tuválkin has learned the lesson, unblocked per COM:AGF. If you do it again the block will be longer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

File:Vu Ky (cropped).JPG

File:Vu Ky (cropped).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!

Ras67 (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Trams by gauge

I just stumbled on Category:Trams by gauge (occasionally I do), and have a question for you. All trams in Russia use 1524 mm gauge, except those in Pyatigorsk, Rostov-on-Don & Kaliningrad, which I categorised accordingly. (Also, 4 out of 5 tram systems in Crimea are/were 1000 mm, which I've categorised, but those in Kerch are 1524 mm.) So... should the remaining 57 subcats of Category:Trams in Russia by city be just copied to Category:1524 mm track gauge trams or what? YLSS (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi YLSS! I think that the best way to do this elegantly is to create a separate tree under Category:Railways in Russia by track gauge, with subcats Category:1524 mm track gauge railways in Russia, Category:1000 mm track gauge railways in Russia, etc. Those will be used to categorize each individual railways network, small or big (incl. the whole of GẐD as single network), and will have as their parents also Category:1000 mm track gauge, etc. The same for the rolling stock, as usually it grows enough to split that way. But it is impossible to do it all at once, so a couple weeks with slightly incomplete or inconsistent categorization is not the end of the world, while it gives you (and us all) time enough to think about the best way to do stuff. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

uexBRÜCKEu or uexSTRu

You know, some time ago I renamed ugKRZuw not to gBRÜCKEu, but to  (gSTRu), and thought to do the same with  (uexBRÜCKEu)... YLSS (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Awww, bummer! :-( I didnt check the context, was just blindly finishing up what’s at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Manual replacements… Feel free to change it, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I must admit I always hoped we'd get some gratuitous help with those redirects, from somebody unconcerned with BSicons ;) YLSS (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Please refrain from making comments like this. Telling a fellow editor to "go out in the real world a bit more" upon disagreeing with their opinion is borderline incivility and not tolerated on Commons. Thanks for your understanding. Kind regards, FASTILY 23:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fastily, considering my blocking history and your role in it, I most certainly heed your advice and will be careful to avoid that kind of comments in the future. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Issaquah

It seems odd to me to have moved Category:Trams in Washington (state) from a particular picture of an Issaquah tram to the Issaquah Depot. At this point the depot is just a museum, but when it was operational, it was mainly a mainline station. We don't usually attach a tram category to a mainline station just because it also was a tram stop. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your comment! I assumed that Issaquah Depot is the center of the operations of this tram line and therefore it would double for the infrastructure itself (depot + former station) and for the heritage tram operation. I removed that categorization and created a new Category:Trams in Issaquah — feel free to improve! -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FishDish.jpg

File:FishDish.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!

Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

BSicon RfDs

Don't thank me, thank Taivo ;) I always feel so guilty for burdening him with our mess... YLSS (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank him for flushing the deletion pipeline, but I thank you also for tackling this mess, too! -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WRT recent duplicates, just FYI: Special:Diff/136125941 & Special:Diff/136168993. And on the while, khm, self-sufficiency: [7][8][9] and most terrifyingly [10]. YLSS (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I had already noticed your work on those diagrams, when I was looking for the origin of those recent new icons. Good diplomacy, too! -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg

Your edit didn't seem too useful, since I think that for flag images, we should stick to heraldic/vexillological categorizations, and not drag in completely irrelevant fields. The textual "blazon" for that image would be roughly something like "Quarterly azure and Or, a roundel counterchanged, over all a sun counterchanged". Not sure how this image involves a 2×2 matrix any more than hundreds of other heraldic shields or flags with quarterly partitions... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. The Category:2×2 matrices tagging should be applied at the top level category about (crosswise) quarterly. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-uploads

(Not sure if you know this... Just in case you don't.) If you rename some xpBHFl to pBHFl (so that the file is named correctly), then open the leftover redirect and edit it, entering the full description of the file that you think should be located under that name, then after you save it there will be a link "Upload file" at the top of the page, and you'll be able to upload the correct file for that name. That way, you smoothly preserve attribution and don't create duplicate versions. YLSS (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Good trick, smoother than the way I used. Thanks for the heads-up! -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:BlackSandBeach(byJEWaider).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:BlackSandBeach(byJEWaider).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Lighthousemorning.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Lighthousemorning.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Ww2censor (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:TramColors

