File:Caveirac,château12,intérieur07.jpgEdit

 
File:Caveirac,château12,intérieur07.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

213.245.42.74 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Caveirac,château12,intérieur08.jpgEdit

 
File:Caveirac,château12,intérieur08.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

213.245.42.74 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Recategorisations restored after accidental deleteEdit

@Finoskov: Bonjour, thank you for your interest in the categorisation of old carriages. I see you say there are no five-glass landau carriages in France. We have a problem because names vary from country to country. Without going further into it at this point (I should explain i have been away for some days and I think you may have made many changes which I am just finding) would you please discuss your planned future changes with me. -because I might learn something and it would stop a completely unnecessary war between us.

I entirely agree that the national name for a particular carriage should be used but if it is in fact a five-glass landau in the USA your re-categorisation needs to feed into that five-glass landau category. Please know that after your first few changes —which gave me no worries— I will not dispute or even look at (right now) your changes if we can just debate them before you make more.

It is wonderful to have another probably much more knowledgeable person taking part in this.

I've a lot of other WP catch-up to do so I'm putting this matter aside for a day or two. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Coach or carriageEdit

Yes it is true that they are both horse-drawn vehicles. There is great difficulty in naming vehicles satisfactorily so they can tie through to supranational categories. Someone has added stagecoaches to Horse-drawn carriages? I had better go and change it now.

Or should I wait to hear your opinion?

Thanks Eddaido (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistakesEdit

Thank you for pointing out some of them. May we talk about how they arose?.Eddaido (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Merci...Edit

... d'avoir corrigé les licences sur ma série de photos de tableaux du musée de Grenoble. J'avoue que j'avais fait l'impasse sur les subtilités de la réglementation étasunienne sur le droit d'auteur :-) Cordialement, Jvillafruela (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

DépartementsEdit

Bonjour, j'aimerais beaucoup que tu m'expliques ton revert. Comme modification inutile, il se pose là. Visiblement, tu n'as pas remarqué que si tu mets "all", presque tous les départements portant des noms de rivière disparaissent, étant donné que les départements sont nommés "Creuse" et non "Creuse (department)", ce qui est tout à fait logique. De gros malins ont pensé qu'il y aurait des homonymies et que "communes in Eure" or "churches in Eure" pouvait concerner le département et la rivière et ont rajouté (department) à la majorité des noms de départements. Peut-être trouves-tu joli de voir des liens rouges mais, dans le cas des listes de département, cela supprime nombre de départements ayant un lien bleu seulement si "all" n'est pas mis (Aube, Creuse, Gers, Indre, Isère...). --Birdie (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Je passe sur les formules de politesse puisque cela ne te concerne visiblement pas. Quel est le texte relatif à ton assertion ? --Birdie (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Bon, mon ironie a quand même porté ses fruits puisque tu as finalement pris la peine de répondre. Je ne vois pour ma part aucune trace de courtoisie en voyant des reverts sans aucune explication. Tu me parles d'un usage, y-a t'il un quelconque texte enjoignant de le suivre ? À défaut de règles ou recommandations, je ne vois pas ce qui pourrait justifier l'emploi d'un modèle inadéquat. Quel est l'intérêt de ne fournir qu'une partie des liens disponibles ? Autant n'en mettre aucun, c'est moins trompeur. Il vaut toujours mieux pas d'information qu'une information erronée ou partielle. Après près de quinze ans de présence et des dizaines de milliers de contributions, en particulier en catégorisation, je connais les us et coutumes de WP, même ceux de wp:fr qui est loin d'être le plus sympathique. Tu as beau avoir créé la page, il me semble opportun de te rappeler qu'elle ne t'appartient pas et que n'importe quel contributeur, enregistré ou non, est libre de la modifier. À défaut d'un quelconque texte précisant l'emploi du all=yes, je ne compte pas suivre cet usage constant qui n'a pas lieu de s'imposer, certains liens pointant sur des pages qui n'ont même jamais été créées et n'ont pas vocation à l'être. Bonne journée. --Birdie (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Louvre N 2272Edit

Dear Finoskov, many thanks for putting up a picture of Louvre statuette N 2272. This seems to have been mislaid for many years, with no other pictures available. Would you have more pictures of all sides? From your picture one can tell that the inscription was badly copied when first published, and I would love to see what's left of the front, too. many thanks and best regards Frauke —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:4CA0:0:F23F:E812:15E0:536B:47EE (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)