User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 8

Funiculares e carros de cabos em Lisboa

• Obrigado pela partilha. Onde demónios é que esta gente consegue obter estas informações? Deve ter acampado por um mês dentro da Torre do Tombo... --Ajpvalente (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hehe, é uma tese de mestrado, @Ajpvalente: Provavelmente tem dois anos só de pesquisa. No ANTT e também na Câmara e no Museu da Carris, pelo menos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

SN2 reactions category

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. This isn't an illustration relating to Sn2 reactions in any way. The only reason it uses "SN2 reaction" as an image is I wanted a text string that contains the characters 'S', 'c', 't' and 'a'.

It's a standard feature of articles on typography and lettering topics that they will use sample texts in which the text content is meaningless, and solely provides a way to make the image more interesting and give a sense of what the font looks like in terms of spacing and proportions. To use some example images not done by me, this image should clearly not be categorised as an image about psalters, this one clearly isn't about Jacquard looms, this one isn't about nasturtiums, and I could go on and on. This is a standard practice in books on lettering and font specimen books dating back centuries. Blythwood (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a standard practice in type design, as you say. But, unlike as you say, an image containing the lettering "S_N2 reaction" pretty much belongs in Category:SN2 reactions et c. Please recategorize yourself for this doesn’t need to become an edit war. Or, if you want to defend this wrong view in a wider forum, please bring it to COM:VP. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Blythwood: Are you goading me into revert again your (3rd?!) reversal? We’re now both technically in COM:Edit war. Please either revert yourself or engage in discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is edit warring (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seasons greetings to you too, @Jon Kolbert: When will this block end? For the record, this is about this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see that LibraryGeek (talk · contribs) is not blocked @Jon Kolbert: Why? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: See my comment on the AN/U thread. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jon Kolbert: Yes, never mind, meanwhile I saw it. If you care to check, you’ll see that I carefully avoid edit warring (defined as the 3rd consecutive undoing/revesal). Not going to wikilawyer about whether this time it is such case or not, considering intermediate edits. The fact that guys who like to categorize photos of libraries get weirded out by this photo is understandable, and it explains why it keeps getting uncategorized, but no amount of Commons drama can ever change the fact that this photo shows someone in a library and that’s a fundamental trait of this particular media file. Cats are not galleries yadda yadda — should a cat for this be created? Maybe Category:Unusual situations in libraries, to cover not only nudity and keep these oddballs away from Biliotheconomy busybodies? Here’s an idea. I might work on it in 2019. Too bad you had to block me when I have 17 browser tabs open with unfinished edits, mostly about obscure logos and unusual characters. One week seems frankly a long time (it is a long time to leave the computer on, that’s for sure), but I bet that there’s a crowd in irc demanding you to block me for one year, not just till next year, so… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) Tuvalkin, you made edit war, didn’t you? Of course, another warrior should be admonished too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Incnis Mrsi: Looks like I did, yes. Meanwhile the admonishing was issued, so all good. I understand fully well why edit warring is problematic and how it works (just see the section above) and my only excuse here is that seems that I cannot count, maybe. Meanwhile in the discussion people are saying that I care more for the contents of edits than for the ancillary process (well, yeah?) and also that unidentified libraries should remain unidentified because it might cast a «bad light». Heh, what next?, remove locations for photos of street beggars and homelss people because it could show municipal authorities in a «bad light»? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether or not it was by accident due to miscounting: would you agree that you've reverted too often without meaningful discussion in this particular case? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: There was a sort of discussion going on in edit summaries — that is the wrong way to discuss, of course, and I usually try to avoid it and ask reverters to engage in discussion in the file’s talk page (example above). Most such reverters being unexperienced, the matter usually fizzes: There is a slew of file talk pages with me asking for others’ ideas, mostly about categorization, that never got any echo. What happened here is that, unlike what I do usually (again, see example above, one case still lacking valid categorization), I wrongly did revert his reversion a third time, as I posed the question in AN/U, instead of staying put. It’s useless to ask me whether I’m willing to “stop beating my wife”, but I would point out that counting all times I re-added this cat to this file in the course of several weeks falls off the scope of what edit warring is. (Why has this photo been repeatedly subjected to this particular uncategorization already argued above.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Maybe Category:Unusual situations in libraries, to cover not only nudity and keep these oddballs away from Biliotheconomy busybodies? Here’s an idea. I might work on it in 2019."

