Open main menu

For contacting me, please see fr:Utilisateur:verdy_p, or use my talk page at fr:Discussion Utilisateur:verdy_p (so that I get notified: I don't want to monitor changes in all wikis, notably with emails formatted in various languages depending on the source wiki, or from unadministered small wikis harvested by spammers, or dummy "welcome" messages sent by bots).


Pic of the DayEdit

Hi. I translate captions for Pic of the Day from time to time but now I'm in a bit of a trouble about this template: Template:Potd/2007-01. I've created a lacking Polish caption Template:Potd/2007-01-02 (pl), "What links here" shows it is linked to the main template but I can't see its contents anywhere on the main January page with the other existing translations. Maybe you can help me sort it out, as the author of the January template page. Regards, Maire 03:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i have a similar problem with Template:Potd/2007-02-03 (de). It is not appearing on the Febuary 2007 page. I have the feeling it has sth to do with the number of digits you use for the day. But i am not sure. --AngMoKio 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The day numbering did not use a leading 0 between the 1st and the 9th of the month until january 2007 where this extra digit was introduced, breaking the current rule. isuppose this was an error, because I can't see any decision. If a leading 0 must be there, then all the history up to december 2006 would have to be renamed (lots of templates to rename!).
So until this change is discussed, I think this was an edit error when Bastique created the new months for january and february 2007 and this should be reverted before there are too many templates to rename (note that the TOC at the top of the page does not work as the links don't include the 0).
If day numbering must change later, this should be done coherently for the history... Currently january and february 2007 will break templates everywhere !Verdy p 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed it for consistency, as the months were using two digits, whereas the days were not. It is a very simple change in the templates--change {{CURRENTDAY}} to {{CURRENTDAY2}} and there will be no need to revert things going forward. Very simple change, and maintains consistency. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the reason that the items were not appearing had nothing to do with the digits. It was a cache and purge issue, undoubtedly. The items are appearing now.Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe I fixed the templates to link to {{CURRENTDAY2}}, so there should be no broken images relating to this change. There was no error. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes thisbreaksinJanuary at least, and it isa major reason why there are so few available translations: all user sandboxes used to edit the months ineachlanguage are broken (and unfortunately there's no other way to add translations correctly, given that the "add language" link is now broken). For january at least, we need synonyms.
Such change should have been done coherently by applying the newnaming policy to ALL past articles (meaning: ask for the help of a bot to rename the history), and makesure that Potd/months calendar templates are updated with the new naming for days. We need time to change the user sandboxes, given that it is now impossible to translate the descriptions without them, and lots of user calendars need fixing. Verdy p 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This also applies to bots that import POTD in the various wikis. Verdy p 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, your should NOT have moved all of these tempaltes. Your assertions were incorrect in that the various language templates were broken because of the move.
Secondly, I did all the work necessary to fix the issues regarding the date change.
Thirdly, the use of single digis for dates while using double digits for months is wrong.
Fourthly, pleasse identify each and every bot that imports these into the various wikis. I am only familiar with fr.wikipedia's import, which can easily be adjusted. I am moving all of these back.

Thank you. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not made any false assumptions. This is just transitional for compatiblity that synonyms were created.
What you have changed was discussed absolutely nowhere, and that's why people were wondering why their bots did not work, or why their translation sandboxes were no more working.
Your change (among others) has caused troubles, especially because it was not documented in time. Now we are at a few days from january and it's probably to late for January to get stable. Anyway we must continue without it and help translators getting back to Commons.
I have fixed lots of area where these were broken, that's why they were not moved but renamed to create synonyms for January only. The new naming is still usable. There are many more languages than just English and French. And in fact, there are other problems caused by the impossibility to translate the image captions for most users; that's where I have worked a lot to fix that for most languages. Some other changes (unrelated to the changeofday number format) were even more problematic, causing POTD to be partly translated,or the translationnot being effectively accessible due to naming problems (and sometimes naming conflits).
I have not touched other months after january; the synonyms were necessary, just for the transition period, to make sure that all works, as there may remain corrections to apply.
Since my corrections, translators are coming back, and get access to the appropriate place, and there's no more need to use a personnal sandbox. For translators, this is mostly a "click-and-type" job directly from the page, as it was before the changes.
Verdy p 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In looking at your contributions it seems that you have spent hours creating a very bad and unmanageable situation which I unfortunately have no time to undo. You should not have taken this action upon yourself without any discussion or concensus. Your comments throughout the process have been remarkably condescending and have entirely destroyed any goodwill I could possibly have for your efforts. I will spend some time reverting your changes.
Furthermore: Please stop placing blame on every Mediawiki issue regarding image display on my use of two digits in place of one for POTD. It is unsubstantiated and entirely untrue. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is fully manageable. And I'd like to know where,beside thispage, I have put such comments or blaming about MediaWiki. That's not the truth! Verdy p 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And stop bolds. I am not shouting on your page. Verdy p 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little perterbed by all this. First off, I haven't been able to understand your English very well. Sorry, but if you have an en-4 ability, it's not coming out very clearly.
I have gone to great lengths to fix the problem with single digit days on POTD. Single digit days do not alphebetize correctly and it is ugly. This is why I fixed things for Janary and going forward. Now I see that you have created a huge problem with the change that I made, without discussion or even asking why I bothered to make that change in the first place.
Note, I have had thousands of contributions on Commons...this is my home wiki. I don't just "do things" carelessly or half-assed. You've only recently become active here (I've never seen you until recently.)
I've reverted the page moves you made, but it will take hours...days to fix every link on every POTD page that you have now created, when it would have been simpler for you to merely ask.
I urge you to help with this. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, I have not changed any links! Day numbering is still 2 digits, even now on all pages starting in January! You may not have understood something. There were much less days renamed to synonyms than other places that were fixed. I have found absolutely no place where your changes were discussed; and even if you think your work was complete, it was not (and others have made other changes that were detrimental too and unfinished, causing problems to everyone, especially for languages which are not in the top-4.) Verdy p 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let us have the two digits dates. No, there was no discussion prior to this. I was the only one working on it at all at the time. Nobody else wanted to be involved except for the occasional self-promoting photographer wanting to put his non-Quality picture non-Featured image on the POTD list that I would have to remove.
Obviously you've spent a lot of time on this, so you may go a long way in helping resolve the situation. I was upset when I discovered all the Template moves that you had made. I don't understand what you mean by "synonym". It's not the same as in English for whatever your discussing, thus increasing the confusion. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
synonyms are two linksgoing to the same place. Nothing else. I have not changed that; this was just an emergency measure, before January comes. There are still other things to change but the very few places where 1 digit was still needed are minor face to the other unrelated edits, which have been discussed since months.
I am contributing since long to Commons,though that's not my primary place (that's why I was not always logged on for most of my minor edits). I have not complained about any MediaWiki bug regarding the 1/2day digit day numbering. There was only a problem in the way MediaWiki handles some image captions, this was immediately accepted and corrected in hours n the software but it was really not related to your change.
You are complaining that I should have discussed, but your ownchange was completely undiscussed everywhere. (My changes where discussed months ago when there was the discussion about Potd/new, and I have updated the document there). You made it "for coherence" but this was not necessary because the day numbering did not cause any problem before. Your change needing CURRENTDAY2 instead of CURRENTDAY is now causing inconsistencies in the history, and this requires some complex code to test the format used before january 2007: that's something I have fixed in Template:Potd/Month; but I won't ask for a bot to rename all the history. There are too many places to change, and there's no emergency to change this now. I have restored the functionality of histories (including for the current month of December! Where only 1-digit days are used). Verdy p 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bandeaux de licence en anglaisEdit

Bonjour Verdy, Sur Commons, les bandeaux de licence sont en anglais, même si les licences elles-mêmes sont dans d'autres langues. Il y a en effet des licences en chinois, en suédois ou en français, et il faut en effet donner le lien vers la licence dans la bonne langue; par contre les bandeaux doivent être en anglais par défaut pour être compréhensibles par la majorité, et bien sûr traduits dans un maximum de langues. Merci de te conformer aux usages de Commons sans imposer ta façon de faire. Et par pitié, pas de messages de 3 km de long comme réponses :-) le Korrigan bla 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Et pourtant CeCiLL n'est légale qu'en français (en v1), et n'a aucune valeur en anglais. Le problème est que l'avertissement indique de ne pas utiliser la seule langue qui ait une valeur authentique, et quele bandeau anglais est plus ambigu que le bandeau français car il ne mentionne pas la version (au contraire de la version française qui était l'original et qui était liée depuis le début à la version 2)!
Bref l'avertissement imposé est FAUX. Le français n'est PAS une traduction du bandeau anglais, c'est justement le contraire! Et c'est le bandeau anglais qui a été mal traduit en ne mentionnant pas la version exacte dans le lien! Verdy p 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
juste pour info, le site CeCILL c'est plusieurs licences distinctes:
  • CeCILL : authentique uniquement en Français, compatible GPL
  • CeCILL v2 : authentique en Français ou en Anglais, compatible GPL
  • CeCILL-B : authentique en Français ou en Anglais, compatible BSD
  • CeCILL-C : authentique en Français ou en Anglais, compatible LGPL
Mentionner l'adresse dusite sans préciser exactement la licence dans le bandeau Anglais est une énorme erreur! Bref seul le bandeau français authentique est correct! Preuve encore que l'anglais est une traduction (mal faite) au contraire de ce que prétend l'avertissement ajouté! Verdy p 13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
J'étais assuré de ce genre de réaction: sous prétexte d'"uniformiser" les messages, on remplace des licences exactes par des messages faibles qui n'ont aucune valeur de licence, au mépris des droits élémentaires des auteurs qui ont désigné expressément une licence préciseet non un paquet de licence! Vous avez légalement tord de remplacer des licences correctes CeCILL/fr par un bandeau flou CeCILL en Anglais.
D'autre part quand je suisintervenuc'est parce que certains bandeaux d'autres traductions contenaient des messages farfelus et non une indication de licence. Et j'ai bien vu que le bandeau français original avait été mal traduit en anglais puis affublé de l'avertissement tout aussi farfelu (et en fait illégal) que pouvaient l'être les autres bandeaux. Je regrette sincèrement que vous ne compreniez pas le problème légal que cela comporte!
Pour cette raison le bandeau anglais (créé en 2004 avant que la v2 existe) doit être corrigé! Verdy p 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: remplacer une mention de propriété intellectuelle par une autre complètement différente (tous les mots sont changés!) est illégal selon les termes de la licence (article 6.5) qui mentionne explicitement:
Le Licencié s'engage expressément: 1.à ne pas supprimer ou modifier de quelque manière que ce soit les mentions de propriété intellectuelle apposées sur le Logiciel; 2.à reproduire à l'identique lesdites mentions de propriété intellectuelle sur les copies du Logiciel modifié ou non.
Bref je suis sûr d'avoir raison! Les avertissements demandant de remplacer CeCILL/fr par CECILL uniquement en anglais sont illégaux, de même le fait d'avoir abusivement modifié des centaines de fichiers sur Commons pour remplacer CeCILL/fr par CeCILL! (notamment tous ceux parus en 2004); Verdy p 14:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Si le bandeau anglais est faux, corrige-le, n'hésite pas. Mais sur Commons, les bandeaux de licence sont en anglais par défaut, il faut que tu comprennes qu'il y a une différence entre un bandeau de licence et la licence elle-meme. Merci, le Korrigan bla 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competitionEdit

I'm working on the Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition, due to be launched next Thurday, 1st Feb. We have a couple of templates, as below, that will be added to the Commons mains pages, and used to attract voters, but we need some help with translations. I wonder if you'd be able to assist, please? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

French page and templates have been completed, see
  Voulez-vous aider à récompenser le meilleur du meilleur ? Venez maintenant voter dans le
Concours de l’image Commons de l’année 2006
Le vote de sélection des finalistes est ouvert jusqu’au 14 février.

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  Quelle sera la meilleure image de 2006 ? Les candidats ont été sélectionnés. Participez maintenant en votant pour la finale du
Concours de l’image Commons de l’année 2006
Le vote final pour désigner l’Image Commons de l’année 2006 est ouvert jusqu’au 28 février.

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ +/−

Verdy p 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations! Would you be able to do this page as well, please? --MichaelMaggs 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/final

Numbers in POTY galleryEdit

Don't worry about the numbers. The number in the voting list (and gallery) was reduced from 323 to 321 here on 31st Jan, before voting started. It was to remove two pictures that had been de-featured. The entire competition has been correctly run with 321 images. --MichaelMaggs 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 - missing votesEdit

I did not want to interfer with the routine voting verification but I have too. We have a complaint from user Tsui here about a missing vote. This was the result of a mistake, or an act of vandalism, by User: at 3 Feb, 21:42 and affected also the votes from users Amrum, Wing045 and Dannycas (and maybe others, I didn't verify). The incident was not corrected to the moment and affects the voting results. I'm sending this message also to Bryan. Alvesgaspar 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently a bit busy with school, and cannot look after the POTY until the weekend. If it is not fixed tomorrow evening, I will look into it. I will also notify WarX, as he is currently doing the counting stuff. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Please do not link a page with your own preferences. This is really not fair! You may link a shortlist according to votes only! For this reason i had to remove the link to your personnal page from the voting page! Verdy p 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? These are the best classified pictures, not my own preferences! I have removed the link and put only the gallery. Please give your opinion in the talk page before altering things. Alvesgaspar 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Modifications by user

I have already reverted modifications by user Please see above (POTY 2006 missing votes) and also on POTY 2006 discussion page. But I am not sure it was an act of vandalism, maybe only a clumsy edit. Alvesgaspar 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 - 1st phase - closing rulesEdit

Nous avons besoin de votre aide pour organizer la fermeture de la première phase, et vérifier et compter les votes. Priez de voir Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006#1st phase - closing rules (my French doesn't seem good, there is a long time that I don't speak it). Alvesgaspar 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

problems with SVGEdit

hi thankyou for trying to help me with the svg. you see i have tryed a bit of everything to solve it. including changing of program. notmally when changing the size of the thumbnail a pixel bigger or smaller it works. but i can not do that in galleries. so it remains being a problem. Right now i am trying to use the method you described to me, with the image Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg but the first 2 tryes have resulted in a completly white screen. for that i have some example to ask you if i am doing it right:

  • i should delete the part in the square...
 <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "" [
   <!ENTITY ns_extend "">
   <!ENTITY ns_ai "">
   <!ENTITY ns_graphs "">
 <svg version="1.1"...>...
No! The ";" is part of the reference so in a sequence like "xxxx&ns_ai;yyyy", all the characters between "xxxx" and "yyyy" (i.e. including the first character "&" of the reference and its last character ";") must be substituted as a whole, by the value specified in the middle of the quotes in the ENTITY definition.
The quotes surrounding the value specified in the ENTITY definition are NOT part of the substituted value.
In a XML namespace definition like:
where the referenced entity named myextensionurl is defined as:
<!ENTITY myurl "">
<!ENTITY myext "mysvgextensions/">
<!ENTITY myextensionurl "&myurl;&myext;">
The correct substition of the entity will generate:
Note how the quotes surrounding the xml namespace definition are not affected by the substitution of the named entity which does not include them.
There are only four named entity references that are predefined in SVG (and in XML) and that you should never substitute without extreme care (because it could cause an xml syntax problem. These are
  • &lt; which stands for <
  • &gt; which stands for >
  • &amp; which stands for &
  • &quot; which stands for "
All the other named entities are non-standard without a definition in some DTD (for example in the DTD implied or referenced by HTML documents, or defined in the standard DTD specified by the URL at the top of the SVG document in its initial <!DOCUMENT ... > statement, which is the only place where the substitution of named entities is impossibleandforbidden by XML specifications).
Verdy p 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • that is all i have done to the moment. as for the illustration options ;here you can see the dialog box. even when i have tryed all posible convinations and nothing seems to afect it.. i hope this help you to find what is wrong. i am glad for any help.-LadyofHats 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • EY! it does seem to work. i had to change the css properties to "style elements" deactivate all other options and then do what you told me with the ENTITY text. and like magic :). i will go over all my files and do the same. thankyou very much for the hint.-LadyofHats 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are using a text editor to perform such cleanup (because these extensions are not necessary for the SVG rendering but may be only useful for the editing program that was used to create it), you may take profit of this manual edit to perform some cleanup in the generated XML code
  • some SVG editors are really too verbose (for example Inkscape and Sodipodi which is based on Inkscape) and do generate too many CSS properties without factorizing them in groups or using shared definitions; many of these CSS styles are even not necessary for correct rendering as they have all the standard default values of these properties;
  • Adobe Illustrator and others are also including their own namespaces for staring other editing properties; these properties are never used when rendering the SVG (they may for example contain the source definition of a path or glyph, and the transformations that were applied to them to create the final actual path, for example with arcs of ellipses or whencomputing the rendered intersection of simpler objects and forms, or a projection of a 3D object whose 3D coordinates are kept in meta-data)
  • They may also often store meta-data specific to the editor and related to the file, that is used for your local management of SVG files (for example the names of the local libraries used)
  • Some extension meta-data properties that may be useful to keep are those in the RDF namespace : they may contain a description, a copyright, licencing terms, and conditions of use (allowed for display but not for printing, or forbidding the creation of derived works; if such usage restrictions are there, they should not be deleted, and such SVG images are not suitable for Commons). But most often, the descriptions are not filled, and they should be.
  • Some editors are also inserting unnecessary comments that may be safely removed
  • Some editors are abusing the usage of indentation, and are often using unnecessary whitespaces in the middle of the definition of a path.
  • Some editors are storing coordinates numbers with a really too high precision, and don't allow fixing their exact value: often, this results from the internal computing by applying multiple transforms or manual edits in WYSIWYG mode at various display scales, and this causes some imprecisions in the final rendering (this is aproblem when the figure has really a strict geometry, or when multiple areas are joined side by side, because their common borders do not overlap exactly as they should, causing vizual artefacts like variable border weights, or transparent gaps between two areas).
  • This can be fixed by editing the XML code if you understand the SVG semantics (the official standard SVG specifications are available publicly for free on the website; this is a very valuable source of information if you want to make perfect SVGs, to perform things that are not very easy to do with your SVG editor alone which is most often designed to edit graphics in WYSIWIG mode where small details or imperfections are not easy to see or edit).
  • A manual edit of a generated SVG file will very often divide its size (and the number of instructions to process in the sVG renderer) dramatically (often by a factor of 5 to 10), without affeting its quality (most often, the quality will be even improved).
  • There are some external SVG optimizers available on the web: they don't modify the graphic, but perform such cleanup of unnecessary things, including the very frequent superfluous whitespaces, or unfactorized CSS properties, or the default CSS property values that may be inherited using groups with <g>)
Verdy p 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Wikiversity-logo.svgEdit

Hi Verdy p, I have seen you have upload (on 20 September) a new version of Image:Wikiversity-logo.svg. I really appreciate neat code made by hands instead of long and difficult to understand code made by programs. However the code of the image you upload was not svg valid [1] and the result was a blank image. So I edited the image (from your source) and uploaded it (on 21 September) after (hopefully) solved the issues. However I had to do a guess for the gradient of the colour (there were some parameters missing). So I would kindly ask you, if you have time, to see if the current version is acceptable or if it requires some changes. -- AnyFile 09:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was not valid XML. That's why I edited it. But it WAS valid SVG, was correctly rendered by Adobe SVG renderer, by several SVG editors, by the Wikipedia renderer. it had NO missing parameter, not even in the gradients that were correctly referenced (so it must be your limited SVG renderer that is not conforming, and does not honor xlink:hrefs, despite it was correctly bound; there was no guess to do, one gradient was linked to the other, using standard syntax). Verdy p 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Also I will restore the meta data you have deleted: this is required for keeping the needed copyright within the file.
I had removed the inclusing of the text within the SVG rendering part, but I had kept it in the metadata for this purpose.
There was no error, and it was already validating according to W3C (before my changes, it was invalid because of XML incorrect syntax, even if it was still accepted by the Wikimedia thumbnail renderer; in addition it was referencing an inexistant XML namespace that was not defined (that's why it did not render anywhere else...
So I will restore the copyrights you have deleted... Verdy p 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Seidenstud replies here to my previous request (on his discussion page) to about the status of this image. Verdy p 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC):

That is not at all how I understand it. My understanding is that Public/Private has nothing to do with licensing. If you look at that image's flickr page, it clearly is listed as "All Rights Reserved." That is not at all the same as CC-BY. I will bring this to COM:FLICKR and see if anyone can clarify this. -Seidenstud 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Flickr has been boughtr by Yahoo, nothing is clear now... The interface is extremely confusive about the licencing terms. This has changed this the time I uploaded it from the English Wikipedia (where it was initially stored by someone else, but it has since been dropped from English Wikipedia, because it was on Common...).
Can you find the original upload from En.Wikipedia where it was ? I would not have uploaded it to Commons, without first verifying the licence when it was displayed on English Wikipedia.
How can we check the status if Flickr changes its policy without notice ?
If I made something wrong, I'm sorry, this was not intended, because I thought I had verified everything... Verdy p 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's fine. The whole flickr thing can be very confusing. And to make matters worse, Flickr users can change the copyright status of their images without any sort of paper trail. So here, we have a whole system devised whereby images are confirmed. Your image was checked by a bot who was unable to confirm the licensing. So, I looked at it manually and saw that the photographer put "All rights reserved" which effectively makes the photo unsuitable for the commons unless it was at some point licensed under CC-BY, etc. But at this point we cannot prove that, so the image unfortunately would probably have to be deleted.
I have no idea how we could go about finding the old version on the english wikipedia. It was probably deleted long ago, and wold not be able to prove anything anyhow.
Thanks though for your excellent uploads here! -Seidenstud 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I never visit Flickr, unless I am required to do it. And now that it's owned by Yahoo, that's even worse, because I really don't like the practices of Yahoo in terms of privacy and commercial promotion within all sorts of softwares where it comes with bundled bars that must always be carefully unchecked before installing (and Yahoo never memorize the fact that I don't want their bulky bar...)
So most of my downloads to Commons are made manually, or composed from other sources. I don't upload very often, and I try to do my best to avoid putting things that I can't trust.
So delete this image. If I uploaded it, that's because of the past verifications I did (and at that time, your verification process was probably not active or not known or not working). I was just interested in getting an existing illustration, present in the English Wikipedia, to be used also on the French Wikipedia, by sharing it on Commons.
Sorry for the inconvenience. Next tim I will be even more careful about Flickr images, because this source is not reliable... Verdy p 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning Image:Petronas_Towers_view_by_night.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Seidenstud 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Meuse (river)Edit

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas vos changements ni la structure de Category:Meuse (river) et Category:Meuse River qui prêtent à la confusion. Il s'agit de la même fleuve il me semble. Est-ce que vous pourriez le documenter dans Category:Meuse (river) et/ou Category:Meuse. Merci. --Foroa 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oui il s'agit bien de la même chose. C'est l'unification des cartégories et conventions de nommage les plus utilisées qui impose de classer l'une dans l'autre, pour n'en garder qu'une comme principale, et mettre un lien de redirection pour la classification.
Sur Commons, les convention de nommage sont basées sur la version anglaise, même si les orthographes natives sont préférées.
Je n'ai pas fait de confusion. Meuse est à la fois une rivière et un département français et désigne plusieurs régions de 3 pays. Il y a la classification nécessaire. Avant cela, on trouvait des infos sur la Meuse en Belgique dans unse sous-catégorie de "Meuse" le seul département français... C'était inapproprié et on trouvait d'autrers photos mal classées (de Belgique dans le département français, ou l'inverse...
Verdy p 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Je vois. Votre classification avec le département Meuse était effectivement nécessaire. Ma remarque portait uniquement sur Category:Meuse River et Category:Meuse (river). Le problème vient du fait qu'il n'y pas d'uniformité entre les noms des rivieres, même en France. Les noms suivants sont possible avec les "règles" des commons: Meuse river - Meuse (river) - Meuse, river. Les noms suivants sont incorrectes, principalement par la mauvaise utilisation des majuscules : Meuse River - Meuse (River) - Meuse (rivière).
De toute façon, commencer une nouvelle catégorisation avec un autre nom parceque le nom actuel ne convient pas ne résoud rien: il vaut mieux de garder une seule catégorie ensemble et proposer un renommage global qui peut être fait par des robots. Donc je propose de réintégrer Category:Meuse River (nomincorrecte) dans Category:Meuse (river) et éventuellement procéder à un changement de nom de Category:Meuse (river). --Foroa 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Non je suis plutôt de l'avis de garder Category:Meuse River car ce schéma de nommage est le plus utilisé (y compris par les principales rivières et fleuves français et d'ailleurs), afin de faciliter la gestion des liens sur Commons (qui sont basés sur un schéma anglophone). A ce sujet, les rivières françaises ne sont pas toutes QUE françaises... Donc nécessité de s'accorder aussi avec les autres langues et pays limitrophes.
L'usage de "(river)" est contraire aux noms utilisés partout ailleurs sur Commons.
D'ailleurs je travaille sur la classification des régions, départements, et catégories communes, et j'en fusionne déjà un certain nombre, en recherchant les conventions les plus utilisées avant d'en faire une isolément.
Verdy p 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Personellement, je trouve que le nom "Meuse river" est le nom correct, "Meuse River" n'est pas correcte et Meuse (river), bien correcte, n'est pas cohérent avec les autres. Mon problème est que ça n'aide pas de catégoriser le même sujet sous deux noms différents: soit on le met sous un nom ou soit sous un autre, donc naturellement je prends celui qui est le plus peuplé, Si le nom doit changer, aucun problème: il y a des robots pour aider avec ce travail. Personalement, je trouve que le nom final est moins important: le plus important est d'éviter deux catégories pour le même sujet. --Foroa
Si! c'est important! Pour la navigation sur commons et la cohérence des catégories, et aussi pour aider à catégoriser les nouvelles images et s'y retrouver facilement (y compris quand ce sont les robots qui doivent classer des tonnes d'images, ou les importer automatiquement d'autres Wikipédias). C'est à cause de ces différences qu'on se retrouve avec des catégories en doublon, et les robots ne savent justement pas faire le tri sans des tonnes d'interventions manuelles pour reclasser le tout. En revanche, ce qu'un robot sait faire c'est consulter les listes marquées avec {{categoryredirect}} : on classe une catégorie en doublon dans l'autre, et on y place ce modèle, un robot se charge de faire le déplacement. Avant de faire appel à un robot, on utilise {{moveto}} et {{movefrom}} pour permettre de discuter du changement (il peut y avoir plusieurs choix possibles pour la réorganisation). Verdy p 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Pour moi, le plus important c'est de ne pas avoir des doublons comme vous venez d'en créer. Le nom correcte est un autre débat qui demande aussi un consensus. Le redirect est une mauvaise solution parceque ca amène l'utilisateur dans une autre catégorie et il ne voit plus les impages qui sont dans la catégorie originale. Les robots ne font strictement rien avec les redirects, ni avec les moves. Le move signale la volenté de faire un renommage. Le renommage est uniquement fait sur des pages spéciales ou on peut demander des transferts. --Foroa 09:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ne perdons pas notre temps: je propose d'intégrer les deux cats en un et d'ouvrir un débat pour une uniformisation des noms des rivières parce que je ne vois aucun pays ou c'est uniforme. --Foroa 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Départements en FranceEdit

Je suis content de voir que vous adressez d'une façon systématique les départements en France. Il me manquait la connaissance et le courage de m'y mettre. --Foroa 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality images candidatesEdit

Bonjour, I removed one of your images because it was double-listed in both both the main candidate list and the consensual review section. The former is for a single one-person review; and the latter is a vote tallied across multiple users. I'm restoring my comment to the consensual review section, but I'll leave it to you to decide which of the two you prefer to keep listed -- they shouldn't be listed under both sections. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't I make some comments in the vote section? The nomination section is too short for that ... I did not list myself in the voters. I followed the guidelines. Verdy p 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure you are welcome to make comments: it's just that the image itself only has to be in one section or the other; no need to be in both. If there is discussion involved, it should probably remain in the consensual review section. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Verdy p I think you should look carefully at the guidelines and QI process (if a translation is required let us know). In short here is the process:
  1. You create a nomination entry, with a short description. This is not FP, the qualities of the image speak for themselves, this is mainly a technical evaluation, a long description is not needed.
  2. Someone reviews your image, and either agrees with your nomination (promotion) or disagrees (decline).
  3. At that point, if someone disagrees with the review they have 2 days to move it to the Consensual Review section for further discussion.
You have effectively got two nominations for the same image running at the same time, as there are already a number of reviews in the CR section, it is proper to remove the entry from the main nomination section. --Tony Wills 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in StrasbourgEdit Catégorie superflue : non, ce n'est pas vrai. Il y a la navigation par catégorie, et quiconque entre directement dans la Category:Strasbourg (par exemple en venant de en:Strasbourg) sans passer par la Category:Buildings in Bas-Rhin (à laquelle on n'accède d'ailleurs directement depuis nulle part dans Wikipedia) doit pouvoir accéder à cette sous-catégorie. Salutations cordiales, 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tu n'as pas compris: la catégorie est aussi dans Strasbourg qui est lui même dans celle du Bas-Rhin.
Et il y a d'autres axes de recherche: Building in France (à travers Buildings by country).
Le doublon que tu avais mis donnait deux catégories depuis Strasbourg... Verdy p 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
J'ai essayé de réunifier les catégories pour la France afin que l'on puisse accéder à toutes les images pertinentes depuis une des catégories. Je l'ai fait pour l'ensemble des régions et des départements, et je l'ai fini pour les thèmes suivants: Géography, Maps, Cities and villages, Coats of arms, avec les liens depuis les autres catégories de classification, en repreant ce qui avait été fait sur La Réunion, le département et la région le mieux structuré. Le but est de ne pas laisser en plan dans des catégories non reliées des images qui devraient être groupées, simplement car la classification s'est faite sur un axe et pas un autre, d'où les catégoies croisées par thème ET par lieu, en choisissant la reubrique la plus fine qui peut être classée sur les deux axes.
Le travail de reclasification (plus fine) reste à affiner pour les images existantes, mais les catégories créées vont faciliter grandement la classification et permettre la recherche de toutes les images pertinentes à certains niveaux, quelque soit l'axe de recherche (par thème ou par lieu). Verdy p 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the YearEdit

Hi Verdy, sorry you had troubles with the software. You should be able to follow the link in your email without trouble now. If it persists please let me know. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Squares in ParisEdit

Hi, the cat Category:Squares in Paris was blanked at the start of January, with no reason given, yet cat has no content. You created it, and said on Category:Streets and squares of Paris that "This category is deprecated in the global namespace, see Category:Streets in Paris and Category:Squares in Paris", yet the "streets and squares" category is full of content... I have no idea how it should be organised. Can you perhaps have a look and sort it out? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Normal. Recategorizing was still not performed there, but there a re many other links that already separate squares and streets everywhere. This was also needed for allowing cross-cateofy navigation to other areas than just Paris.
My comment was correct whan I posted it,and I'm sure that I had started filling the category, but may be someone remerged the contents just for Paris, ignoring the rest. I'll look at it.