At Minimum one link is broken in this template, causing all transclusions to appear in Category:Pages with broken file links. Please check and fix. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I'm generally against using BSicons for anything except RDTs. But have fun. YLSS (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Having a ball. ;-) the definitive version will not have {{BS-q}} and all necessary icons will be created (even 3 icons for… set_white!). -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a work in progress, I’m on it. (By the way, Denniss, the function that was once at http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php is still unavailable, it seems, for many months now. Some admin pressure might be needed to get it done, maybe?…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Vihara2010.jpg

File:Vihara2010.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wdwd (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:הרבנית רבקה סאנט.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:הרבנית רבקה סאנט.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:הרבנית רבקה סאנט.JPG]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Rodrigolopes (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mrinal Kanti Das.jpg

File:Mrinal Kanti Das.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Squares and matrices

Again my comment from this edit: So all squares with n*n fields are nxn matrices? No. All nxn matrices are squares with n*n fields. Matrices are mathematical objects. Don't tell me that File:Banner of Bavaria-Landshut.svg is a 2x2 matrix. (Another example: not a 4x4 matrix)

You seem to have some misconception what a matrix is. It is a mathematical object. The term has other meanings, but they have nothing to do with rows and columns. I really don't understand edits like this one. This is clearly a matrix, not just a square with 9 fields.

BTW, I think your decision to use × instead of x was very unpractical. Do you have × on the keyboard? I don't.

Anyway, thanks for Template:MatrixCat. That was a good idea. I think we could further improve it by including properties like binary or Cayley table. mate2code 17:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I’m trying here to remain civil, trying really hard. Please bring the matter to the relevant talk page, and meanwhile try to avoid overcategorization and edit warring. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:สก 956(byAlanHaverty).jpg

File:สก 956(byAlanHaverty).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!

DLindsley (My talk page) 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Tram number 4635, route 35 in Moscow, near Nagatinskaya metro station. 2014-02-24.JPG‎

--Brateevsky {talk} 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)The bottom part of tram is orange (overall it is blue and orange). Why do you delete a category for the second time? --Brateevsky {talk} 16:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn’t delete a category, I removed a category from a file. Why? Because that file is already categorized as Category:KTM-23 in Moscow, which is in turn categorized as Category:Blue and orange trams. If you have any doubts, it is explained in COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, then thank you! --Brateevsky {talk} 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Clocks with Roman numerals (I-XXIIII)

Hmm... And if these 24 Roman numerals would be on double chapter ring? Haven't found any as yet, though... YLSS (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that needs (or will need) its own category and possibly rearrange/rename its parent categories. It is a work in progress. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

А и Б

I was in a mood for mischief (happy Halloween!), and decided to break the beauty of Category:Tram routes by number with some letters. So here you are: Category:Tram route А in Moscow (note Cyrillic А). I also created Category:Trolleybus route Б in Moscow, but trolleybuses are pretty non-existent in Commons category tree... Also: how about using ">" instead of "Ⅽ" for numbers > 99? It should follow the numbers directly, before any letters. YLSS (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Letters are very welcome, of course, even after Halloween has passed. Typographically identical cyrillic letters will trigger accusations of phishing from some quarters; will be wicked to witness. Using "Ⅽ" (not "C", mind it!) was my own attempt at mischief, I dont mind it changed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Files in Category:Grey and red rolling stock‎