Not really needed anymore I think. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: Yes, I had noticed. It’s another way to go (first); ultimately both ideas can be implemented. I see nothing wrong with your take on the matter. B’s version now prevails, though, based on the notion that Category:Unidentified subjects and its subcats are mantainance categories to hold files temporarily; this view was also raised in the AN/U discussion (wrong forum, b.t.w., and incl. such “collegial” and “good-nurtured” aspersions such as «nonsensical»). As I see it, this is wrong: While ideally these cats should be empty, they never will, as there’s always something, new or old, left to be identified. This is one of many such cases. Now, anyone to be splitting files between unidentified and unidentifiable? Not me. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Me neither, but probably not for the same reason. I think it's a good idea in general, but the "unidentifiable" categories will probably attract deletionists. (for lack of a better word) So I'm not doing it either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have lifted the block, please ensure that was the right decision. Happy new year. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

work in progress

 done -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:36, 3 January 2019 (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:BSicon vDSTa-STR.svg

And also:

• File:BSicon vDSTe-STR.svg
• File:BSicon vSTR-DSTe.svg

Yours sincerely, Jc86035 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Csadasd.jpg

File:Csadasd.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. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: posts from Twitter Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

ThatBPengineer (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• No qualms. I only blurred some of it, on request. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Câmara Municipal de Lisboa

• re: User_talk:LBM1948#CML

Peço perdão, envergonhado: confundi "Câmara Municipal de Lisboa" com "Paços do Concelho de Lisboa". --LBM1948 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Check out: Commons:Village_pump#Disambiguation. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/01#Policy_disagreement. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

spectral irradiance of sunlight

≈1kW/nm/m² at ground level on earth is nonsense - after integration across the spectral band this means >1MW/m² and with a human-body-surface of 1m² this would immediately set everyone on fire that walks in the open. - Please correct this immediately! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.31.6.10 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• My edit merely corrected "W" to "kW". Please discuss everything else at the files’ talk pages. I have no expertise on this matter, so I’ll refrain to participate. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An interesting phenomenon

Have you noticed that the more white-space is removed and STRl\STRr (etc.) turns are replaced with ÜW curves, the closer a diagram becomes to the actual physical layout? Useddenim (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Useddenim: Absolutely. These 90° curves are suitable for very simplistic diagrams, but we keep getting better and better! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Rio_Grande_(Brazil)

Rio Grande (Brazil) 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!

—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Trams by fleet number

User_talk:Maxim75#Trams_by_fleet_number - OK. Will add categories for new entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim75 (talk • contribs) 2019-03-15 (UTC)

Category:Palácio Sottomayor (Lisbon)\Category:Palácio Sotto Mayor

As categorias Category:Palácio Sottomayor (Lisbon) e Category:Palácio Sotto Mayor não se referem ao mesmo palácio? Cumprimentos. Tm (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Ah, bem me aprecia q já havia! OK, vou compor. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Feito! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoopsie!

I accidentally uploaded File:BSicon lBHF~F maroon.svg and File:BSicon exlBHF~F maroon.svg with the wrong filenames ("~F" was supposed to be "f") So can you move the files to the right filenames,  (lBHFf maroon) and  (exlBHFf maroon)? Thanks in advance, Ben79487 23:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ben79487:  done — see  (lBHFf maroon) and  (exlBHFf maroon), but now you could create the actual icons for the names  (lBHF~F) and  (exlBHF~F), right? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I'll look into it. Thanks! -- Ben79487 23:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• P.S. What's with some of the icons in YLSS's list here's lBHFf row have notations such as  (uexlBHF~F)? -- ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben79487 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry I accidentally did two ~'s instead of four. Ben79487 23:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think it might be leftovers from previous, experimental BSicon names. Better ask at Talk:BSicon/Renaming, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: ~F is the correct suffix as a result of the 2018 changes (see Talk:BSicon/Renaming/Archive 11#Suffixes). Jc86035 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yup, I was thinking backwards when I agreed to the renaming, my bad. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My Uploads

Hi. I by mistake put wrong deletion request labels on some of my uploaded photos. What I meant was to put speedy deletion label instead of nomination for delet due to security reasons. Thank you for your contribution. I want to delete some information from them and re-apload them. However, I made a mistake to put the right label. If it is possible to delete those information (altitude- latitude) from them while pictures are still here without deletion I am more than happy for admins to do that. Thanks. Gharouni (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I thought it would be a problem like that. That can be done routinely by anyone — including yourself: Instead of asking for deletion, either as speedy or as regular, just upload a new version with expunged EXIF (or whichever needed modification) onto the existing one and then ask from an admin the removal of the previous version from the file history. That’s the best, fastest, and simplest solution for everybody. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken rollback

Yeah, I'm sorry. Pressed the rollback button by mistake while viewing my watchlist on the phone. I did not even notice I did that until you reverted me. Thanks --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 15:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyrillic two letter combinations

