Open main menu

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Handstands on floors.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Running in art?Edit

I see your edit and i think the Category:Running in art is better. Is this ok? --Atamari (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea -- thanks. Lambtron (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Video shopsEdit

Hello! You have moved this category, but you should empty it, too... It contains Category:Video shops by country, which can't be moved by bot: it depends on templates. Fix it, please. Wieralee (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fixed -- please let me know if's still messed up. Lambtron (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
A redirected category should be empty. But still it contains two subcategories. You have to empty it. A person who moves the category, is obliged to empty it... Wieralee (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please check again and let me know if it's okay. Thanks. Lambtron (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Redirects are useful, we don't remove it. That's all. Thanks. Wieralee (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume it's fixed, since you haven't said otherwise. Lambtron (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

File:REC. 002.JPG- Removing from Category:Digital video recordersEdit

Hi, I want inform you that the PANASONIC DMR-BWT745 is a digital video recorder on blue ray disc with an internal HHD. Greetings,--Pier Luigi (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pier. Does this device record video to blue ray, to HD, or both? Lambtron (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
PANASONIC DMR-BWT745 records video programs directly to integrated HDD and, later, on blue ray disc, DVD or external USB-HDD. --Pier Luigi (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Always missing the category for the analog prosumer recorder VHS PANASONIC NV-HS1000EGC.--Pier Luigi (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The file description didn't explain the image, which made it difficult to categorize. With your explanation and a bit of product research I was able to clarify the description and put the image in the correct categories. Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Now it seems to me is fine.--Pier Luigi (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Te escribo en español porque mi inglés es terrible. Las imágenes que mandaste a borrar, y que finalmente borraron, no son solamente "de ballet". Son las únicas fotos libres que tengo de una coreografía de Vicente Nebrada, el más importante coreógrafo de latinoamérica del siglo XX. Es como si mandaras a borrar unas imágenes de Four temperaments de George Balanchine "porque no tienen calidad", siendo el único registro que hay disponible sobre eso. No sé si sabes de ballet pero no puedes ilustrar la biografía de un coreógrafo con cualquier imagen de Commons... es como ilustrar una biografía de Vicent Van Gogh con cuadros de Leonardo Da Vinci. Saludos, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laura. I appreciate your sentiments and I don't mean to offend you, but I do know a lot about both ballet and photographing dance, and therefore I must point out that it's impossible to illustrate choreography with a still image. As for Nebrada's biography, the essential illustration is one of Nebrada himself. If video of his choreography is available, that would be of great value too. Best Regards, Lambtron (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories deletingEdit

Please do not remove categories from pages on Wikipedia without really valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. ~Fleur-de-farine 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I did state a "really valid reason" in my edit summary: "this is not a useful category: the vast majority of files in cat:dance are photographs". I recognize the value of a category like "videos of dance" because it covers a relatively small subset of dance files. However, the same cannot be said for "photographs of dance" because a great majority of dance files are photos, and consequently it seems pointless to even have a category like "photographs of dance".
Please ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone will ever find it useful to search for just photos of dance when they are by far the predominant media type? Or how about this: Why are most dance photos not covered by the "photographs of dance" category? (Answer: because it would be a monumental task to categorize hundreds of thousands of dance photos this way, and apparently other editors do not regard it worthy of the effort). Even if someone spent months categorizing photos this way, the resulting category would have little value because it would largely overlap cat:dance.
If you choose to, you are certainly entitled to ignore these realities and continue to categorize this way, but unless you plan to finish the job by adding every dance-related photo somewhere under this category, isn't the category useless anyway? And while the job remains unfinished, isn't it a bit silly to have a category that purports to contain all dance photos when it fails to cover the vast majority of them? Lambtron (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical pas de deuxEdit

Hi, what's the reason for creating Category:Historical pas de deux and deleting Category:Photographs of pas de deux? You wouldn't find here on Commons "historical paintings/objects/operas" - whatever - instead of categorization by century or by main subject. It's kind of peculiar consider 21st century photographs as "historical" - unless you consider "historical" everything that has happened till now. Categorization in Wikipedia does not work that way. So I've rolled back everything as it was (actually turned it into Category:Pas de deux by century). Sorry for that. ~Fleur-de-farine 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fleur-de-farine: We can be much more productive if you would please ask questions first, before reverting, instead of the other way around. As my edit summary indicated, I am trying to solve a fundamental problem caused by "photographs of ..." categories. I admit that my restructuring might not be the best way to resolve this, but its unhelpful of you to simply recreate the problem and offer nothing more than an apology.
Did you know that I previously left a message on your talk page about this very issue (Category:Photographs of dance)? And that similar messages also appear in the thread above this one, and on the category's talk page? I assume you didn't read those messages because you never responded, and because if you had read them, you would already know why I deleted Category:Photographs of pas de deux. I hope you will take the time to read them and reply and, if you agree with my reasoning, work with me to replace these problematic categories. Of course, you may disagree with me, but it seems only fair that you explain why you think my logic is flawed -- before reverting again. Thanks, Lambtron (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling incorrectlyEdit

Please stop patrolling items unless you know what you're doing. The high amount of images you marked as patrolled which are already deleted shows your high error rate.--JacktheHarry (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@JacktheHarry: Please explain your concerns more clearly (I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about). AFAIK it's impossible to even access a file that's been deleted, let alone mark it patrolled. Also, I have no clue what you mean by "error rate", or how you measured mine and found it to be "high". Finally, I must point out that I'm not involved with or even particularly interested in patrolling. I can only surmise that you have major misconceptions about my activities at Commons. If that's not the case, please elaborate. Lambtron (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Male & femaleEdit

Dear Lambtron, Please read: this discussion about categories comprising females. Vysotsky (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Those are some interesting viewpoints. IMO, female-specific categories don't "marginalize" females -- they are simply one of many practical and logical ways to categorize files. Also, apparently some editors think it's negligent to create a female category without also creating a complementary male category (or vice-versa). IMO this is not negligence; it's an incremental improvement to a perpetual work-in-progress. There is a simple remedy for those who are disturbed when they encounter this sort of category asymmetry: make the next incremental improvement and thereby establish symmetry. Lambtron (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Lambtron, By creating a separate Category Female so-and-so without making a symmetrical Category Male so-and-so one is in fact removing women from the main category. It is a bit silly when people then tell others to clean up the asymmetry they themselves created. (And it is much more time-consuming to change a few hundred Photographers to Male photographers compared to "removing" ten Female photographers -or 60 Females stretching, for that matter.) Vysotsky (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a male (or female) subcategory effectively eliminates that class of files from the parent category. However, this does not remove the class itself from the parent; it simply substitutes a link for files of the class. What I think is silly is the notion that subcategorization is some sort of demotion when it's really just a smart and reasonable way to make a particular class of files easier to find and browse. It's true that what's left in the parent category is female (or male) files — and the files of all other uncategorized classes, which is perfectly fine until a subjective editor deems it unsatisfactory. I wouldn't presume to tell others that they must "clean up" category structures they find wanting — or that category asymmetry is inherently wrong and cannot be allowed. Having said that, I do appreciate symmetry and strive for it when I have the time and consider the effort worthwhile. Lambtron (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Quod erat demonstrandum. I rest my case. Vysotsky (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what's been demonstrated, but I'm glad you've attained a sense of closure. Lambtron (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Lambtron".