moved to Template talk:TramColors#Grey v.s gray

Tram transport in the United States

Hi Tuvalkin. I have reverted your change at this category, as this is a clear example of overcategorisation. Category:Tram transport in the United States is already a subcategory of Category:Rail transport in the United States, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Public transport in the United States. The guidelines on categorisation are quite clear: if it is already a subcategory of a subcategory, it should not also be a subcategory of the main category. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is technically COM:OVERCAT, but the problem lays at Category:Rail transport in the United States being categorized as Category:Public transport in the United States, something I could have not guessed. Surely freight trains are not public transport in any usual and useful meaning of that phrase, are they? What needs to be done is not remove "publicness" from trams but from rail in general. (Are there freight trams? Yes they are, but very few, and in the US none extant — they would account for, say, 0.01% of our media on the wider subject, while freight on rail in the US notoriously surpasses the passenger kind.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The way to deal with that problem then (and I tend to agree with you that Category:Rail transport should not be a subcategory of Category:Public transport) is to raise the matter at Categories for discussion for the global categorisation, and not to treat the United States in isolation. There are wider implications of course, as some elements of Category:Rail transport are proper to Category:Public transport, and it may well be necessary to create a new Category:Passenger rail transport, which would be a subcategory of both Category:Rail transport and Category:Public transport.

Category:Tram transport would then sit quite comfortably in Category:Passenger rail transport as a subcategory of both Category:Public transport and Category:Rail transport. This would mirror the situation at Category:Bus transport, which is a subcategory of both Category:Public transport and Category:Road transport.

As you say, there have been freight trams in the past (I can think of very few, or any, that still exist outside museums). Perhaps this should also be addressed, though things will start getting somewhat complicated by then! There is also the problem of getting any sort of consensus at Categories for discussion. Such discussions always seem to peter out into nothing on Commons, and drift unresolved for years, unlike categorisation discussions on English Wikipedia, where firm decisions are reached and the discussions closed by an administrator. The system at Commons, frankly, is not fit for purpose. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the need to separate orthogonal classifications, by means of a new Category:Passenger rail transport. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Plaza Italia Homenaje Tranvia Buenos Aires.jpg

Hi again Tuvalkin. My reasoning at the above was that the category for the monument belongs properly to Category:Tram transport in Palermo, Buenos Aires, but the image of the tram on the tiles belongs to Category:Trams in Palermo, Buenos Aires, given that one is a category for a monument and the other is an image of a tram. However, I can't say I'm too bothered either way. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. Either way, subject categorization should be concentrated in Category:Azulejo de homenaje a la Tranvía de Buenos Aires, leaving only a few specific categories to be added to each photo of this tile panel, such as taken-date etc. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:MuCEM(façade).jpg

And also:

• File:MuCEM(passerelle).jpg

Yours sincerely, Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Campos das Cebolas

Boas Tuvalkin,

Francamente, essa categorização Category:Objects resembling onions é completamente absurda. A praça assemelha-se a uma cebola? E porque é que pelo simples facto de ter "cebola" no nome deve ser categorizada? Por esse andar tínhamos todas as ruas e praças em categorias do tipo "Liberdade", "Comércio", "Cais", "Almirante", "Ribeira", "Bacalhau", etc., só para ficar nas mais próximas.

Cpts. --Stegop (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Olá, e desde já parabéns pelo bom trabalho. Como não concordamos a 99% sobre o que é bom, porém, passemos à refrega:

Respondendo de trás para diante, tenho a dizer sim — se a categoria Category:Rua Presidente Arriaga está categorizada sob Category:Manuel de Arriaga, e se a categoria Category:Calçada de Santo André está categorizada sob Category:Saint Andrew (e sob Category:Places named after saints, com possível futura fusão para Category:Places named after Saint Andrew), então a Category:Rua de Qualquer Coisa deverá estar categorizada sob Category:Qualquer Coisa.

O interesse deste tipo de enlaces é mais óbvio quando se trata de personalidades, mas o facto de existirem arruamentos que homenageiam a Espanha, a liberdade, ou mesmo a saudade, é digno de nota. O mesmo para ruas nomeadas com base em profissões ou atividades que em tempos nelas se fixaram, como os referidos bacalhoeiros.

Quanto às cebolas e ao campo das ditas, naturalmente a categorização ideal será Category:Onion markets, mas ainda não temos. Vou tentar melhorar o meu desempenho neste caso, sem abandonar o conceito.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Muito francamente, continuo a achar um preciosismo desnecessário, mas como está agora já não me incomoda. Não tenho a certeza que "o interesse deste tipo de enlaces é mais óbvio", mas se o compreendo com alguma facilidade nos exemplos que enumera, já querer categorizar cebolas ou laranjas ou prata, ouro, etc..... --Stegop (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ruas em categorias de edifícos???