Are you planning to make a navigation for combinations of two Cyrillic letters? That would be great, since there's a lot of images with two Cyrillic letter combinations and the navigation is practical. If you are going to create one, it would be easier create categories already with the navigation instead of editing them afterwards to add it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• It’s the next logical step, and I plan to work on it, but I cannot make any promises concerning exact timelines and goals. If you wanna do it now, go ahead and I’ll catch you later, no problem. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you categorise some letter images into a wrong category only because it looks like some other letter while it hasn't anything to do with it?

title 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• When I miscategorize something I am not aware of the error at that time. Without specific examples, I cannot explain any more clearly. Please understand that the lack of good faith evidenced by the statement implied in your question («Why do you »…« only because») is against COM:AGF. Please understand also that the way your question was posed (long-ass heading including the whole point in convoluted syntax) met the threshold for chuckles and headshake. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 1/1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, for example. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Pointing out other’s errors is a fun sport. Like how I’m chuckling at the clueless way you link to diffs. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Could you point out what exactly you found clueless in my way I link to diffs? Also, now that you have specific examples you could explain more clearly. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sure thing:

• clueless: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:filename&diff=edit number&oldid=previous edit number label]
• neat: [[Special:Diff/edit number/previous edit number|label]]

About your examples of my mistakes they are just just that, mistakes. Not done willingly, meant to be something else, fruits of distraction or clumsiness, unintentional, and purposeless — I have no other explanation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you can't tell me this was a mistake. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, that’s not a mistake, that’s correct — and a mistake is your reverting. Please refer to U+0192 LATIN SMALL LETTER F WITH HOOK, which is explicitly marked as a synonym of "florin sign" and how a move to disunify these two acceptions into separate Unicode characters has been stalled for 10 years now. Should Unicode ever contain two separate characters for F with hook and for the florin sign, we should certainly separate the two concepts, but as it is — probably not. Furthermore, the musical symbols for forte, fortissimo and fortississimo are expected to be typset as bold italic lowercase Latin effs and are present in Unicode as U+1D191 MUSICAL SYMBOL FORTE; it would be wise to treat this as a categorizable notion in Commons, should there be enough media item to justify it, but always as a subcat of F. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• The “florin sign” is a certain usage of the F with hook, that's why I separated them (also, the capital F with hook is not used as a florin sign). Probably there could ve a category like “f as f with hook”. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, three reversals and it’s AN/U and a week long block for you. Last warning. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Good job again. You could just have removed them from the category because all these images already were in the category of Category:Cyrillic upper- and lower-case pairs with font lines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I didn’t notice. Glad you’re on the ball. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tramwerkzaamheden bij het stationsplein, Bestanddeelnr 902-4143 (↻2,7°).jpg

moved to File talk:Tramwerkzaamheden bij het stationsplein, Bestanddeelnr 902-4143 (↻2,7°).jpg — 18:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:VV as W vs Category:N as И

That is confusing. In the first one, VV (1) is used to represent W (2), but in the second, И (2) represents N (1). They (actually all categories from Category:Unusual spellings) should be unified, I think. I think it's better to have (actual letter) as (form), but there still has to be an explanation on the category description page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, likely some of those categories named "X as Y" need to be renamed for clarity, especially when there exists an equally valid "Y as X". I tried to contrast these pairs by simply having opposite cats named with "as" and "for", but often it is just not clear enough. Some of the subcats under Category:Unusual spellings, Category:Unusual typesetting, and Category:Unusual letterforms might serve as suitable renaming examples. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

source=exif parameter

Thanks for what you did on File:DiddleArena.JPG. I wasn't aware of the source=exif parameter, but I am now, and will certainly use it in the future thanks to you. Senator2029 11:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Senator2029: You’re welcome and thanks for creating the red cat my edit caused to materialize. What moved me to play with this was the use of an |location= in {{Exif date}}, which was not being displayed nor otherwise used. I then created this mantainance cat and have been working on it after discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Peter Witt streetcars of the Toronto Transit Commission

I just looked at this category and noticed that there are many misidentified and miscategorized images in it. I intend to clean it up, but before I incur the wrath of the commons police, can you offer any comments or suggestions about making wholesale name changes so as to standardize titles (i.e. potentially controversial page moves)? Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Useddenim: I’d say you go ahead. There’s no significant kibbitz activity regarding most categorization, trams included. I’d say that photos of TTC cars should be categorized by date, model (incl. fleet number as appropriate), and route. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your accusations