Hi, thanks for working on this. I know it can use some improvement and my CSS skills are somewhat lacking so help is appreciated. However, the alignment of {{shortcut2}} was off. And I'm not sure why {{namespace}} was exchanged with {{NAMESPACE}}. That template was created for this purpose because things like "This commons talk in other languages" isn't ideal (note the lowercase 'c' due to {{lc:}}) and when it's on a gallery, nothing shows up ({{ns:0}}). I'm not sure what caused the alignment issue, but if you do, feel free to make you improvements again. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I see why you didn't notice. It's look great when there's only one line of language links (like on the template page itself), but when they take up more than one and there's only on shortcut it looks bad. It may just need a vertical-align. Rocket000 (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not sure what's different but it's looks right now... I have one more request. Other languages like to have a uselang= link to change the interface (for IPs), however I can't get to look right. See Template:Header/ca for example. I would like the link inside the box, but not interfere with the shortcut box. Ideally it should go directly above. Also, since a form of this header is used on all the main pages, do you think it would be wise to give the style a class in MediaWiki:Common.css? Rocket000 (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Verdy p (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks again! They look so much better. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Visit NiceEdit

Category discussion notification Category:Visit Nice 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

--Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I never created this category, which should be merged in Category:Nice (and more categories related to their respective subjects), but eventually subcategorized in Category:Nice according to more precise locations/areas/quarters if needed (for example by street name, harbour name...). verdy_p (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)



Si j'ai créé proprement une page d'homonymie, ce n'est pas pour que tu t'amuses à tout recasser deux mois après, sans prendre la peine de commenter tes modifications.

Il n'y aucune raison que le département l'emporte sur la commune, que cela te plaise ou non.

Cordialement--Bapti 10:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tu n'as pas vu les centaines de liens cassés que ton renommage a provoqué... Et au passage pour les changer il faudrait toucher un modèle utilisé sur plusieurs milliers de pages, et qui est protégé ! Verdy p (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Et bien je suis en train de les modifier. Merci d'arrêter tes modifs, oui, je te bloque.--Bapti 10:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Toi arrête! C'set ta modif qui était abusive, car ça change les conventions de nommage utilisées pour des MILLIERS de catégories et d'articles !!! En plus on ne opeut PLUS les changer, donc tu crées des liens morts Verdy p (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Donc pourquoi le département devrait l'emporter sur la commune ? Juste parce que c'est plus simple comme ça ? Il y a des modèles pour faire des homonymies sur Commons : on peut les utiliser. Pour les liens, je suis en train de m'en charger.--Bapti 10:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Je vois que tu as touché le modèle de navigation qui avait été fait pour respecter les conventions de nommage, et que j'avais fait. Je suis le principal contributeur de la classification française (les autres avaient essayé et se sont tous plantés avant). Mais ta modif ne marche pas encore: tu as oublié que toutes les autres catégories ne précisent pas "(department)" du doup toutes les catégories de l'Indre ne sont plus liées entre elles. Il faudrait faire comme pour le Lot (et pas seulement rajouter un suffixe, mais en faire un conditionnel: "(department)" testé d'abord s'il existe sinon rien par défaut ou si la catégorie n'existe pas). Mais je n'ai pas la main pour le faire (d'aileurs qui a eu l'idée de protéger le modèle qui ne bougeait que rarement et fonctionnait très bien?). Note: ta modif génère des milliers de pages dans la tasklist sur le serveur. Tu as demandé à qui pour la faire ? Verdy p (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarde par exemple ce que cela produit sur Category:Geography of Indre: il n'y a pas de suffixe (car pas d'ambiguité) sauf pour la catégorie mère du nom du département lui-même. La preuve est que le département n'apparaît plus dans la liste !
Si tu ne comprends pas comment fonctionne le modèle, demande-moi, c'est moi qui l'ai mis en place, en évitant justement de renommer des catégories très utilisées, et de mettre des suffixes partout quand ce n'était pas nécessaire, ceci afin de soulager le serveur, et les utilisateurs.
Avant de me menacer, tu aurais quand même du me demander. Je n'ai pas fait ça pour rien. En attendant ta modif ne marche toujours pas. Verdy p (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Quant à la petite commune de Loire-Atlantique (en ébauche même sur Wikipédia France) elle a très peu de chance d'être référencée, contrairement au département. Les conventions de nommages sont là opur éviter justement les erreurs de classifications, et ce modèle est là pour y aider, en évitant de se tromper sur les noms. Verdy p (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
ah bon, il faut désormais demandé une autorisation à sieur Verdy pour modifier le moindre modèle ?
Merci de te soucier de la tasklist, mais es serveurs ont visiblement déjà très bien digérés mes deux modifs...
Je vais effectivement corriger le problème que tu soulèves. Template:Departments of France a été protégé car il est abondamment utilisé (et donc qu'il faut éviter les édits inutiles types vandalismes).
Cordialement--Bapti 10:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
PS : Wikipédia France n'existe pas, contrairement à Wikipédia en français.
Ton argument ne tient pas: tu te passes d'autorisation pour modifier un modèle que j'ai créé, et avec lequel j'ai fait énormément de reclassements sur Commons, mais toi tu m'interdis de modifier de modèle en me forçant à demander, alors que ta modif ne marche toujours pas ! Verdy p (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Je ne t'interdis pas de modifier Template:Departments of France : ce n'est pas moi qui l'ait protégé. En revanche, je viens de le corriger pour éviter le problème que tu as évoqué plus haut. Sauf erreur, il n'y a désormais plus aucun lien mort.
À l'avenir, plutôt que de devoir bricoler pour éviter des pages d'homonymies, tu peux demander la modification d'un modèle protégé à l'aide de {{Editprotected}}.--Bapti 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
La demande avec editprotected, j'ai déjà essayé, c'est tellement long (trois mois après la demande y est encore...), et le plus souvent on n'obtient rien, un admin veut s'en charger et ça ne marche toujours pas.
OK tu as fait ce qu'il faut dans le modèle, j'ai regardé, c'est correct. Verdy p (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Bah si aucun admin compétent ne vient malgré {{Editprotected}}, tu peux mettre un message sur Commons:Bistro : un admin francophone interviendrait rapidement ;). Content que la modif te plaise :))) Bonne continuation--Bapti 11:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Tu auras sans doute noté que certains toponymes étaient en anglais d'autres en français, le modèle en tenait compte, pour éviter d'avoir à tout renommer tout de suite quand je l'ai créé. Les deux noms possibles apparaissent quand on active le modèle avec all=1, et ça sert pour la création des catégories, mais il ne faut pas se tromper. En mode normal, quand les catégories snot déjà là, on ôte le paramètre all=1 pour n'afficher qu'un seul des liens. Ca sert aussi pour détecter rapidement les problèmes de double nommage et ratablir la convention. J'aurais bien aimé unifier tous les noms de départements français en français, mais concernant la Corse, la Guyane française, ou la polynésie française, il y avait trop de wikis à retoucher qui utilisaient déjà le nom anglais sans penser que c'était nécesairement des départements. Le modèle est un compromis de tout ça... Mais la prochaine fois tu sauras qu'avant de songer à renommer une région ou un département sous prétexte d'homonymie (comme ici la petite commune de Loire-Atlantique quasiment pas référencée) il faut y réfléchir à deux fois. La page d'ambiguité n'est pas toujours une bonne idée, car il est simple de corriger la classification incorrecte d'un ou deux articles plutôt que les renommer tous et devoir passer par des noms à rallonge pour les cas les plus fréquents: il suffit en effet d'un message dans la catégorie pour mentionner l'existence d'homonymes rares possibles, et ce type de message apparait fréquemment sur Commons ou Wikipédia: un nom est favorisé car il est TRES fréquent, alors que les cas d'erreurs de classification sont très rares et vite corrigés. Verdy p (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)



J'avais créé ce modèle mais il est obsolète (j'aurais du le signaler c'est vrai) ; il faut utiliser {{header/fr}}, qui est d'ailleurs utilisé sur 90% des pages d'aide francophones.

Merci, le Korrigan bla 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Il n'est ps si obsolète que ça, il a été utilisé depuis très longtemps et a des fonctions supplémentaires que le nouveau modèle header ne supporte pas (et en option le calendrier traduit aussi). verdy_p (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Conversion terminée... Le modèle Interface n'est plus utilisé du tout. Header/fr est à jour pour faire la même chose. verdy_p (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi did you do this edit? Multichill (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I did not see that you had placed a template for translating it (I did this because there are other places where such edits have been done, after looking on a discussion that wanted to place this code on this template, but the "autotranslate" template is quite new (I never noticed it before). Sorry. verdy_p (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, have a look at Commons:Template i18n (most used). Lot of templates already got converted. See {{autotranslate}} on how to convert a template. Multichill (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


File:ActUp-Paris-01-Zap-Iran.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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Herr Kriss (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So you have deleted an image uploaded by its author, a member of Act-Up Paris, Act-Up Paris being also the author of the flyer.
You have not resisted to Iranian criminal threats !
Where are our democracy principles, and where are the principles of WikiMedia if you don't respect the authors and delete their own snapshots, when you perfectly know who took this photo and why ? verdy_p (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


What exactly is the thing you tried to improve by these edits? --Slomox (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have commented it appropriately ! the direction attribute gave invalid HTML because it used the language code as its default value; in addition, it was no longer working as expected. verdy_p (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
the direction attribute gave invalid HTML because it used the language code as its default value It didn't. Perhaps you've mistaken the template {{dir}} for a parameter called {{{dir}}}. {{dir}} always properly returns either 'rtl' or 'ltr'. --Slomox (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No it was not doing that, or it was simply not working at all, Arabic was NOT shown RTL (the HTML generated confirmed this). Anyway it's true that such template could be used (I did not know that there was such template), but something was wrong in the code as it did not work. verdy_p (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It worked. See User:Slomox/test5. That's the old code of the template and two test cases, one rtl, one ltr. It works just fine and the HTML code is fine too.
Besides some cosmetic changes your edit just introduced a new parameter {{{dir}}} and changed the template {{dir}} into a hardcoded copy of {{dir}}. And that's the reason, why I think, you misinterpreted the template as a parameter. What's the purpose of the new parameter? Is there any need for displaying English text rtl or Arabic ltr? Like this:
English: This is English rtl.
? --Slomox (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The need is for displaying Arabic or Hebrew correctly. But there's another problem: some languages are multiscript, and are written for example in BOTH Arabic (RTL) and another LTR script. Without the parameter to change the default for these languages whose default script is Arabic, the description will be in the wrong direction is the LTR script is used instead. Example: Kashmiri whose default is the RTL script Arabic, but that is also as often written in Devanagari, and Gudjarati.
verdy_p (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: your test currently uses the modified template, that's why it works. It did not before, and this was visible in all image descriptions, category pages and galleries that used the Template:Mld or Template:Ls directly. verdy_p (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There are similar examples for Kurdish and other languages, frequently depending on the country where the same language is used (then each country has its own "default" standard script, and so its own RTL or LTR preference). One could of course create sub-language codes (by suffixing the script code), but for now, many of these languages don't have the full support for selecting the script explicitly. A lot of updates would be needed to disambiguate things. For now the dir parameter can solve a few things, or can help insert another default message in another script than its default one. verdy_p (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: your test currently uses the modified template, that's why it works. It does not use the modified template. It always worked.
For the more well-supported multi-script languages like Kurdish there are subcodes like ku-arab and ku-latn. You should always use these subcodes when creating localisations or translations on Commons. There is no need to use any direction hacks when subcodes exist.
But you are right in that languages without subcodes yet like Kashmiri could benefit from an explicit 'dir' parameter. Although even then it would be better to create translations under appropiate codes like ks-arab and ks-deva. Users cannot specify these codes in their preferences, but we can redirect users with 'ks' specified in their preferences to the messages via the {{Fallback}} mechanism. --Slomox (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For now, the dir parameter can help solve those tricky cases where there are no template support. You'll note that I have replaced the switch (to determine the default) by the call to the Template:dir, so this works as intended by your suggested sub-template. Anyway, the cause that it did not work must come from something else. I could not get any "dir" attribute in the generated HTML before the change, there must be some internal hack in Mediawiki that drops the dir attribute when a language code is specified in the same element. Now it just uses the CSS "direction:" style instead, to which the HTML dir attribute should be bound by default in all browsers (browsers that don't support CSS are very unlikely to support the dir attribute as well, the "direction:" CSS style is there since very long, as much as the "dir=" HTML attribute that was added and supported very late, because before it, HTML used the now deprecated BDO element). verdy_p (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
the dir parameter can help solve those tricky cases where there are no template support. Do you have any example where you want to use this? --Slomox (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:World map of travel & residence restrictions against people with HIV AIDS.pngEdit

Can you please update File:World_map_of_travel_%26_residence_restrictions_against_people_with_HIV_AIDS.png to reflect the recent HIV ban lift. --Aizuku (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at that update - Thanks for pointing this. verdy_p (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I did know this news since months, however I had forgotten this image since it was created in 2006. I've recolored the US and removed the note.
Anyway, it should probably updated more, because there has certainly been some changes since then (most probably in Africa, with new bans against HIV/AIDS and homosexuality, because unfortunately, they are legally linked, despite most of the damages is heterosexual, notably via rapes of women and young girls, in poor countries. I would prefer to refer to the ILGA report, from which the image was built, but their site ([2]) is currently down, so I can't check which country needs updating, and anyway, the image should probably now adopt the SVG format which is easier to update more precisely using a simple text editor, to edit its CSS. verdy_p (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

360-degree Panorama of the Southern SkyEdit

Dear Verdy p, I don't have any information on how the image was created. I simply found the image and uploaded it to the commons. A retouched version with reduced noise has been created, there is a link to it on the original image page. The author of the image is in the credit section. The only information I have is the info from the source website. Originalwana (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Potd/DaySetup, Template:Motd/DaySetupEdit

I've rolled you back, as you accidentally broke PotD. A couple notes

1. I believe it only takes two to three more #ifexists in Template:Potd/DaySetup to go over the limit. 1-2 if you put them in Template:Motd/DaySetup too 2. We're somewhat near the maximum transclusion size. DaySetup counts 30 times for itself, plus, I believe it counts again in Template:Potd/Month, for a total of 60 times. Keep lengthy comments and commented out functions out of it.

As such, don't try to get too fancy in these templates, and if you want to do comments, keep them short, and put any additional material on the template's talk page. We just don't have the allocations.