Qual é o sentido disso? Por essa lógica haverá montes de igrejas que em vez de estarem nas categorias das ruas ou freguesias vai ser o contrário. O Museu Militar deu nome a dois arruamentos, mas colocar estes como sub-cats é um completo absurdo. --Stegop (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P.f. ver acima. Category:Museu Militar de Lisboa deverá ficar sob Category:Largo do Museu da Artilharia, por ser o arruamento onde se situa (e pela mesma razão também Category:Rua Teixeira Lopes, Category:Rua dos Caminhos de Ferro, e Category:Calçada do Forte) Mas Category:Museu Militar de Lisboa deverá também ficar como categoria-mãe de Category:Largo do Museu da Artilharia por ser o “tema” do nome da rua. É um caso de anastomose da árvore de categorias? É sim, mas um caso justificado — se aborrece muito, dá-se-lhe um jeito. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(E pare de fazer edit warring e de me insultar. Também há regras para isso.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Qual insulto e edit-war? Achar um absurdo esse preciosismo de querer que as categorias denotem a origem dos topónimos? Se isso é insulto, então com certeza que estou a cometer um delito de opinião. E quanto a edit-war, é natural que ao me dedicar às fotos de Lisboa tenha que "tropeçar" no trabalho dos outros (poucos) que têm feito o mesmo. --Stegop (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war não é quando duas ou mais pessoas trabalham sobre o mesmo tema (isso é simplesmente wiki), mas quando se desfaz repetidamente o que outrem fez, ignorando ou evitando discussão. Os insultos que referi foram o repetido uso de "absurdo" em resposta à minha justificação. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Boas festas

File:Bon dia desayunos a domicilio felices fiestas.jpg

É meu desejo que você gasta boas festas com sua família. Um grande abraço da Argentina. (talk) Allforrous 21:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

¡Gracias, y el mismo para usted! -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Hiroden 1000 series (II)

日本語で失礼します。Category:Hiroden 1000 series (II)の下にあった画像を他のカテゴリー（色に関するカテゴリー）に移動されましたが、Category:Hiroden 1000 series (II)は車種名に関するカテゴリーです。色に関するカテゴリーを残すにしても、車種名に関するカテゴリーまで削除しないようにお願いします。該当画像ですが、適切な形で修正しました。--Taisyo (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Taisyo, 私はあなたのメッセージを理解していなかった。 Please, act about this matter as you think it is best. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

私はこれを見て、今私は理解しています。あなたは、私がミスを犯した、正しいです。ありがとう！ -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Traffic_cops

Traffic cops 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!

Alan Liefting (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Station_avec_plaque_tournante_(par_Ch._Chusseau-Flaviens).jpg

moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Station_avec_plaque_tournante_(par_Ch._Chusseau-Flaviens).jpg#Lamberhurst_%26_replies

இந்து கடவுள் அய்யனார்..JPG

Hallo Tuvalkin, was it only the lilac color, that you make the Hindu god Aiyanar to a Smurf? Kind regards. --Ras67 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Category:Smurfs must have slipped in when I was trying to categorize it with Category:Blue skin or something. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No big deal, initially i've tried to recognise, whether this figure could be a derivative work of a smurf. --Ras67 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

problems

with re-naming, if I have indeed made a bad-rename, a direct communication from you would be appreciated, it would help me to understand if there specific editors or issues that I can note, and avoid in future. But to be mentioned and not actually communicated with - specially with a diff - or instance of following the advice or not following - would be appreciated, thanks. sats (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem - sorry about that - have taken note about that sort of rename request - and will avoid in future - sats (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

context at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Removal of filemover right for User:Medium69 for violating Commons:Language policy

Tenho mais de 110 anos?

moved to User talk:Tuga1143#File:Elevador-da-Gloria-em-1915.jpg

File:Pelas orelhas! (Simon Lee).jpg

File:Pelas orelhas! (Simon Lee).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!

Vikiçizer (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Direitos de Autor

Saudações novamente, eu costumo ir buscar determinados dados a dois websites:

• http://www.histaviation.com/
• http://www.luftarchiv.de/

Em nenhum dos dois consigo encontrar se as diversas imagens que apresentam se têm ou não direitos de autor ou que tipo de licença têm. Será que me pode ajudar?