Hi. I've been surprised a few days ago by your enigmatic change of one of my {{No permission since}} tag and I'm again surprised by your today accusations (for which I've not been notified, which is quite impolite). May you explain what type of "crusade" and infringement of "Commons’ most basic principles" are you refering to? So I suggest you to let a report on the Administrators' noticeboard. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I presumed you watch your own DRs. If you don’t care, why should I? For what’s worth, I didn’t even noticed your name showed up twice in the few edits I made today. Anyway, about your points:
  1. There is nothing enigmatic in converting a speedy into a DR. You think that this file should be deleted immediately, while I think the matter should be discussed.
  2. One of Commons’ most basic principles, in my view, is that it is (or should be) a curated repository of free media, while you seem to take the word "educational" at its most restrict meaning and enforce a severe deleting policy. That’s bound to cause clashes, assymetric ones. I noticed you used the same rationale for multiple DRs (I browsed idly through Commons:Deletion requests/2019/05; the Julia Piera pic was not there), and picked one to add my voice to one of the most eggregious cases; Kaganer is on the spot there and I was happy to support this view.

I have no intention of “reporting” you to anyone, as this is not an issue of personal behaviour, rather one of outlook. No need to discuss this as such here, either: I’m sure we’ll “see” each other in many DRs.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ligatures

Should there be two separate categories on St and st ligatures or are they unified? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• @1234qwer1234qwer4: I think separated, if there is a clear and consistent typographic difference in the examples we have. If so, the name of these categories should be "Ligature "st"" and "Ligature "St"", to stress the exact description, and both, along with Ligature "ſt", should be categorized under ST ligature. A category for Ligature "ST" is also possible, if there are cases of it. (I wrote this before browsing our current content; will check it ASAP.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Back now. Looks like we have material enough (and solid enough) to create all these. Very good! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think that the names of the categories should be unified, e. g. Category:LI ligature‎ should be renamed to Category:Ligature‎ "LI", Category:AR ligature‎ to Category:Ligature‎ "AR" etc. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• The difference between AR ligature, on one hand, and, in the other, Ligature "AR", Ligature‎ "Ar", and Ligature "ar" is that the latter ones refer to specific cased letter forms, while the former is case insensitive. A split as was done for Ligature "ST" is warranted only if there’s a sizeable amout of media to classify as such. Meanwhile, though, a set orthogonal categories could be created: All-caps ligatures, Capitalized ligatures, and Lower case ligatures, and these could be used to categorize both ligature cats of the latter type and individual files categorized in ligature cats of the former type. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks, I didn't know that was intended and decategorised some files from the case-insentitive categories before this discussion, sorry. What do you mean by “sizeable amount”? There is one image in Ligature "ST". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Ligature "ST" is part of a set of four ST ligatures cats which hold now a total of 63 media files: That’s sizeable. But I’m not against creating categories with single images or subcats in them, provided no busybody will find reason to delete them later on. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Category:Non-ISO Latin letters

There's a problem with Category:Non-ISO Latin letters: Category:Letters with diacritics is a subcategory of it, which means that all letters of other scripts with diacritics are considered Latin letters due to transitivity. Therefore I propose to create Category:Latin letters with diacritics (probably also other ones, but later), which would currently contain all the categories of the form xxx with diacritics‎ (again, here, the creation of analogous categories for Cyrillic and other scripts is possible). WHat do you think? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1234qwer1234qwer4: I think you’re quite right. That was implicitly planned, of course, but now the time is ripe for that dissmination to be done. Please do go ahead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Unusual_characters

Unusual characters 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!

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Letters with font lines

Just a baseline (or other line) is not enough, is it? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1234qwer1234qwer4: Yes, I agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Invisible_letter

Invisible letter 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!

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For persistent work and effort towards one of the most important sites "Flags of the World". Keep it up! Voldemort (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• What a tool. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Povodňová doprava v Praze, M, 146.jpg

moved to File talk:Povodňová doprava v Praze, M, 146.jpg

File:135 Militkasko .svg vs File:135 Militkasko.svg

Hi Tuvalkin. (re Special:Diff/358965757) I agree that I made a mistake on my request with File:135 Militkasko .svg, however, File:135 Militkasko .svg and File:135 Militkasko.svg are vastly different images whose only (filename) difference is a trailing space. They should probably be renamed to something which is more descriptive, even if my suggestion was the (accidental) partial merging of two languages. The filenames are, by definition, ambiguous? Wouldn't that mean that criterion 2 does apply but that my suggested name was just not correct? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I didn’t check with enough attention and presumed wrongly that the two helmets had different numbers. (I might have been all warm and fuzzy because apparently it was the first time I interacted with the other party in a non adversarial manner: Alas, it seems he’s right, in a way, but he’s still wrong, once more.) I will look into the matter and will try to discern the significance of the number in this context, and of the differing designs, and will eventually enact a more general renaming, to the content, I hope, of all envolved. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/353861684