I appreciate your attempts to help, but, quite simply, these are used so many times that they need to be kept as simple and short as possible. Otherwise, we put ourselves in really awkward positions. As it stands, I'm seriously trying to figure if we can get away with hard-coding more features in Template:Potd/Month, because I'm worried about the statsistics.

No offense intended. The idea's good, it's just not practical to do unless we take PotD setup to the toolserver instead of the wiki.

Are you any good at Javascript? Adding some code to the common Javascript repositiry would probably work better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this occured despite I had tested it on my own MediaWiki server.
Seriously, Commons has been specially tweaked ni a way that it no longer reflects what there's in the current MediaWiki main branch, adn some of these tweaks made on Commons have seriously impacted its performance, and even caused some stupid limits to become active again (despite this was corrected many months ago).
I really thinks that Commons is now late in its instalaltion of MediaWiki, and is stupidly exposed to problems that should have not occured at all for this page.
This is strange because before submitting the first change, Commons accepted my own tests without problem... until I commited.
Then only I saw that it was impacted by an unbelievable limit, but this is not caused by #ifexist tests, but by an unbelievable limit on transclusion size (which is wrong, incorrectly computed in this installed version of MediaWiki, where theres really a bug, that I can't reproduce on my own MediaWiki server, which also has a dump of Commons installed for the same pages and templates.
And the size of comments should not ever affect the performance, if this was the true MediaWiki software, and not a special and broken local tweak: this version still use the very old parser, probably beacuse of the way it wants to manage the specific cache that is shared across WM servers.
No, Javascript will not be a solution. And the current situation, where some languages are exposed and some are not even, despite they really have translations, is really bad.
If you read the comments I made, a #ifexist on a page should NEVER cost anything more on the server than just displaying a link unconditionnally without testing if the page really exists (notably because the server will still need to check for existence, in order to decide how to render the link in blue or red, with a view or edit action in the generated URL). The list of pages referenced by a page when it is parsed and cached will also not depend on it, and the MediaWiki code already tests this existence only once per viewed page.
I had made nothing wrong, I also wanted to correct it, but revertnig the #if tests, but this did not even change the bug.
The only true limit that is occuring is not caused by this bug, but by the fast that the main POTD page transcludes a giant template, instead of transcluding small ones. Given that the main POTD page is specialized for each language, it is simply stupid to include the same translations (so many in fact) on all these specializations.
This is the design that was initially broken.
Anyway one simple way of solving it would be that the main POTD does not attempt to transclude a full month, but to tranclude each day separately.
I really did not want to affect the server, this was unexpected. There's a bug but really this is due to Commons itself (and not even to the released MediaWiki software), probably because of lack of system maintenance. verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thereason it includes all these languages is because that page is used for translations. As for Commons and MediaWiki: I think Commons is about 6 months to a year behind with updates, and I honestly don't know why. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for readding what could be added: I had to act fairly quickly, because PotD's translation page was down, and then I was having trouble spotting what could be readded given the amount of other stuff that had to be reverted. I agree it's an annoying situgation, and don't see how #ifexist is such a high-cost parserfunction. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons behaves differently from other Wikipedias. Visibly it is quite late, and still does not have the correct version of the new parser : it still counts HTML comments as part of the included size, despite they should be eliminated immediately. Also the number if #ifexist is incorrectly counted (they are parsed several times, through each recursive transclusion. Really this version here lacks the lazy recursive evaluation that has proven to be so successful and fast, as well as allowing enormous amounts of memory savings. Commons is definitely broken and underadministrated (it has been tweaked specifically, and now the MediaWiki developers have difficulties to maintain it in parallel with the latest software, or they have introduced specific tweaks in the code, which really don't seem to work as expected.
All behaves here as if this was the very old parser that was used of Wikipedia 3 years ago...
There's a soltuion however
  • the POTD and MOTD pages should not attempt to display all languages, just the specified language and a reference language (specified in each image, default would be English if not specified).
  • All languages should be treated equal. Note that each POTD and MOTD page should be already localized, including its headers, so there's no difficulty to select the appropriate language, and then just a few other source languages for translations (this should not be something more than those 10 majors languages displayed in the root page of If an image or media is already translated, no need to display more than just one to five others (English, French, German, Russian, Chinese) : each loaclized version of POTD and MOTD page will list only those that are appropriate as a source for translation in their local native language.
  • You should absolutely NOT transclude a etmplate for the full month: it really explodes the ressources. It would be simpler transclude each day in the month separately (using a fixed code enumerating all days between 01 and 31 with a day parameter : the template will just display something if there's an image/media template for that day, i.e. if the day exists in that month : no need to test a page existence, just test the date itself).
  • The template that generates a full month should be deprecated immediately: it will explode at any time without notice, if there are enough languages for which there are complete descriptions with links and markup. Dropping a language arbitrarily is really not a good solution.
verdy_p (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how the template is used: This is for a translation project;

YES, I know that ! But each target language has its own dedicated page, where it won't be relevant to have ALL languages for ALL days in the same month. Just a few source languages will be needed, and only one target. To translate into another one, go to the other translation project for that target language.

as such, we need to allow multilingual speakers to translate into as many languages as they speak, and use extant translations to know what to translate..

It would be impractical to have anything less than a month, since it's necessary to be able to scan, fairly quickly, through and find out where things can be added, or gaps are found. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

But this cannot work due to the size of the ressources themselves : the decriptions can be fairly long, and the way the template contents and reincluded recursively, multiplies severely their size: 31 days times 20 translations will result into 620 target templates, all of which may be about 1.5 KB (But with the additional markup they become around 5KB each). So the total would be about 6.5 MB, and this total will be multiplied at each recursion level of templates (each recursion in fact is counted as a power of 2, and with 4 levels of recursion, they count about 16 times, for a total reaching 104 MB, not counting the rest of the code like the additional formatting for days in the calendar, the tables and lists of languages and language names...).
And this is only a rough estimate for 20 languages only (this implies that good descriptions of images will need to be restricted a lot if we want more languages (think this is a bad goal to restrict the description sizes). People will complain that their language can't be supported.
There's no way to have it work in a template to display a full month, the space will always be exhausted. That's why the list of languages needs to be restricted (and instead used selectively accoriding to the target language). Displaying all on the same page is the main cause of the problem. verdy_p (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Possible alternative : handle the project per week, instead of per month... This will divide the sizes by 4, and it will still be fairly fast enough. verdy_p (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Another note: even with the current code, the post-include size is nearly reaching the 2MB limit (currently 1.8 MB for this month, and all translations are not there...) which will be exhausted anyway if all POTD and MOTD are translated in the proposed languages). The page exploded when you merged both the MOTD and POTD in the same month calendar.
You have also inserted the month calender header within the new merged month template. This was not the case before, and should have remained outside, as a separate template invoked directly (without recursion). (I had to correct this in the French COM:POTD page, because the calender and the refresh link was generated twice, after you just renamed the month template to display POTD and MOTD projects together).
I really suggest that you put as much as possible out from the new merged MOTD and POTD month template, even if this means that each translated project page will need to add a few lines (like they were before the merge, when just displaying POTD's).
If you really want both POTD and MOTD being translated from the same page, please split the month in at least 3 or 4 parts (10/11 days or 7/8 days), displayed on separate pages, and make again the header outside of the merged POTD and MOTD month template. verdy_p (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

template Motd layoutEdit

Hi, I reverted your edits in Template:Motd/2010-06-02 (en). You should use {{motd description}} for caption in order to mantain more simple the syntax in the page and a standardized layout (like POTD) avoiding to force the use of the wiki markup directly in the page (noinclude, horizontal lines etc..). I see you have modified {{motd description helper}} too; I think the double caption, that is used from a long time in POTD, is useful and more clear than yours. Could you restore the previous version, please? Nanae (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


I've got Commons:Potd down to 1.65 megabytes. If it starts creeping up any higher again, I'll cut the secondary language list and direct people to new templates for the full PotD language lists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Euro coins (Malta)Edit

Category:Euro coins (Malta) 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 category, 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.

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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

--     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not the uploader of these images anyway. I just created the category to sort these images, and helping the resolution of their applicable licences.
You have tagged too many images, and reopened a question that was highly discussed and closed in 2007.
And the ECB was questioned, and Commons received absolutely no mandatry request. If there's a problem, the ECB can apply its own procedures and claim their rights at will.
You are acting prematurely for what is really not a problem. The possible challenges are on the kind of modifications that are permitted, but this is reagulated by law, not by the licences themselves, and legal restrictions are not a problem to challenge what is free or not (only the terms of the private licence, not the public laws, could be challenged to claim it is not free).
verdy_p (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Haxo (Paris Metro).pngEdit

T'as du faire une fausse manip, ça ne ressemble plus à rien...

Gonioul (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


File:Eurozone2007.png 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/− 09:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This request has been denied, as it was completely invalid. Once again, too many people want to abusively delete contents on Commons, they deserve the community by deleting our common work, or just because they don't want to see some contents and want to promote another. verdy_p (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regions of FranceEdit

Hi! About Template:Regions of France would it be alright if you added a langswitch to it?

  • "Régions de France" should be langswitched with "Regions of France" for en - "Régions de France" for fr
  • "Outre-mer" should have "Overseas departments" for en, "Outre-mer" for fr.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Little interest here: there's already been a decicion to keep all toponymic names of France in French (the only official language used in official toponyms) using there official native orthography. Changing the category names is not an option (we need a naming convention). And given that the category names are fixed, this template will also display all these names in French as well. May be we could make the headers in English, this was done in an early version. But Langswitch suffers from limitations as it can only be used with full paragraphs and would introduce line breaks. The tempalte is used in so many places that it needs to remain compact. It is just a helper. There's no real need because the page title already contains an English translation for the category name in which it will be displayed. Also these names are official (translating administrative subdivisions like "region" or "overseas" is often inaccurate and often introduces ambiguities in other languages).
Note: I cannot edit the template which is now protected. verdy_p (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Category discussion notification Category:Euro_coins_(Malta) 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Category discussion notification Category:Roads_in_Corsica 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed in the image files themselves (that were incorrectly categorized in their description page). There was absolutely no problem with the category itself. verdy_p (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Category discussion notification Category:Euro_coins_(Cyprus) 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/− 15:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. I have not uploaded any one of those images that I had just subcategorized there. I have no opinion about why they were deleted. At that time, there were lots of images to subcategorize and they have been there for long. This means that if there remains no image in this category, that category may be deleted without problem. verdy_p (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:World map of travel & residence restrictions against people with HIV AIDS.png requires updatingEdit

Hi Verdy p,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:World map of travel & residence restrictions against people with HIV AIDS.png is out of date. Could you update it? Thanks again. | -Roxas- (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Catégories par départementEdit

Bonjour Verdy p. Merci pour l'homogénisation des catégories Quality images. Juste une petite remarque : les catégories par département ne contiennent que la liste des départements, qui sont une centaine. Un rangement par lettre est dans ce cas plus approprié pour Category:Quality images of France by department. Je pense aussi que mettre Category:Quality images of Poitou-Charentes en "hidden", et ajouter "Voir aussi Quality images of Poitou-Charentes" dans Category:Quality images of Charente me semblent contradictoires (en fait je ne sais pas trop pourquoi ces catégories de Quality et Valued sont cachées). Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Tu te trompes. J'ai bel et bien classé la Charente dans le Poitou-Charente et non l'inverse. verdy_p (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Ce n'est pas ce que je veux dire : une catégorie A est dans une catégorie B cachée, et on dit dans A "Voir aussi B". Autant ne pas cacher B dans ce cas non ? Pourquoi cacher les catégories Quality et Valued ? Jack ma (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
TOUTES les catégories "Quality images of " et similaires ("Featured pictured of " et "Valued images of ") sont cachées dans les catégories thématiques, dès le moment où elles sont appropriées pour y contenir des images. Cela ne fait pas exception ici.
En revanche les "voir aussi" servent de raccourcis pour accéder à d'autres catégories que juste les catégories mères immédiates (car il faut parfois remonter de plusieurs niveaux pour les trouver).
Je maintiens qu'il n'y a aucune erreur à cet endroit. verdy_p (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Merci pour ta réponse, c'était juste une question de ma part. Les "Voir aussi", ici en l'occurence, ne remontent qu'à la catégorie mère, d'où ma question sur leur utilité. Par contre, je vais ranger Category:Valued images of France by department par lettre, comme toutes les autres catégories par département (et celle-là); je te remercie d'avance de faire attention à ce détail. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Non ne le fais pas ! Ces catégories sont fermées (contrairement aux 2 catégories que tu cites et qui sont très ouvertes car contenant de très nombreuses sous-catégories thématiques) et aucun fichier n'ira dedans (ce sont des "méta-catégories") et il n'y aura aucune autre sous-catégorie dedans que celles déjà mentionnées. Leur classement est figé, et volontairement rendu compact.
De plus la catégorie mère remontant du département à la région étant cachée et pas forcément la mère juste au dessus, le lien est gardé affiché.
Franchement occupe-toi d'autres choses, j'ai eu bien du mal à créer le moule des métacatégories, et classer plein de choses pour retrouver des fichiers que les outils de téléchargement mettent n'importe où dans des niveaux qu'on ne retrouve pas. C'est bien pour ça que j'ai normalisé la création des catégories par région et par département (j'ai presque tout fait, l'idée a été reprise ensuite pour d'autres pays comme les USA, la Belgique ou l'Allemagne, car cela permet de renforcer les conventions de nommage).
verdy_p (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As-tu des exemples où la région n'est pas la catégorie mère juste au-dessus du département ? De plus, ton idée du classement des catégories "by" ne me semble pas conventionnelle. Toutes ces méta-catégories (cachées ou non) sont en effet destinées à ne recevoir rien d'autre, et toutes à l'intérieur sont classées par la lettre du mot-clé "by xxx". Le mot clé dans la sous-catégorie pour la catégorie "by" doit donc être "|nom" et non pas "| nom". Tu me dis de faire autre chose, j'aimerais bien, mais comme toi sans doute je me soucie de la cohérence des classements dans les catégories depuis que je suis sous Commons, et j'ai aussi un minimum d'expérience. Je comprends ton souci avec les outils de recherche, mais c'est à eux de s'adapter (le fait que ce ne soit pas tout en 1 bloc mais séparé par des lettres gêne-t-il vraiment ? ces outils traitent-ils ce qui est affiché, pas vraiment le contenu ?). Mais bon j'arrête là, j'ai d'autres choses sur le feu et ce n'est qu'un détail; le désaccord porte plus généralement sur la clé de tri pour une catégorie "by". Merci encore pour ton énorme travail sur ces catégories de qualité. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Les lettres sont utiles pour parcourir des catégories ouvertes sur plein de pages. Mais là on a une liste finie et qui n'a pas de raison de bouger.
Je ne parle pas des catégories réelles, mais bien ici des métacatégories, car il y en a de deux types: ouvertes et très extrensibles, et fermées comme ici où il n'y aura jamais rien d'autre (sauf création de départements). Leur contenu est destiné à être stable et tout ce qui apparaitrait dedans sera immédiatement visible.
La navigation ne passe normalement pas par ces métacatégories, on y accède bien directement. Les outils de catégorisation automatique (UploadWizard par exemple et autre CatTools) en revanche doivent avoir une liste présentée alphabétiquement, mais ne tiennent pas compte de l'affichage ou non des lettres, il leur faut juste une liste homogène.
La présentation compacte favorise l'identification immédiate des métacatégories fermées (les catégories qui ne sont pas méta en revanche sont ouvertes : on y stocke des images, mais pas là).
Ce que je disais sinon au sujet du renvoi vers la région est que la catégorie région n'est pas forcément la catégorie mère, et que de plus comme cette catégorie cible est cachée par défaut (parce qu'elle contient ou peut contenir des images), il faut un autre lien pour les visiteurs qui ne voient pas nécessairement le lien vers du département vers la région (par défaut ils ne les voient pas, il n'y a que les contributeurs inscrits qui ont désactivé le masquage des catégories cachées qui peuvent les voir). C'est la raison principale de ce rappel bien pratique là où il est (même si pour toi cela te semble rendondant, cela ne coûte rien là, et justement c'est plus accessible, et cela rappelle aussi le sens de la catégorie de façon à rappeler dans la description aussi la région dont fait partie le département). Pourquoi cela te gène ? Cela a été comme ça depuis des mois et des mois. verdy_p (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Infrastructures du Poitou-Charentes en 2002.pngEdit