Cumprimentos. Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 17:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Caro User:Tuga1143, se nesses saites não há qualquer indicação sobre direito de cópia, autoria, ou licença, dever-se-á assumir que têm «todos os direitos reservados» — a menos nos casos em que possa argumentar domínio público por antiguidade. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Streets are not roses

Hello, Tuvalkin! I see you reverted my removal of Rua da Rosa from Rosa. Surely Things named after plants covers that relationship? If you think it’s important to link there directly from the rose cat, wouldn’t it be better to create a named-after-roses category under both TNAP and R, and put the street (and whatever else may qualify) in there?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Streets are not roses, surely. Streets are not generals, either, so I suggest you go to Category:Avenue Foch (Paris) and break its semantic nexus with its namesake, too. And from there you can go around in Commons, removing categorization that doesnt follow the principle [child] is [parent]. When you’re done with that, Commons will be significantly less useful — I’m sure there’s a barnstar for that. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

JFTR: artefact was no typo

Check out artefact, it might be a case of en-US vs. en-GB vs. en-oed, I've added the COM:REDCAT template for the bots. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone — I see what you mean; I didn’t know: I assumed it was a typo, the kind of typo I’d make myself, actually, as it is spelled with an "e" in all other languages I know. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

*mtKRZt*

• 
  mtKRZtq
• 
  umtKRZt
• 
  umtKRZtq

I'm puzzled:  (mtKRZtq) vs.  (umtKRZt). Or do you intend to overwrite  (umtKRZt) with blue on top of red as in  (umtKRZtq)? YLSS (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:YLSS, and apologies for the delay. The way I see it, in these cases we can ditch the implicit rule that bahn goes always on top of u, as the naming system allows for an exact description:  (mtKRZtq) means that that “main” item of the icon is horizontal (suffix "q") and red (no preffix "u"); thats the opposite of  (umtKRZtq), where “main” item of the icon is still horizontal (suffix "q") but blue (preffix "u"); in this view,  (umtKRZt) should be redrawn (re-stacked) to show the blue over the red, as its main item is vertical (no suffix "q") and blue (preffix "u"). This is especially useful for tunnels, as its semantics is more free than for surface level crossings, where trams yield almost always to heavier rail — as a tram tunnel can be simply deeper than a rail tunnel. Feel free to move this to Talk:BSicon/Renaming (o.s.l.t.) and continue the discussion there. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, no, I understood your logic back then, and pretty much agree with it. I just hope that there won't be any opposition from the adherents of Bilderkatalog. And also my usual complain about duplication/cluttering of revisions instead of renaming... But I'm nagging. YLSS (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You’re right again — sorry I was too quick to draw a defense. Anyway, at least it is well documented now. Maybe moved this to a talk page… -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Add patroller & rollback flag to your account because you are very active. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for your trust. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Trams on display

I've removed several parent categories from Category:Trams on display because that title, if I understand the English right, does not necessary mean that these trams aren't in service any more: they may be not in service yet, or temporary taken away to some exhibition to be returned later... E.g., in Category:Trams in Moscow on display only Category:Retro trams in Moscow are permanently out of service. Maybe those parent categories should be re-assigned to member cats, or something like that?.. YLSS (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, they could or should, but you removed them, didn’t you? You could have changed the parent-child link to a {{See also}} links, or brought the matter to discussion first, instead. For now we have yet another half hearted, experimental, scarcely populated subcat under Category:Trams, with no other parent, no explanation, and relying solely on its (easily changeable and easily misundertsanble) name. I wish you directed your zeal to much older and even less clear “rare animals” in that category, such as Category:Double-ended streetcars and light rail vehicles‎ (yes, this exists and it is a subcat of Category:Trams…).

I can't invent any other parent category except Category:Transport exhibitions, although "on display" isn't strictly equal to "at exhibition"... Well, I can snap back with you own phrase "it's a work in progress" — but let's not go that bitchy ;) After all, I did populate that category: no less than 4 events of Moscow trams on display, plus those retro trams. YLSS (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)