Could you explain, why, please? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• See http://unicode.org/wg2/docs/n2822.pdf -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Listed also here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Approved Minutes of the UTC 100: “In Unicode 4.1, U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE is the preferred base as opposed to U+0020 SPACE. For line breaking, U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE gets type AL, drop rule LB7a (rule which says a space with a combining mark acts like a symbol). Add U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE to "aletter" in Unicode Standard Annex #29: Text Boundaries. U+0020 SPACE is still a base character, but it does not change its properties.” 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I can read, too. What’s your point? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• The character proposal was rejected, NBSP should be used for that reason. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Told you I can read. Again, what’s your point? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think Category:Invisible letter shouldn't be in Category:Unencoded characters. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Understood, but you’re wrong. As evidenced by the sources you yourself quoted, invisible letter is pretty much an unencoded character. Of course not accepting Michael Everson’s proposal (@Evertype) for a proper invisible letter and instead rigging NBSP into a Rube Goldberg contraption for the same intended purpose was a lame move on the part of the U.T.C. (we’ll see what the future brings), but my original point stands: Invisible letter was rejected for encoding, therefore invisible letter is an unencoded character — just like Klinzhai, Rongorongo, or semaphore letter signals. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• The difference is that “invisible letter” was proposed for technical reasons and is not some character attested in printed text. There is no current use of it, so it depends purely on the UTC if this formatting-ish character will be encoded—and it won't. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not attested? Guy, we have 249+21+7 attested uses of invisible letter. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not correct, these are dotted geometric shapes, they're not invisible and partially (◌, ⬚) present in the UCS. This is not what was proposed in the document (as I said, a “formatting-ish character”); if you want to represent the symbols in the images, you should use the mentioned symbols. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Those are dotted shapes with the semantics of invisible letter, just like the triangle here has the semantics of U+0041, not of U+25B3. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is a difference between semantical identity and glyph variation. Unicode does not encode sememes, its goal is to be able to represent world's graphemes (which can have different glyphs). While the triangle-shaped character you linked is a stylistic glyph variant of an A, the dotted shapes are just that: dotted shapes. I'd rather say NBSP can have semantics of an invisible character, but the shapes are not invisible. If someone would like to represent the absence of a character or an invisible placeholder, he should use NBSP, as recommended by UTC. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Unicode does not encode 'sememes'"? Good gods, man, give it up. I'm pretty well aware of what Unicode does and does not encode. Note please the authors of the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal, who are also people as knowledgeable as me (and certainly far more knowledgeable than you) about what is and what is not encodable. The INVISBLE LETTER is as valid a placeholder to carry a diacritical mark as a dotted circle or a dotted square. It has the Letter property (which would give it the expected behaviour, while NBSP does not because NBSP glues to both the preceding and following character). It simply has no ink. Get your head around that or don't, but stop banging this drum. You are not getting consensus from other Wikipedians. Evertype (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Back to the original point, though — is your goal to just remove from Category:Invisible letter its categorization as an unencoded character, as it started out to be, or to get rid of the Category:Invisible letter in whole, as you seem to be inclined to now? These are both bad ideas, but they are not compatible. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • None of the images in the category show invisible characters. I think it'd be better to rename it to Category:Character placeholders, which can also include the NBSP. There is no graphical difference and no difference in behaviour between the “unencoded” invisible character and NBSP. UTC recommended to use NBSP, the symbols are unified and hence encoded. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think Tuválkin is right in this discussion and I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 is being unnecessarily rigid in his interpretation of things. Evertype (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Character placeholders would be a good parent for several things (U+2007, for one), including Category:Invisible letter, but not a replacement for it. You’re of course free to categorize all the instances of media tagged with Category:Invisible letter also with Category:Use of NBSP as placeholder for diacritics or whatever, but you should be advised of two things:

1. Wikimedia Commons categorization is independent of UCS jargon and will reflect Unicode properties only to the extent that they are useful for normal users (which is most of it); we do not follow Unicode faithfully here in things like some instances of casing (I’ll let you hunt down examples) and we totally do not concern ourselves with things like decomposition and canonicity (no separate categories for, say, U+02D8 versus U+0306, when “caught in the wild”).
2. Whatever the UTC might recommend today (populated at is is with a few obligatory company shills and industry stoodges) might be overthrown tomorrow. And being on the UTC’s side against M. Everson’s is usually being on the wrong side of history — you can ask capital sharp ess or the Coptic script, among many others.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The character was invented for addition to the UCS and is not used (instead, NBSP is). If I draw some random wiggly lines and call each of them a new character, I wouldn't call them unencoded because they aren't in use. There is no purpose of encoding symbols not in use. Even if we would consider “invisible letter” an unencoded character, none of the characters shown in the images is invisible. They are visible placeholders, even the letter A can be one. It is not correct to categorise them here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• You contradict yourself: An unencoded character is unencoded and therefore logically Category:Invisible letter must be a subcategory of Category:Unencoded characters. The case you raised in this discussion is closed, no need to waste any more time here with it. If you want to make the case that Category:Invisible letter should not exist, then go raise the matter elsewhere. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The invisible letter is in use. In traditional typography lead type diacritics were set by themselves, not sitting on a dotted circle or dash or anything. The proposed character was called INVISIBLE LETTER because (1) it had no ink and (2) it had the letter property which is just what anyone would want to put a diacritic on. NBSP is a hack, and not a good one, because NBSP will glue itself to whatever precedes, in addition to the diacritic that follows. Evertype (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

---

(later)

Okay, guy, point made. Your contrarianism is noted and while up to a certain level it can be even useful or at least amusing (sparring about character encoding with “the” Michael Everson, seriously?), this edit of yours, without the obvious correction, shows your bad faith in quite sufficient manner. Please do futurely engage me in discussions in whatever relevant file or category talk pages by means of {{R}} or {{U}} and come to my talk pages only for matters concerning me personally, of which there will be hopefully none. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now, he didn't spar with me in any genuine fashion, now, did he? He didn't listen to arguments, and he kept repeating his own misconceptions. Evertype (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sweet of you to use the definite article though. 🥰 Evertype (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I added Category:Klingon glyphs to Category:Characters of unencoded scripts as soon as I've created it. Maybe, there should be Category:Unencoded scripts as a separate category, though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• @1234qwer1234qwer4: Oops, you’re right; sorry about that. Agreed on Category:Unencoded scripts, I think, too. Still wrong on the matter of this OP, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Capela de Santo Amaro (Alcântara)

Olá Tuvalkin. No Commons, está criada a Category:Igreja de Santo Amaro (Lisbon) e ao mesmo tempo está criada a referida categoria Category:Capela de Santo Amaro (Alcântara) que parece mais adequada pois se trata de uma capela. Julgo que se trata do mesmo edifício religioso e assim a Category:Igreja de Santo Amaro (Lisbon) deverá ser eliminada e a cópia da aguarela de Roque Gameiro ser junta à categoria da Capela. Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @GualdimG:  Feito; e obrigado! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ranting

Off-topic ranting like this edit is not welcome. Either contribute in a useful constructive way or don't. Your edit has been removed as disruptive. Please don't place it back, but feel free to add a more constructive response. Multichill (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Multichill, dully noted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:diff/359830060

I clearly see an ⓐ there. The tail of the a is its boundary, the circle around it is closed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• 1234qwer1234qwer4, it may look like a circled lowercase "a", but then again also a "u" looks like a "и". That character as it’s used in Spanish and Portuguese has the semantics of "ꜵ" (if anything other than "a"/"o"), and it is always entered/encoded as @ U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT when digitally transmitted and stored. You may create a category for haphazard handwritten lookalikes (I would suggest that you focus first on, say, Category:Italian upper case "TT" digraph letterform similar to Math uppercase "Π", as there’s comparatively many more instances of it in photos of folk signage) and populate it with this photo, but you may not uncategorize this photo as a case of Category:Symbol "@" standing for "a" or "o", because that’s what it fundamentally shows. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Homenagem aos Calceteiros (statue)

Olá Tuválkin! Mudou o título da dita Categoria, provavelmente porque existindo dois conjuntos, um na Rua da Vitória (de 2006), e outro na Praça dos Restauradores (de 2017), sendo ambos do mesmo escultor, e se poder considerar que se trata da mesma Homenagem. Eu tinha fotografado apenas um dos conjuntos, o último, e daí ter colocado no título 2017. Podendo defender-se que no conjunto constituem ambos a mesma homenagem, vejo com interesse a separação dos conjuntos, porque fisicamente eles estão separados, até para evitar erros de interpretação por quem consulte. Por isso peço que analise a vantagem de retomar o título inicial e criar uma outra categoria com o conjunto de 2006, ou então substituindo o ano pelo local, por exemplo Praça dos Restauradores em vez de 2017. Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ajuda

→User_talk:Femagap#Problemas

Bugotak

I uploaded several great folk music created by Bugotak music band (there is the article about this music band w:ru:Буготак (группа) in Russian Wikipedia). This 2009 album has open license (cc-by). Please review files in this category:Bugotak. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• @AKA MBG:  Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

		The detail categorization of Bugotak music
		You are a hard worker! Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail categorization of these files! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Mark Marathon

Gracias. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Thistles

• (copiado de User talk:Cookie por que enfim.)