File:Infrastructures du Poitou-Charentes en 2002.png 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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--PAC2 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you writing to me ? I've NOT uploaded this image to Commons, and I have not uploaded it elsewhere before it was transfered to Commons by a bot request.
I don't know who created this image. Send your notice this to user "Archeos".
Note that even if there's a visible "copyright" from IGN and BDCarto, this does not mean that the file doesn't have a valid licence. A licence is different from a copyright.
User Archeos says that he obtained the GFDL licence from IAAT which actually claims the authorship: ask him, not me, to prove his assertion.
Note also that BDCarto is a database, not an image. So this cannot apply to the image fle itself which is not a derived database.
And IGN did not produce this image directly: the IAAT produced it from the IGN database, so the author is the IAAT.
verdy_p (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Archeos n'est pas dans l'historique de la page -- PAC2 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Si, il l'était bel et bien dans l'historique, tel qu'importé dans la page par le bot d'import, en 2008...
Je maintiens que je n'ai jamais créé ce fichier et que Archeos existe bel et bien sur Wikipédia Francophone et que son import sir WP.FR est bel est bien de mui dans son historique (avant que le fichier soit effacé de WP.FR après l'import sur Commons, ce qui a malgré tout été conservé en trace dans SON historique et pas le mien).
Bref tu te plantes encore. Ta demande de suppression sans rien demander à personne était injustifiée car il y avait une licence GFDL valide, non contestée depuis 2008, même s'il y avait une ligen de copyright qui n'est pas une licence bloquante.
Dans tous les fichiers que je publierais sur Commons sous licence GFDL, je pourrais moi aussi mettre MON propre copyright. Ce n'est absolument pas bloquant. Bref tu confonds tout !
Si Archeos repasse par là, il va se plaindre de ta démarche abusive qui est de la destruction non justifiée de contenu libre ayant une licence valide contestée par personne (et pas par toi car ta contestation sans rien demander à personne et avec une procédure d'urgence non justifiée, n'est clairement pas valide).
Note que l'IGN publie bel et bien des données sous licences libres, même si toutes les données de l'IGN ne le sont pas. Tu devrais le savoir. Et l'IGN intervient comme fournisseur pour l'IAAT qui a le droit de créer ses propres contenus. Une carte graphique n'est pas une base de données et la licence de base de données de l'IGN n'est pas applicable aux cartes dérivées de ses données mais pas créées par l'IGN...
Tu fais de la chasse pseudo-préventive : le "copyvio" ne peut être invoqué que si on arrive à trouver une contenu identique soumis à une licence ou des droits plus restrictifs ou si le nom d'auteur a été abusé ou masqué (ce qui n'est pas le cas ici non plus). Il ne suffit pas de trouver l'auteur car tous les contenus ont des auteurs (et le copyright ne renseigne que cela : l'attribution), ou si un titulaire de droits conteste la délivrance d'une licence valide pour son contenu. Bref si on arrive à prouver le mensonge de celui qui a importé le fichier en violant les droits. Mais là tu n'as rien prouvé du tout et rien demandé à personne (juste à moi alors que je n'avais même pas à être avisé, même si je donne mon avis ici). verdy_p (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Mais maintenant que la page a été effacée sans rien demander à personne, il me reste à déposer plainte contre ton action colontaire destructive malvenue et clairement abusive contre les contenus libres de Wikimedia. Ton action est clairement malveillante, beaucoup plus grave que le copyvio invoqué à tord et même pas justifié (tu n'as pas voulu interroger la bonne personne). Tu as agi comme un sale pirate malveillant contre Wikimedia et ses contributeurs et je vais maintenant te traiter comme tel. verdy_p (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that admins of Commons also approve my position, but they just lack time to verify all deletion requests. This is a critical problem because any one can easily ask to delete any image in Commons, without even informing the initial poster or the community, and nobody will verify this assert, and a bot will delete the image simply because someone has inserted an invalid' copyvio assertion.
You PAC2 are abusing Wikimedia, not respecitng the past work. We need a protection of Commons content created by its users, even if they are no longer present (or when they are not even alerted of these attacks.' This is a very serious issue. Most free and legal contents on Commons are in severe danger. verdy_p (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Flags of NièvreEdit

Category:Flags of Nièvre 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 category, 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.

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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Cycn (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, another invalid request by someone that does not understand how Commons works. This causes people to loose time. Deletion requests should only be about verified abuses of licences (copyvio) for contents, or about obvious errors when naming a category which is, here, useful and expected to help image uploaders to sort their images. verdy_p (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


Good evening, Verdy. Before this coup de main one week ago, organisms were categorized as objects; there has been a discussion since under Commons:Village pump#Organisms and objects. --Abderitestatos (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Perhaps a french philosopher might help? I find the nature category here on commons very distubingly meaningless and mis-used, I am sure 75% of the images have nothing to do with nature, in any sense of the word... but how to convince anyone it is a pointless term... sats (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is as it is. I'm not changing the way it is categorized, but I uniformize the missing links between categories and the various ways they are accessed depending on locations (continent, country, ecoregions, oceans, season, date...), because I find many images remaining in too many categories, or in toot categories to subcategorize, or not found with some search paths).
Crossing the categories and completing thme with nav templates to help locate the related ones. In fine it's to help putting contents to the most precise levels, without too many categories added per media.
verdy_p (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

File:VisualEditor - Editing references 5 - fr.pngEdit

File:VisualEditor - Editing references 5 - fr.png 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/− 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Invalid deletion request (from an anonymous user) that has been handled correctly by someone else.
That image is kept and needed for the French translated version of VisualEditor doc pages. verdy_p (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Verdy, your improvement to Template:IfNum broke Template:Other date which for some languages is using Template:IfNum to tell apart strings with year only (like 1999) from strings with year and month (like 1999-09). To do that it was using Template:IfNum which was considering 1999-09 not to be a number. Could you stop changing functionality of Template:IfNum - we need it to be backward compatible. If you need a template with treats 1999-09 as a number use }}. --Jarekt (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not change the functionality, you did it MORE THAN TWO YEARS years after my improvement that caused absolutely no problem at that time.
"1999-01" IS A VALID NUMBER and there are also many templates that assume it (to check if it can be used in an expression).
If you intend to test first if this may be a date in ISO format, check it first. This template has never tested for dates before you used it !!! verdy_p (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In other words, change these other templates (that have been created much later using incorrect assumption), but definitely not IfNum, even if now you discover that these templates have bugs in some borderline cases (these templates are normally taking a year number only but with your test, it will be rejected when there's a month or full date; but this type of use was not documented there and never tested) !!!
(The bug is clearly only in the Slovenian language which uses IfNum incorrectly for this test distinguishing years only from other dates, only to decide when to insert the Slovenian word for "year"; all other languages don't need this word ! Slovenian was added much later and not correctly tested in "Template:Other date").
Your revert to use your very recent change (in last mid-december) is bad, invalid, and even breaks with zero numbers (the only zero accepted is "0"; "0.0" or "-0" returns an error).
Your recent change was THE change of functionality. I did not change anything. You broke many other templates. verdy_p (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: there is also the Template:IsNum that makes basic tests for dates like you did (it could be used for Slovenian); but my opinion is that this other template is badly named and duplicate (except it returns 1 or 0). You could instead use "IsYear" in Slovenian; or update Template:Other date to fix the presence/absence of the translated "year" word. verdy_p (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
When I wrote {{IfNum}} 4 years ago the intended use was to test if the string "as is" was a number. If I wanted to test if it can be made into a number I used {{IfNum| {{#expr:{{{1}}} }} as I did in {{Years since}} template. I used that functionality to tell apart years with months from years without months, In {{Other dates}} sl version, because that was the functionality of the template at that point. However it only affected Slovak users and I do not speak Slovak and did not noticed that you broke it a year ago. What do you use it for anyway? May be you could use {{IfNum| {{#expr:{{{1}}} }} to get the same functionality. Or you can create a new template that can work your way. Module talk:Complex date/testcases1 yesterday was showing 2 errors, but now thanks to your improvement it shows 8. I do not know what other functionalists might be affected. Our little editwar is not very productive, since {{IsNum}} is used on ~.75M pages, that needs to be recreated each time. We need to find some solution to our disagrement here, and I would prefere not to be rewriting slovak version of the {{Other dates}}. --Jarekt (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"sl" is not Slovak ("sk"), but Slovenian. I doubt everything you say here then about Template:Other dates. Clearly you have not written that and you don't know any one of these two languages. Since it was added, this did not even break the Slovenian language because of the missing word "leppo" or "leppa" (which is optional in the context where it is used by this template after a preposition; this is just a matter of style; IfNu, could be completely avoided, the additional word for "year" is in fact needlessly verbose including in other languges).
The doc page also has always said that IfNum, was not intended to be internationalized. Then it cannot safely be used for dates that DO need to be internationalized. It was only testing numbers in their non*internationaized format suitable for #expr, and not any localized number : so group separators and decimal separators (as returned by #formatnum) are returned as invalid. Its only use was then for use of tested numbers in #expr.
You are the only one that wants to push a change of functionality by modifying the scope of usability into something that has never been intended and documented (but breaks other templates and pages breaking for excessive template expansion).
Fix only the strings returned by Template:Other dates only for Slovenian (and this is the only language using IfNum incorrectly since it was added) but nothing else in IfNum. Other dates currently uses a very bad hack of IfNum that has never worked at all here in Commons for that language (except with your recent change in mid-december with a bad "quick fix" for what is really a minor bug only in that language, but your change breaks too many other pages in all languages, your correction is clearly a hack trying to harness a quirk, a very bad practice in templates). Use another template correctly named for that, such as "IfYearOnly", don't attempt to use "IsNum" which is duplicating the documented functionality for a similar undocumented quirk; "IsNum" is still used in some templates, but it has problems with zeroes):
And the intended use {{IfNum| {{#expr:{{{1}}} }} absolutely does not contradict what is made here. But your version clearly has a bug tht was solved more than two years ago as it depends on being able to compute a division, and you assume it will always return 1 for all numbers but fails with zero, except when zero is exactly written "0". This did not work in other templates taking other zero values (such as "0.00"). The fix made 2 years ago allowed many other templates to not fail with "0.00" or "-0" returned by evaluating some expressions. "1990-01" is also a valid number (1989) for #expr (and this is used in various templates that allow their numeric parameter to be expressions without having first to evaluate them explicitly. Many templates use that without needing to add a #expr in their parameter : they effectively pass additions and substructions.
The fix made two years ago (long before Slovenian was added to Other dates but not tested) avoided also multiple expansions of its parameter (several pages break during expansion due to very large template expansions in intermediate parsing steps). There are templates that perform many tests of their parameter to check their value or type, and these tempaltes are then used repeatedly on the same page. Avoiding multiple expansions allows those pages not to break.
The doc page never meat that IfNu, could be used to test for dates. It just tested for what can be a valid number and clearly "1999-01" is a valid number, just like "0.00" or "-0" that your version break.
verdy_p (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to get your dates straight:
  • 2011-01-19 - I wrote {{IfNum}} [3]
  • 2011-08-07 - I added sl version to {{other date}} [4] and used {{IfNum}} to tell apart YYYY from YYYY-MM format dates. I do not speak Slovenian but add requested changes to protected {{other date}} template.
  • 2013-11-17 - you did your first edit to {{IfNum}} [5] breaking sl version in {{other date}}
  • 2015-01-11 - I finally figured out what is the source of incorrect sl outputs {{other date}} and reverted your edit
You broke {{other date}} again, how are you going to fix it? You still did not tell me what do you use {{IfNum}} for. --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I already told you all that above. Everything has worked since 2011 (earlier than what I thought) and again since the last two years
It's a fact that your code caused lots of errors with zeroes in many pages; and you had never named or documented your template to say that it would only support basic numbers and only "0" for zero (note that #expr frequently returns "-0" when computing some expressions, because this is the way it formats small numbers with a precision more limited than what is actually computed: its formatting rounds up small negative values but still displays their negative sign; testing zeroes correctly is necessary because some computed values are the result of complex expressions and then used to check if they should match and they should in almost all cases: internally it computes with 64-bit "double" and formats numbers omitting the last significant digits by rounding). Affected templates were typically those used for geography or calendar computations.
I have also suggested you what to do without your undocumented hack. And this has worked this way since years now. verdy_p (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Populatd places in SavoieEdit


Je ne sais pas si tu utilises un script ou un tout autre outil pour faire des modifications à la chaîne rapidement, mais moi non alors un petit coup de main pour vider cette catégorie mal orthographiée serait appréciable.