Veo que Vd. ha recibido una queja, y eso fue el resultado. ¡Que precioso! A ver: Si es verdad que cardos no son árboles y que grove es un grupo de árboles (lo que no contesto), entonces habería que arreglar el nombre de la categoría — a Category:Thistle fields, p.ej. —, ya que estava en uso en Category:Rua do Cardal de São José, cuya conexión tópica con cardos es evidente e incontestable. Todo esto, la claridad y completud de Commons, fue para Vd. menos importante que ejercer venganza por imaginarias ofensas a su colega LBM1948. A esta mezquindad, no la olvidaré. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Tuvalkin, no tengo ni idea de qué ofensas hablas. No he recibido quejas de nadie. Encontré la categoría por casualidad revisando otras y la borré (sin mirar quién fue su creador, es irrelevante) por tener un título sin sentido y un contenido aún más sin sentido. Si quieres categorizar una calle, solo porque se llama "Cardo", en una categoría valida de plantas, es asunto tuyo. Pero recuerda que presumir buena fe y no hacer ataques personales son políticas a respetar. Un saludo. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Los hechos hablan por si mismos. Tu respuesta, lamentablemente, ha cambiado nada. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not make retaliatory deletion requests

You are undermining any arguement you are trying to make about "censorship" and "free speech". - Seazzy (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I rescued that image from a speedy into a DR. A photo of 1980s electronics “found-object” artwork is important for Commons and I want it kept, regardless of who uploaded it. Now go work on make sure its permission gets into COM:OTRS fast, instead of working your way straight into Blocktown. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agradêcemos

copiado daqui, que será apagado brevemente; v.t. isto

• {{ping|Adélaïde Calais WMFr}} Epá, isto não está nada bom: sou o primeiro a apoiar diversidade dialetal e tudo isso, mas *"agradêcemos" em vez de *"agradecêmos" não é uma idiosincrasia — é um erro. A sílaba tónica em português é de importância fundamental na identificação de cada palavra. P.f. corrige ou apaga. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Um muito bom dia à si tão bem Tuválkin. Si enconrar um erro, o spirito do movimento wikimedia é de corrigir con calma. Agradecerei que o senhor fizesse a sua propria gravação audio no lingua libre. Tambem seria bom verificar as minhas outras gravações : não sou Portuguesa e só contribui em Portugues porque nessa altura não avia ninhuma palavra gravada nesta lingua no Lingua Libre. --Adélaïde Calais WMFr (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cara {{u|Adélaïde Calais WMFr}} — peço desculpa por não ter percebido que não és portuguesa. Sendo assim, o que tenho a dizer é que quase todas as gravações tuas que ouvi estão muitíssimo boas, tendo isso em conta, e perfeitamente utilizáveis para fins de inclusão no Wiktionary e outro usos. Parabéns, e obrigado por teres avançado fora da tua “zona de conforto”!

Dito isto, porém, esta palavra, tal como algumas das outras das que gravaste, está efetivamente errada e seria um mau serviço continuar a disponibilizá-la para reutilização. Corrigir erros, no espírito wiki, como disseste, é habitualmente tão fácil como alterar texto, mas, num caso como este, de ficheiros áudio com a identificação do locutor no próprio filename — o mais simples é fazer como sugeri acima: Ou se apaga o ficheiro, ou se substitui por uma versão corrigida. Espero que tenhas tempo e paciência para isso, e fico inteiramente disponível para qualquer assistência que necessites.

Agradeço a sugestão de completar o meu reparo com uma gravação substituta feita por mim. Não o farei por vários motivos:

1. Disponibilizar gravações espécime de palavras avulsas não é tarefa que considero prioritária, nem de longe, havendo como há acesso a abundantes recursos linguísticos (IPA), lexicográficos (dicionários com indicação de pronúncia) e audiotécnicos (síntese de fala) para gerar e/ou substituir este tipo de informação áudio. Dito isto, acho muito importante que estes ficheiros pouco importantes não contenham erros!
2. Os requisitos técnicos necessários para um mínimo de qualidade (microfone profissional e garantia de silêncio ambiente), bem como disponibilidade de tempo e disposição, são para mim muito menos acessíveis do que os que necessito para as colaborações a que me dedico habitualmente — texto e imagens estáticas.
3. E, finalmente, a minha voz não é nem de longe tão agradável como a tua — e substituir-me a outrém em algo tão personalizado como dar voz, mesmo por correção, é o tipo de coisa bisonha que não quero mesmo fazer.

Mais uma vez, parabéns e agradecimentos pela tua colaboração! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Three_letter_combinations_(other_scripts)

Category:Three_letter_combinations_(other_scripts) 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!

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Two_letter_combinations_(non-Latin)

Category:Two_letter_combinations_(non-Latin) 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!

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

dupe choice

Hi Tuvalkin, why did you request to delete the higher-res version in favour of the lower-res version? --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Túrelio, well spotted, thank you. The bigger image is also older. I will reverse the duplicate warning and copy the categories and other info. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Animations_and_video_of_facial_expressions

Category:Animations_and_video_of_facial_expressions has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Estopedist1 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

File:(matrícula)1-PDL-71-26.jpg

File:(matrícula)1-PDL-71-26.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sortings

https://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt *GREEK*LETTER* official sorting: Αα,Ββ,Γγ,Δδ,Εε,Ϝϝ,Ͷͷ,Ϛϛ,Ζζ,Ͱͱ,Ηη,Θθ,Ιι,Ϳϳ,Κκ,Λλ,Μμ,Νν,Ξξ,Οο,Ππ,Ϻϻ,Ϙϙ,Ϟϟ,Ρρ,Σσ,Ττ,Υυ,Φφ,Χχ,Ψψ,Ωω,Ͳͳ,Ϡϡ,Ϸϸ,— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:111F:C21:1D00:7857:BAC6:9474:103D (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there’s no practical way to implement that sorting order via categorization sortkeys. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lettercombo should contain the above sort. Can you do it automatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.24.98 (talk • contribs) 2019-11-10T09:44:41 (UTC)

Template:Lettercombo shows only the 24 classic Greek letters, along with the 26 ISO Latin letters, so the matter of sorting pre-classic letters is moot. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

He wanted inclusion of pre-classic letters, so will you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.254.96 (talk • contribs) 2019-11-11T15:23:17‎ (UTC)

• Not sure whom you’re refering to, but the answer is no. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:A Great Mathematician Dr. Vashishtha Narayan Singh.jpg

File:A Great Mathematician Dr. Vashishtha Narayan Singh.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!

Nizil Shah (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ela geminada

Can you please explain how this is a diaeresis? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: This is a phoneme separator and syllable separator. Although this case will make it necessary to split Category:Diaeresis into Category:Diaeresis (diacritic) and Category:Diaeresis (prosody). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia separates w:diaeresis in linguistics and prosody. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/359830060

In my eyes, this is not an at sign anymore. The tips of the contour of the a and the contour of the circle would barely touch if they hadn't made this contour so bold in this place. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• We already discussed this. You asked more or less the same, I replied (pinging you), you didn’t follow up. I thought you were convinced. Eitherway, you’re still wrong. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• @1234qwer1234qwer4: -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Theta infelix encoded as Ꝋ (O with long stroke)

Regarding Category:Theta infelix being or not being in the Category:Unencoded characters (your revert), if I’m not mistaken the character Ꝋ U+A74A LATIN LETTER O WITH LONG STROKE OVERLAY (O with long stroke) is theta infelix. The Unicode proposal [1] that led to its encoding in Unicode stated: LATIN LETTER O WITH LONG STROKE OVERLAY is used for Latin obiit ‘he died’. Besides having that exact shape in many cases (besides the shapes of o slash Ø, barred o Ɵ or theta symbol ϴ, and theta Θ), Theta infelix is being interpreted as the Latin obiit. --moyogo (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Moyogo, looks like you’re right — thanks for explaining and apologies for reverting. I am even less to be excused because I took part (in a modest, infinitesimal role) in some of the discussions that eventually resulted in N3027. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem, there was no explanation in my change. Thanks! --moyogo (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of valid OTRS ticket verification

What are you doing removing a valid OTRS permission ticket from this image File:Julia Piera.jpg? This image has been verified by OTRS. Do you know better than them? Ww2censor (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Ww2censor: Look at the file history: I wanted to restore the status of the page (concerning format and categories) as of this edit. For some reason I seem to be unable to edit the wikitext directly, leaving me with three options, all bad: Either to recreate the lost content manually, or to copy and paste line-by-line from the diff view, or to click the "restore" button — I did the latter for expediency, knowing I’d have to made a subsequent edit to reinstate the valid content meanwhile added, including the OTRS tag — which I did immediately after and which you seem to have not noticed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining though I just don't understand why you were unable to edit. It seems we had an exit conflict as you seem to have fixed the issue while I was posting here. I fail to understand you reasoning and wonder why you would specifically add the text «Julia Piera granted the rights to use her picture for her wikipedia page.» when that has no bearing on the permission which was given by the photographer and not the subject and has been verified by the OTRS ticket. Personally that text should be removed. Ww2censor (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)