Merci par avance, bien cordialement, --Floflo (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Aucun robot ou script, c'est fait à la main avec les outils standards de Commons (si on inclue Hotcat pour déplacer des groupes de pages) :
  1. J'utilise "renommer une page" dans le menu en haut de la catégorie affichée (ce qui modifiera aussi l'entrée dans Wikidata associée à la catégorie de Commons et cela préserve aussi l'historique de la page de catégorie à renommer dans l'historique de la nouvelle : c'est mieux que de l'éditer pour remplacer son contenu par la redirection et de recopier ce contenu dans une nouvelle catégorie avec un historique vierge, d'autant plus que la catégorie redirigée risque de ne pas survivre longtemps une fois vidée).
  2. Puis je l'édite aussitôt pour mettre le modèle {{Category redirect|...}} à la place de la redirection créée par défaut avec #redirect [[...]] (nécessaire après le renommage d'une catégorie).
    • On peut aussi regarder la liste des "Pages liées" à la catégorie pour voir si parmi elles il y a d'autres catégories déjà redirigées qui pointaient sur le nom avant ton renommage : il faudrait modifier aussi leur paramètre de redirection pour qu'une redirection ne pointe pas vers la catégorie redirigée que tu viens de créer, mais elles aussi pointent sur le nouveau nom.
    • On peut aussi rechercher des liens dans les modèles et autres pages à mettre à jour pour mentionner le nouveau nom sans redirection (cependant des robots tournent régulièrement sur Commons pour remplacer les doubles redirections, et on peut aussi se faire aider).
    • C'est la raison pour laquelle on ne doit pas demander la suppression d'une catégorie, même redirigée, qui peut avoir encore des tas de liens internes dessus (et encore plus de liens externes, par exemple depuis des pages d'un ou plusieurs des centaines de wikis de Wikimédia !) mais que le modèle "Catégorie redirigée" conserve un lien rapide vers le nouveau nom.
  3. Ensuite j'utilise le gadget standard Hotcat pour déplacer le contenu de la catégorie actuelle vers la nouvelle catégorie (il le fait par paquet de 200 pages + 200 fichiers + 200 sous-catégories maximum, c'est-à-dire seulement les pages visibles dans l'affichage actuel de la catégorie à vider).
    • Ouvrir Hotcat qui apparaît dans le coin inférieur droit, cliquer sur "all" pour sélectionner toutes les pages visibles dans la catégorie actuelle, puis rechercher le nom de la nouvelle catégorie qui doit être visible en haut de la liste juste au dessus du nom de la catégorie actuelle, c'est-à-dire la dernière ayant une flèche vers le bas (c'est la seule catégorie mère de la catégorie actuelle, dès lors que tu as pris soin d'y placer correctement le modèle {{Category redirect}} et que cette catégorie n'est pas encore vide.
    • Attention, regarde ma note ci-dessous concernant certains noms de catégories avec apostrophes à rediriger, à cause d'une anomalie signalée : pour ces catégories-là qui ne sont pas encore catégorisées dans la nouvelle catégorie mère alors qu'elles ne sont pas encore vides, il te faut saisir manuellement le nom de la nouvelle catégorie en haut de HotCat et appuyer sur entrée, puis cliquer sur le lien "all" en bas du dialogue pour sélectionner en jaune les pages de la catégorie actuelle, et ensuite cliquer le lien "move" en face de la nouvelle catégorie).
  4. Parfois il reste des pages que Hotcat ne peut pas déplacer et qu'il signale (il faut regarder le code de ces pages pour voir pourquoi : souvent c'est parce que la catégorisation était faite par un modèle, et il suffit souvent de faire un null edit de cette page pour forcer sa catégorisation à être prise en compte, sinon il faut étudier le modèle en question et voir comment faire avec en remplaçant
    [[Category:Ancien nom avec {{{1}}}|Clé de tri]]
    [[Category:{{#ifexist: Category:Nouveau nom avec {{{1}}} | Nouveau nom avec {{{1}}} | Ancien nom avec {{{1}}} }}|Clé de tri]]
    pour être compatible avec l'ancien nom de catégorie (qui peut être encore utilisé sur d'autres pages et dépendant d'un ou plusieurs paramètres) et le nouveau nom à prendre en priorité seulement si la nouvelle catégorie existe déjà... Plus tard quand il n'y aura plus rien nécessitant l'ancien nom, ce test pourra être enlevé du modèle). Si le modèle utilisée dans la page pas encore recatégorisée n'est pas modifiable, il faudra demander à un administrateur de débloquer ce modèle le temps de faire cette mise à jour temporaire de compatibilité, puis faire un null edit de toutes les pages qui l'utilisent pour les recatégoriser automatiquement, puis enlever le test en ne gardant que le nouveau nom dans ce modèle.
  5. Une fois l'ancienne catégorie redirigée vide, je fais un null edit dessus pour forcer sa décatégorisation de la liste des catégories redirigées non vides (et aussi pour qu'elle ne soit plus elle-même une sous-catégorie, vide, de la nouvelle catégorie).
Il y a beaucoup d'opérations, on peut aller vite mais pas trop, et un robot aura du mal à tout faire et tout contrôler, alors que la méthode semi-manuelle ci-dessus ne traite que ce qui est entièrement visible et permet de ne rien oublier). HotCat est cependant d'une très grande aide pour ne pas avoir à modifier des centaines de pages manuellement (et commettre des erreurs dispersées), et pour ne pas se décourager en cours de route.
Concernant la faute dans le nom "Populatd" je l'ai noté aussitôt (la demande de renommage est partie plus vite que prévu avant la relecture) et cette catégorie est déjà vide et a une demande de suppression.
Il n'y a rien d'autre à y faire l'opération est terminée sur cette page. Demande de suppression rapide incluse (conforme à Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?).
Cependant j'ai été interrompu en cours de route pour d'autres messages ailleurs et ce n'était pas fini.
En particulier j'ai noté une anomalie du modèle Template:Category redirect pour certains noms de catégories à rediriger, mais qui contiennent par exemple des apostrophes dans leur nom (par exemple pour la redirection de Category:Cities and villages in Côte-d'Or qui ne détectait pas que celle-ci était non vide). Une correction demandée aux administrateurs (parce que le modèle est protégé) et j'ai pris le soin de leurs répondre puisque je les en avait avisés un peu avant. Sans cette correction, on peut oublier des catégories redirigées non vides alors qu'elles ont été correctement marquées par ce modèle. Regarde pour plus de détail la dernière section de la page de discussion de ce modèle (désolé c'est en anglais) qui explique pourquoi et comment (c'est assez technique mais sans les détails on a du mal à comprendre pourquoi : c'est une très vielle anomalie de MediaWiki depuis ses débuts pour le mot magique {{PAGENAME}}, signalée depuis longtemps, jamais corrigée mais qu'on oublie facilement, mais pour laquelle j'indique la solution simple).
verdy_p (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Merci pour ta réactivité, et aussi pour les explications détaillées. Je ne connaissais pas ce gadget, en effet très pratique (c'est vrai que j'ai parlé de script, mais j'avais en tête tout outil permettant d'aller plus vite, gadgets compris =))
Merci aussi pour toutes ces modifications "pour le bien de Commons" si je pourrais le résumer ainsi.
Merci encore et bonne continuation, --Floflo (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Alsace region location map.svgEdit

Bonjour Verdy p. Est-ce que je peux savoir pourquoi tu t'évertues à placer File:Alsace region location map.svg dans la catégorie locator maps of Alsace?
Les locator maps sont des cartes qui montrent la position d'un lieu ou d'une zone de façon permanente et non modifiable, généralement par un point ou une zone colorée. Ce n'est pas du tout le cas de celle-ci qui est vierge.
Cette carte est une location map qui indique une carte aux limites géographiques clairement définies, avec une projection cartographique spécifique et qui est utilisée dans des modèles de géolocalisation (fr:Aide:Géolocalisation) afin de montrer la position d'un ou plusieurs lieux, mais contrairement à la précédente, de façon dynamique dans les articles.
Les termes sont proches, la finalité est sensiblement la même mais le principe pour y parvenir totalement différent.
D'autre part, pourquoi la supprimes-tu de la catégorie Administrative maps of Alsace ? Cette carte montre les niveaux région, département et arrondissement. C'est donc bien une carte administrative, n'est-ce pas ? Quelle est la différence par rapport à File:Alsace_Adve3.png que tu viens de placer dans cette catégorie à part le niveau administratif représenté ? Sting (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Elle n'était pas dans une catégorie alsacienne mais la catégorie française surpeuplée.
Les deux termes proches peuvent être séparés après (à condition qu'il y ait deux catégories distinguées, ce qui n'est pas le cas ici), le gros du tri à faire n'est pas là.
Dans les deux cas, Location et Locator restent aussi des sous-catégories des cartes administratives (voire électorales avec Election maps quand cette catégorie existe et est séparée), juste moins détaillée... verdy_p (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
J'ai l'impression que dans ta précipitation de recatégorisation tu ne prêtes pas toujours attention à ce que tu fais. Je peux le comprendre quand on manipule durant un certain temps de nombreuses données, mais évite de me répondre de la façon dont tu l'as fait.
  • Cette carte était dès le départ dans les cats d'Alsace : Category:Maps of Alsace ; Category:Administrative maps of Alsace et Category:SVG maps of Alsace ; elle était et est d'autre part dans Category:Location maps of regions of France qui est une cat générale par pays pour ce type de carte ;
  • le 25 janvier tu enlèves la carte de la cat racine Category:Maps of Alsace ( pas de pb sur ce point, la cat Administrative maps… étant une sous-cat) et tu l'ajoutes dans Category:Locator maps of Alsace ;
  • le même jour je supprime le lien vers Category:Locator maps of Alsace puisque ce n'est pas son type de carte, ce que j'ai précisé dans ma modification ;
  • aujourd'hui tu la supprimes de Category:Administrative maps of Alsace et tu la remets dans Category:Locator maps of Alsace, sans plus de justification que la fois précédente ; tu ne m'as d'ailleurs pas expliqué pourquoi tu l'as remise dans cette cat dans laquelle elle n'appartient pas ;
  • les cats Location maps… et Locator maps… sont distinctes depuis des années, un autre point qui semble t'avoir échappé ;
    Non rien ne m'a échappé sur ce point mais entre les Location et Locator très proches l'un de l'autre la priorité reste sur tous les autres gritères géographiques en premier, on ne peut pas tout faire en même temps et c'est facile ensuite (seulement quand il y a les deux catégories elles-mêmes correctement catégorisées) de les distinguer. En attendant que ces catégories soient réellement distinguées, ce n'est pas la priorité (en fait les "Locator maps" devraient être une sous-catégorie des "Location maps" dont ils sont plur la plupart dérivés, et ce serait globalement plus simple que s'ils étaient côte à côte ou avec seulement l'un et pas l'autre, "Location" étant la priorité pour tout mettre, et de même les "Location maps" devraient être sous-catégorie des "Administrative maps"). verdy_p (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • dans aucun des cas Locator maps... et Location maps… ne sont des sous-cats de Administrative maps…, actuellement.
Organiser et archiver, c'est très bien, encore faut-il le faire avec conscience. Sting (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Je le fais avec une parfaite conscience. Ce n'est pas facile de gérer les priorités de tout le monde mais là encore les critères géographiques, puis thématiques viennnent bien avant les critères de forme, car c'est par là qu'on arrive à réduire le volume des catégories surchargées (srutout par les trop nombreuses "locator map" qu'on doit éviter de créer sur Commons juste pour placer un point de géolocalisation dynamique, quand on a déjà des "Location" utilisables).
Donc rassure-toi j'ai exactement les mêmes objectifs que toi et conscience de la même chose. Et contrairement à ce que tu dis je n'agis pas dans la précipitation, je fais sur ce que je trouve, lentement. verdy_p (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Surtout ne pas faire l'amalgame entre Location et Locator, au cas où l'idée te viendrait à l'esprit,
Je le répète puisque tu ne lis pas, et insiste, je ne fais pas la confusion. Les "Locator maps" sont presque toutes dérivées d'une "Location map" (eux-même pour la plupart étant des "Blank maps"), et ils sont tellement proches que cela a bien un sens de sous-classer les "Locators" dans les "Location" dont ils sont issus. verdy_p (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ce n'est pas du tout la même chose et si on les met ensemble on ne s'y retrouvera plus, ni dans un type, ni dans l'autre. Les Locator ne devraient pratiquement plus exister depuis qu'on a la géolocalisation.
Non justement car la gélocalisation ne permet de placer qu'un point (une petite icône et un libellé), pas montrer une zone entière. Cela ne les remplace en pratique que pour géolocaliser les communes et localités sur une carte d'un département ou de le France, pas pour tout le reste qui pourtant a bien des "Location maps".
De fait il se crée encore des "Locator maps" pour les entités assez grandes à l'échelle de la carte (beaucoup plus qu'une petite icône pour un point). verdy_p (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
C'est un bordel dans lequel je n'ai pas envie de mettre le nez. Les Location étaient organisées durant un certain temps, et puis ça a dérapé. J'y ferai peut-être un tour au fur et à mesure que je crée de nouvelles cartes dans ce domaine.
Mettre la cat Location dans une cat Administrative me paraît difficile. Dans le cas de la France, équivalent aux autres pays, on aura 3-4 cartes du pays puis normalement 2 par région puis autant par département. Une cat par niveau administratif et par pays est suffisante, on insère ensuite ces cartes dans les cats des-dits départements/régions pour pouvoir les retrouver par ce biais, c'est suffisant. Sting (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Je peux t'assurer que dans le cas de la France, il y en a beaucoup plus que tu croies... Et à l'échelle au dessus, pour les cartes internationales, c'est énormément plus. Ajoute à ça les cartes historiques et les "Locator" sont très nombreux on ne peut pas tout faire avec les "Location" même si on peut en dériver bon nombre de "Locators" (dans de nouveaux fichiers)... verdy_p (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Communes de FranceEdit

Bonjour Verdy p.

J'ai vu que vous avez procedé à des changements de catégories pour des communes françaises : "Category:Cities and villages in..." --> "Category:Populated places in...".
Savez-vous s'il y a eu une décision commune pour procéder à ce changement et quels en étaient les motifs ? Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ca avait déjà été commencé de façon systématique (par d'autres, et même depuis longtemp, et petit à petit un territoire ou un autre commençait à tout confondre) dans l'outre-mer et dans plusieurs départements et les navigations entre catégories ne fonctionnait déjà plus ou oubliait de lister des communes, j'ai juste continué parce que ce n'était pas fini. Le changement massif a eu lieu dans toute une série de pays et personne n'y a rien vu de mal. Je me suis assuré qu'au moins département par département les listes étaient toutes complètes sans séparation et toutes accessibles et navigables et toutes correctement croisées (selon les critères des catégories mères).
Au passage j'ai revérifié les listes de communes concernées et catégorisé tuote une série d'images mises un peu n'importe où. verdy_p (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Réflexion faite je comprend pourquoi quelqu'un l'a commencé : il y a les catégories internationales où on n etrouve pas la France, mais il y a aussi dans divers pays des statuts divers pour les "populated places" : city, tow, borough, neighborhood... Je pense que cela a été fait pour qu'à terme Populatrd places regroupe tous les statuts possibles.
Si tu regardes les USA, c'est carrément bordélique mais là je n'y touche pas (il y a bien assez de contributeurs locaux pour s'occuper de ce pays pour que je ne me mêle pas de ça).
En France on a aussi plusieurs statuts, avec les communes, arrondisssements de communes, quartiers administratifs, villages (à Wallis et Futuna il n'y a pas de communes, juste des royaumes coutumiers divisés en villages groupés par île habitée dans des conseils insulaires). Et à Saint-Barth et Saint-Martin il n'y a plus de communes mais une collectivités territoriale unique, et dans les TAAF il n'y a ni commune ni village )
Ceci dit le titre "Populated places" aurait dû être plutôt "Places" (comme aussi sur le wiki d'OpenStreetmap) car toutes nos communes ne sont pas peuplées même en métropole. Ce n'est pas très génant pour la petite poignée de médias à classer dans ces lieux inhabités. Ceci dit ces lieux ont des "résidents", seulement non permanents: si ce n'était pas le cas, la France perdrait sa territorialité exclusive ou partagée dans certains territoires (en outre-mer, et même en métropole dans les territoires frontaliers partagées entre la France et un ou plusieurs autres pays) : tous les territoires revendiqués doivent avoir une présence humaine au moins une fois par an en code international. Cela aurait été aussi pertinent pour les USA.
On peut garder la classification "Populated places pour l'instant car il est massivement utilisé dans le monde (mais il faudra discuter le changement en "Places") même avec le petit accroc des lieux inhabités (mais avec le risque ensuite qu'on place dans "Places"/lieux toutes les catégories toponymiques (montagnes, cols, îles, rues/routes/chemins, "squares"/"plazzas"/places, ou même des "building/bâtiments"...).
Et pour la France quand même lister ensuite parmi les "Populated places" toutes nos "Communes" (et aussi les "Villages" et "Customary kingdoms" à Wallis et Futuna) au sens propre parmi les "Populated places" (même si toutes les communes ne sont pas habitées), et nos "Hamlets", "Intercommunalités" et "Métropoles". Et aussi les divers statuts de "communes" qui existent aussi (communes déléguées, communes fusionnées, communes disparues, communes détachées dans un autre territoire, communes ayant changé de nom dans l'histoire qui pourtant a retenu leur ancien nom...).
Enfin je travaille à préparer la fusion des régions de 2016 (pour les premiers niveaux les plus importants), d'une façon qui n'obligera pas à tout recatégoriser, et m'assurer que toutes les conventions de nommage sont cohérentes partout sur ces premiers niveaux.
Pour l'instant le modèle "Template:Regions of France" continue d'utiliser l'ancienne classification, "Template:Regions of France/sandbox" est en cours de finition (mais il marche partout où je l'ai essayé), et il me semble qu'on pourra vite demander à en copier le code dans "Template:Regions of France" pour que cela soit visible dans toutes les autres catégories). Ce modèle affiche les deux classifications, il corrige déjà le changement de nom de la région "Centre" (tout en étant compatible encore avec les catégories pas encore renommées).
En 2016, on pourra ensuite juste n'afficher qu'une seule liste (et en utilisant la liste des pages liées à "Template:Regions of France/sandbox" retrouver les catégories où le suffixage du modèle n'est plus nécessaire dans les catégories, ce qui pourra être fait très facilement par robot dès que le code est copié dans le modèle non suffixé). Je ne compte pas modifier les milliers de catégories à plusieurs niveaux qui mentionnent encore les régions d'avant 2015 (parce que le modèle utilisé est verrouillé), mais juste ce qui permet d'arriver à une région sur un critère géographique de base des régions pour les niveaux de base des catégories (histoire, géographies, cartes, société/politique/élections) afin de faciliter aussi la production et la classification des contenus relatifs aux prochaines régionales de 2016. verdy_p (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup pour ces explications précises. Je comprends tout à fait l'idée d'uniformisation (internationale) des noms de catégories. Ce qui m'a surpris, au premier abord, c'est le nom choisi pour catégoriser des communes françaises. Puis, après tout, ce qui compte ce sont les niveaux inférieurs propres à chaque commune et le contenu de ces niveaux en maintenant une certaine cohérence française. Enfin, j'espère qu'en la matière on aille pas à tout vouloir classer selon une approche anglo-saxonne.
(PS: ma question initiale fait suite à celle-ci dans WP-fr).
Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Je viens de voir cette discussion. Une remarque il ne faut en aucun cas changer "populated places" en "places" le terme correct, utilisé sur en est settlement! Puis comme déjà remarqué sur le bistro: Je pense que tes changements intervenus au niveau du modèle des départements est prématuré, il y a aucune raison de faire les changements avant le dernier trimestre 2015 et puis tes croix de mort sont d'une mocheté pénible à voir! Traumrune (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 2 daysEdit

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 2 days for the following reason: Incivility.

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.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

— Revi 14:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept block appeal on email, as described on m:User:-revi/Email. Please post it onwiki. — Revi 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I followed the instruction in the alert that indicated to contact you by mail (your talk page was not accessible). Visibly you received that mail (without it you would not have even seen this page) :

"Le blocage a été effectué par -revi. La raison invoquée est la suivante : Intimidation/harassment: COM:AN."

I contest this accusation, I've never used "personnal" attacks, and it was not a "continuous" attack since I just replied today in a few minutes (well I was reediting it when you, revi, modified the page, si there was an edit conflict to post the second part and could not fix the first part.

You've used an emergency soltuion as if my SINGLE message on the noticeboard was harmful to anyone.

Do you base your decision on my last sentence about the "questionable position" of Steinwalker as an admin ? How do you feel this is a "personal" attack? It was extremely important to rectify things because I have made everything to prepare a request (for which I never said it was urgent).

Since the begining of the thread, I was only "informative" (and all the rest in the talk page is informative as well and the way it is done, is useful for others to understand the issue whise origin is a very old bug/inconsistency of MediaWiki in the PAGENAME magic keyword.

But yes, I was replying to Steinwalker because he was the one that "fulfilled" my request (but not the way it was described, because he did more than what was asked).

Each time he has asked me something, I have done it and given him the exact and accurate response, exactly what he asked.

I was extremely short to reply him each time (he cannot say that my details given in the Template talk page are too long for him if he just refused to read it, even if the ctiondo do was correctly summarized and presented in that talk page, with the important thing to do very clearly emphasized and framed with the exact code, plus the exact code in the template sandbox, because he also requested it, and I provided it to him as well with a link to it in the noticeboard)

No, he has never read and never considered that I had fulfilled everything he wanted.

Then he chose to act _3_days_ after my last one-line reply to his "confirmation" question. (I had not added anything else in that time.

I was never rude about him during this request. I just commented the fact that he had not done what was described, he did more (using some automatic edits such as search/replace-all.

And yes after he did it, I had to test the change. As it was OK, I did not add anything else on the notice board. But Steingwalker this morning added a on the noticeboard and I just wanted to reply him once. To alert him that what he did was not exactly what was confirmed.

Is it "incivil" in Commons to post comments about how requests have been done ? Every edit is discussable, and I've never seen any admin blocking someone because another contributer posted a reply on a talk page describing waht was done on the wiki. (I've not commented about who is Steinwalker but only about what he has done, my single message, absolutely not continuous, is definitely not personnal and not continuous).

Do you feel it is continous because I used a 4-point reply to his own 4-point reply on the notice board ?

I have offered him multiple times an accurate place to discuss it (the template talk page) but he refused to do it. Where could I have done that?

I always left my posts with opened questions to avoid blocking the situation (look for the question marks): in those sentence I was not affirmative. I don't know why you feel that I am offensive (which words?)

I know it ias hard to explain things online (after all we don't know each other personnally).

So yes the situation is extremely frustrating, when I'm blocked now for - having done everything that was asked to me and for explaining to others what we are doing on Commons (notably in places that could potentially break many other pages such as editing heavily used templates), - or because I was adding other small comments when I discovered similar isses on other pages I could fix, and that the same issue could affect other pages/templates as well.

The details I gave in the tlak page was usable as a reference for explaining other similar changes. It can be used as well to justify a change in MediaWiki for its old bug of the PAGENAME magic keyword family (requested since very long but never corrected, always considered non urgent : instead MediaWiki was fixed in #ifeq and #switch so that they would HTML-decode their input parameter (this caused new compatibility issues, that have been solved later).

But the issue remained in PAGESINCAT: (and in potentially many other extensions), only because of the bug of the PAGENAME magic keywords family. This is precious information, in my opinion to share to other users of MediaWiki, and notably admins that are fixing tricky templates heavily used....

So instead of being thanked for pointing the issue and explaning it (there's nothing personnal in that), I'm now blocked only for commenting what was actually done.

-- verdy_p (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read what happening on here, the block that was placed to Verdy_p account was improper, first, his request was clear and he was avoiding stupid bureaucracy just for an edit on template, this bureaucracy is also weird, was it exist so admins with little to technical abilities can perform an edit on template? Admins without proper knowledge regarding templates should stay away from it and defer to more experienced admins. Verdy_p was angry because the admins who do the request was doing it wrongly, which is understandable. And I am also sure Verdy_p was in his good intention with good faith want that template to be corrected properly.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Aldnonymous: Yes it was stupid bureaucracy but there is absolutely never ever a reason to get upset. Usually this makes things just more complicated, especially when dealing with bureaucrats. Have you ever been to a branch of an authority? Guess what happens if you tell them they did something wrong. People just don't like being told they did it wrong (worst case) and they will try to defend or justify their actions; but you can always tell them how someone would have done stuff more efficiently (so so) and we are often-times happy to just improve if we are politely asked (best solution, most efficient). Accusations and defence statements do not help anyone. You may post this back to my talk page once I got somehow disgruntled.
@Verdy p: I will remove the block in the moment you simply promise to solve issues efficiently and to refrain from mentioning Steinsplitter an any comment for the next two days. Hope to have you back on board soon. -- Rillke(q?) 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean when I should solve issues efficiently. I have no intent of citing Steinsplitter (unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusions with other people, like in this line), in fact I mentionned it only once when I replied to someone else, and this was not an accusation just a basic reference.
I did not even have the time to consider the STOP word sent by "revi", that came just in the middle of an edit conflict when I tried to fix my own typos (when I read a few seconds later it it was too late I was already blocked by revi that reacted immediately) (when I had the edit conflict, I had not noticed this conflict came from a post from someone else). I never had any contact with him in any talks I can remember, an I had then not replied to him or cited him. The edit conflict ocured so that my message appeared unsynchronized as if I was replying to him.
I had no issue at all with revi (but the standard way to contact him in the appeal did not work: a single email via the wiki was refused by him, but he got it just to reply he discard it, my own talk page rejected too, his own talk page on Commons rejected too, his alternate talk page on Meta (there's a link to it in his own user page) rejected too !
There are things to learn for all of us about how to try interacting with admins from different cultures and notably when "seeing" them the first time. This can be very frustrating with deceptive results. (Many people on Wikimedia and on other networks have expressed this frustration: they feel Wikimedia is really not welcoming new users, but also that it is repuslsing many old existing users that are feeling themselves "out of the small circle" of admins with immediated "life and death" power, and also have felt that even admins do not discuss correctly each others). This isalsoa question of NPOV (the situations is too much balanced with the power of admins acting too urgently for things that do not require them to use their power themselves). My blocking was then compeltely undiscussed and unexpected and decided by one alone (but may be St.sp contacted him via some invisible background channel).
But my block is very strange when I was just saying what got made the wrong way and why: it just says that we/I should act silently and never discuss or explain things even when we know there could be problems (and it is the case here: this was not formally an edit request but an information notice, correctly posted to the noticeboard with a link a very short description, the details were somewhere else and are still there). I did not give any order (this is what was thought, when he performed the change 3 days after my confirmation, he had done that in his own spare time, I did not expect any action by him specifically).
I won't insist with St.sp. because of the way he discusses (after 5 words the rest is ignored, we're on a wiki to explain concepts, but discussions are just like SMS or Twitter).
This could worsen the situation. However this event will have an history (probably more embarrasing from him than for me when people will have to renew his mandate and will report on his past actions). I prefer spending 2 days doing something else and try forgetting that minor issue, than having new problems with him in the next days for unexpected reasons. I can take this as a wikibreak (after all I've had frequent wirkibreaks in the past years, with other projects or simply personal life), and I think that a few fresher admins should do it too and leave others "do the job" for some time. I don't think anyone can use the admin power full time and need to have breaks for activities in less sensitive areas.
And sorry if there are a few bad words, English is not my native tongue: it's hard to be very diplomatic in a foreign language with all its subtle tricks and also hard to find immediately some better words (and probably even harder to synthetize them). verdy_p (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what I got out of your reply, and this is all this is relevant to me as I do not like to judge on the subject that caused the block, is that you prefer to stay the two days blocked and take it as a wiki break. If I misunderstood something, please let me know. From my point of view: You are welcome here. Just avoid blaming users for things they did wrong in your eyes. It's often not worth the discussion. See you hopefully in two days and keep on your good work on Lua modules. -- Rillke(q?) 02:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm back. Thanks for your support anyway. And sorry for the misunderstanding and precipitation that caused this minor issue.
I just regret we can't speak about things that are incorrectly done (independantly of the status of involved users), and I don't think it is a good direction to follow on Wikimedia : it just means that when there's a problem, we should not discuss it and act alone, I'm not sure this will really avoid more severe conflicts between redactors because they will just create more undiscussed reverts. I think I prepared the work to do much enough and I was fait about explaining potentially dangerous things before modifying.
It also says we should not participate to any evaluation process (even if it was highly promoted as a general goal). verdy_p (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking won't hurt anyone; in my eyes 2 things could have avoided drama and lead a similar or better result: If Steinsplitter were asked on their talk page directly (to improve) and there wouldn't have too much discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard. The noticeboard is more designed for short reports of incidents than for evaluation whether a botched edit (summary). Edits to the noticeboard are logged to an IRC channel and when users see edits logged in this chat room, they often assume some kind of administrative action is required. So better to keep it short on the board :P Glad you're back. -- Rillke(q?) 22:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Look more precisely : how many times I've said to Steinwalker to reply to the talk page given since the start ? He did not want ! I did not want to discuss on the noticeboard, initially I just left a link and a basic description: it was really a notification, and not formally an edit request. verdy_p (talk)

Parades of shipsEdit

Please see I reverted you with an explanation. You reverted back with no comment. If you have a better case to make than I do, please state it. Otherwise, please don't just roll back another experienced editor's changes with no explanation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You acted too early, in the middle of recategorisations. Ships processions are not what we generally think a procession. It was necessary to put at least a temporary redirect to allow correct separation of religious processions (that are part of the category of Religious rites, but not ship processions). verdy_p (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK now I've separated the two topics, removed the temporary category redirect and ship parades are back in the Processions... But most contents in that category was about the religious subject. verdy_p (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Karion Istomin's alphabet A - 06.jpg - Moving from Category:Az (letter) to Category:Cyrillic AEdit

You don't speak Russian, and don't know the Russian alphabet and old Russian alphabet. Please STOP remove and move! STOP!!!!! Let it to the people who studied. I spend weeks to organize all it right, and I am Russian historian. --Shakko (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These are basic images withdifferent interpretations, independantly of the limited descriptions you intend. For example images of Cyrillic A are also images of Latin A (even if their Unicode encoding are different, they only represent concrete "glyphs", not abstract "character" : some other glyph variants of the same abstract character may not be equivalently interpreted, but they will be indifferent images... and categories)
STOP shouting in comments ! The pairs "i a" shown are effectively Cyrillic "iatocized a", and are also Latin "i a" pairs.
Don't make the confusion between glyphs and characters ! Images of letters are NOT characters they are just possible glyphs for one or several distinct characters. verdy_p (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Communes FranceEdit

Bonjour. Je sais que tu veux juste ranger correctement. Mais malgré le fait que la discussion sur le bistro a montré que personne te suit dans ton désire de ranger tout sous "populated places" (je répète cela s'appelle settlement en anglais), tu continues comme si rien n'était! Il y a quelques jours tu as déplacé la catégorie Category:Localities of cities and villages in Dordogne. Le nom n'était pas bon, toutefois, après le changement de place c'est pire, parce du coup un hameau qui fait partie d'une commune est au même niveau que la commune.

Si le hameau et la commune ont le même nom, ils étaient déjà confondus avant, mon renommage n'y est pour strictement rien. C'était juste mal nommé et mal classé déjà avant ! verdy_p (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pourtant, il ne s'agit pas de la même démarche. Il faudrait avoir le hameau comme sous-catégorie de la commune et en même temps une catégorie distincte pour les hameaux.

Il y a bel et bien une catégorie pour "Hamlets", tu n'as pas regardé ! verdy_p (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Il semble que c'était le but maladroit des "localités". Malheureusement le terme anglais hamlet n'est pas non plus approprié.

Je n'ai pas changé le terme "Hamlet" utilisé partout ailleurs déjà dans les autres départements, là tu proposes un changement qui n'a encore jamais été fait par personne. Mon renommage n'y change rien verdy_p (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Les hameaux (en:Hamlet (place) - (tu remarqueras qu’un ‘’hamlet’’ n’est pas une ‘’populated place’’ mais ‘’’settlement’’’ (établissement humain). Pour la France il ne faut pas utiliser des catégories avec le terme « hamlet ». En effet, d’après Wikipedia en anglais un hamlet est habituellement une « Unincorporated community or comme l’article le dit cela n’existe pas en France. L’article en français mentionne qu’il y a des exceptions en outre mer. Les hameaux et lieu-dit en France font toujours partie d’une commune et si nécessaire la sous-catégorie peut être créé au cas par cas!

En fait c'est plus compliqué que ça : "Unincorporated community" existe bel et bien en France : ça se traduit par "communauté non organisée" (non reconnue comme "personne morale" avec une personalité juridique en droit français : les communes et toutes les "collectivités territoriales" françaises sont des "incorporated"). De plus je doute fortement de la définition anglaise qui confond "incorporated" (enregistré entant que personnalité) et "organized". Je ne me fie pas là dessus.
"Hamlet" traduit correctement le "hameau" français (il est toujours difficile de faire des équivalences d'une langue à l'autre mais l'usage de "hamlet" pour traduire "hameau", et inversement est manifeste et depuis longtemps). Ne te fie pas à la définition anglo-américaine dont les précisions supplémentaires ne sont pas applicables hors de ces pays (et même sont inexactes parmi eux si on s'en tient à leur propre législation locale).
En plus nos "hameaux" confondent sur Commons des entités très différentes en France : nos véritables hameaux sont des micro-"agglomérations" sans statut administratif (ils sont juste le résultat d'un découpage urbain, évolutif avec le temps, mais oui ils sont non-"incorporated" et non-"organized"), et les "communes déléguées" (qui sont bien des communes légalement et sont "incorporated", avec un maire et un état-civil propre, mais qui ne pas autonomes budgétairement et sont sans conseil propre et sont donc non-"organized"). Les communes déléguées ont toujours leur code INSEE et souvent encore une personnalité juridique et un code SIREN pour leurs comptes spécifiques. verdy_p (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pourras-tu - dans un premier temps - déplacer les communes de France de populated places by department vers Category:Communes in France by department comme tout le monde l'a approuvé? On gardera le plus haut niveau (Populated places in France), puis la redirection de cities and villages by departement pointera vers Category:Communes in France by department. Ce qui arrangera aussi les liens depuis d'autres wiki. Après nous devrions essayer de faire de l'ordre dans les sous-catégories, je veux dire dans le lien entre divers catégories mères et sous-catégories. Que penses-tu de la création d'une sous-page de travail où on listera les incohérences remarqués et les idées pour les résoudre?

J'ai bien l'intention de créer des catégories "Communes" dans les "Populated places", comme il y a déjà d'autres catégories ("Bastides", "Village perché", "villes fleuries", "quartiers", etc.) verdy_p (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: les communes françaises ont plusieurs statuts : toutes ont un état-civil et un maire, mais toutes n'élisent pas directement leur maire. Celles qui élisent leur maire sont les communes de plein exercice qu'on désigne comme "municipalités" avec leur conseil municipal, qui élit le "maire" proprement dit et désigne aussi les maires délégués éventuels. Les communes déléguées n'ont pas de conseil municipal et si ce sont d'anciennes communes de plein exercice, ce sont toujours des communes mais plus des municipalités.
De fait, "communes" en France devrait avoir au moins deux sous-catégories: "municipalités" et "communes déléguées", plus une troisieme sous-catégorie pour les communes n'appartenant à **aucune** municipalité (la poignée de communes inhabitées dont le maire délégué n'est pas élu par un conseil municipal, qui n'existe pas dans ces communes, mais dont le maire délégué est désigné par le préfet du département -- ces communes ayant cependant toujours une personnalité juridique ; ce sont des communes conservées pour des raisons historique et de souvenir, et qui conserve leur propre état-civil, leur budget étant fourni non pas par une municipalité mais par l'Etat, avec aussi des dotations volontaires de leur département ou région).
On peut aller plus loin parmi les "communes déléguées" selon le statut de la municipalité auquel elles appartiennent (commune en fusion-association, ou commune nouvelle), mais il est sans doute mieux de faire cette distinction parmi les municipalités.
Il y a d'autres sous-catégories à mettre encore parmi les "populated places", et notamment:
  • les "agglomérations", "aires urbaines" et "pôles urbains" (découpage urbain de l'INSEE),
  • les "intercommunalités" et autres EPCI (à fiscalité propre ou non) : les intercommunalités à fiscalité propre regroupent non pas des "communes" mais en fait seulement les "municipalités", mais les autres EPCI sans fiscalité propre peuvent regrouper d'autres entités (par exemple les nouveaux "pôles métropolitains", les "parcs nationaux" ou "parcs régionaux", les "agences de bassin")
  • les "villages" à Wallis-etFutuna (où il n'y a aucune commune ni aucune municipalité)
  • les "aires coutumieres" à Wallis-et-Futuna etenNouvelle-Calédonie
  • divers regroupements statistiques (IRIS, TRIRIS, districts de recensement, voir l'INSEE) -- note: le découpage des cantons électoraux s'appuie sur les IRIS (il n'y a pas de plus petit niveau, sauf temporairement avec les "districts de recensement" qui ne durent que quelques mois pour les besoins internes pratiques de planification du travail des agents recenseurs de l'INSEE, avant que l'INSEE définisse les nouveaux IRIS et TRIRIS remplaçant les anciens, mais ces districts de recensement sont soumis au secret statistique, les données légales étant publiées seulement par IRIS ou TRIRIS, ou par commune entiere non découpées en IRIS car insuffisamment peuplées) ; en outremer seulement, l'INSEE utilise aussi les villages coutumiers (uniquement là où il n'y a pas de commune, ou à Mayotte) mais ils sont non cartographiés, établis uniquement par inscription volontaire des habitants aupres des institutions coutumieres (judiciaires) reconnues (ces institutions coutimieres ont leur **propre** état-civil, pour les personnes bénéficiant de la protection de leur statut personnel reconnu par la Constitution, cet état-civil coutumier géré par les conseils coutumiers étant totalement distinct de l'état-civil de droit commun géré par les communes mais fonctionnant en parallele).
  • les "bassins d'emploi" et autres regroupement économiques (voir l'INSEE)
  • On a déjà aussi les "arrondissements municipaux" (à Paris, Lyon et MArseille) et les "quarters" (quartiers administratifs), et "subquarters" (sous-quartiers, dans les grandes villes, qui souvent correspondent à leurs IRIS)
  • les découpages catholiques en Alsace-Moselle (où le régime du "Concordat" est protégé par la constitution et par traité international, et où l'Archevêché est le **seul et unique** établissement public de l'Etat qui ne soit pas laïc). Partout ailleurs (autres évêchés), les "paroisses" et autres découpages religieux n'ont aucun statut public, ils sont de droit privé. En Alsace-Moselle, l'archevêché est tenu légalement cependant de tenir ses missions publiques pour tout le monde (autres religions, personnes athées, organisations publiques ou privées). Ce découpage "religieux" est indépendant de celui des départements, régions et communes (il couvre toute l'Alsace mais pas toute la Meurthe-et-Moselle, historiquement il couvrait aussi le Territoire de Belfort mais sans la protection légale du Concordat, il a disparu de facto lors de la seconde Guerre mondiale et n'a pas été restauré après la libération), les autres évêchés n'ont aucune mission publique reconnue (donc les "paroisses" ne sont plus des entités administratives). Toutefois les paroisses d'Alsace-Moselle ne sont pas des "collectivités territoriales" (la personnalité juridique est reconnue uniquement pour l'archevêché de Strasbourg, indivis, qui n'a pas de conseil élu, mais dont la direction est désignée par l'Etat en accord avec les autres institutions publiques et religieuses, alors que tous les autres évêchés de France sont dirigés uniquement par les institutions religieuses catholiques sans aucune intervention de l'Etat ou des collectivités et sans aucun budget fourni par l'Etat ou les collectivités qui ne peuvent déléguer aucune mission publique, notamment pas leur état-civil). Cas unique en France, les lieux de culte catholiques d'Alsace-Moselle et écoles ou hôpitaux catholiques ne sont pas la propriété directe de l'Etat ou des collectivités (ils n'ont pas été annexés lors de la Révolution), les communes d'Alsace-Moselle n'en ont pas la charge (mais l'Etat oui, via l'Archevêché qui doit fonctionner comme une entité laïque et offrir ses services aussi aux juifs, protestants, musulmans, etc. même s'il promeut aussi la religion catholique, mais sans aucun droit pour l'imposer à tout le monde).
  • Et on devrait aussi trouver les découpages des EPCI (comme les "pôles de proximité" à Nantes, qui sont des regroupements de quartiers et/ou de communes)
  • on devrait aussi avoir les "lieux-dits" (uniquement en zone rurale, hors agglomération car ils sont normalement inhabités ou réduits à une seule propriété habitée, tel qu'un habitat isolé ou une seule ferme), distincts toutefois des hameaux (qui, eux, sont habités avec au moins deux propriétaires publics ou privés...); en agglomération, on ne parle pas de "hameaux" ni même de "lieu-dit" (ou alors seulement d'anciens lieux-dits, quandces lieux ont leur nom employé, c'est pourdésigner des "quartiers" ou "sous-quartiers")
Je suis donc tout à fait favorable à avoir au moins la distinction des "communes" (partout en France sauf dans: les TAAF divisés en districts, Wallis-et-Futuna divisé en îles, royaumes coutumiers et villages, et à Clipperton non découpé, et à Saint-Barthélemy et Saint-Martin qui n'ont plus de commune ni municipalité, juste un "conseil territorial" mais qui restent découpés uniquement en "quartiers") ; mais en plus parmi les "communes", la distinction des "municipalités" (les ~36 000 communes simples, les ~700 communes en fusion-association, et la poignée de "communes nouvelles"), "communes déléguées" et "communes sans municipalité".
Dans un premier temps, je me contenterai uniquement des "communes" avant de se pencher sur leur statut.
Donc oui j'approuve cette demande (et je l'ai toujours souhaitée en fait) et je la ferai. En revanche, je ne reviendrai pas sur le simple renommage (international) de "cities and villages" en "populated places", qui n'a en fait strictement aucune incidence sur ce que tu demandes et les problemes que tu exposes (et que je comprends tout à fait, rassure-toi, même avant que tu la formules ici).
verdy_p (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Il faudra sûrement lancer à un moment un renommage des populated places vers "settlements" ou "human settlements". Je ne peux pas vraiment m'en occuper, car j'ai trop de choses à faire dans la vraie vie. Je catégorise comme d'autres font des mots croisés et cette histoire des habitations humaines me dérange énormément. Cordialement Traumrune (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Là tu demandes trop. "Human settlements" est une nouveauté de ta part (totalement inutile à mon avis et qui romprait à nouveau les navigations internationales).
Rappel: je n'ai pas été l'initiateur du changement des "Cities and villages" en "Populated places", il avait déjà été fait au plan international et enFrance dans les DOM et quelques départements, et la navigation ne fonctionnait plus. J'ai juste rétabli et uniformisé ça en n'oubliant personne. Quoi qu'"il en soit nos "communes" ne sont pas encore bien classées que ce soit avant ou apres le renommage.
verdy_p (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonsoir. Je n'apprécie pas si les réponses sont intercalées dans le texte d'origine.
En fait, hier, j'avais juste quelques minutes et n'ai vu que ta dernière phrase, avec le résultat que j'ai pensé que tu n'avais pas trouvé utile de répondre (erreur!). Ce soir j'ai vu que tu t'occupes des catégories par communes et c'est après que je suis revenu ici pour réalisé que tu avais "fusionné" mon texte et le tien.
Remarques : Comme sur commons on dépose des fichiers, souvent des images, je ne pense pas qu'il est utile de s'occuper de finesses administratives en profondeur. Les grandes villes ont déjà des sous-catégories par quartier et les communes qui ont fusionné des sous-catégories des différents villages, à condition qu'il y a des images. Si personne a déposé d'images aucun intérêt de créer la catégorie. Je ne me suis jamais intéressé à l'outre mer, que tu sembles bien connaitre, donc tout ce que je dis n'est valable que pour la France métropolitaine. En ce qui concerne les communautés de communes, il y a une discussion sur le projet [6]. Puis il y a des projets de regrouper encore plusieurs de ces structures. Sur commons les catégories de communautés de communes seront surtout rempli par des catégories et des cartes. Si les politiques les changent tout les quatre matins, il faudra rechanger. Pas ce que j'aime faire ;). Cordialement Traumrune (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Je n'ai rien fusionné, et il y a tellement de points dans ta question que chacune a besoin d'une réponse spécifique. Chacune de mes réponses est indentée, et signée séparément.

Bonjour Verdy p. Merci pour ton récent travail avec la création de Category:Communes in France et tous les déplacements dans ces catégories. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

La structure est en place sur Commons, les catégories sont là, il ne reste qu'à faire les déplcements des catégories de chaque commune dans la nouvelle catégorie par département (HotCat), mettre à jour 2 entrées par département dans Wikidata (éditer celles de la page "Populated Places in..." pour y mettre "Communes in...") puis aller sur la page Wikipé pour modifier le modele de lien "CommonsCat" affichant la catégorie Commons.
Je fais le tour département par département, c'est long car il y a du ménage à faire mais je progresse.
Ensuite comparer les listes de communes entre Commons et Wikipédia (car sur Commons il y en a souvent trop, on y trouve des localités ou des communes déléguées d'une commune fusionnée qui devraient être dans "Localities of cities and villages in..." (qui a des sous-catégories pour les hameaux, quartiers).
Derriere ça, il peut encore manquer des catégories "Localities of cities and villages in..." pour certains départements afin de reclasser des communes.
La structure est aussi en place pour les future régions agrandies (tous les départements y sont déjà classés), et aussi pour le découpage de l'ancien département du Rhône devenu circonscription départementale et contenant le nouveau département et la métropole de Lyon. verdy_p (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Americas: continents vs. regionsEdit

Hello, Verdy p. I noticed that you did a lot of changes in the last month or two that categorized "the Americas" as a continent, and North America and South America as not being continents. I can see your point of view, because there are systems that consider the Americas to be one continent. However, Wikimedia Commons uses a system where "the Americas" is considered a region, and North America and South America are considered separate continents. When things here are categorized by continent, it is done using the seven continents you can see at the top of Category:Continents. Therefore, please leave North America and South America as continents and "the Americas" as a region, not a continent.

It is also not necessary to have as many subcategories under the Americas as there are under North America and South America. It is only helpful to have things under "the Americas" when they can't be classified under something more specific. An example of something that would be useful under "the Americas" is maps that show both North and South America. If the only contents of a subcategory of the Americas is the individual categories for North and South America, they we probably don't need the Americas category.

Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a need of many categories in the americas because of natural topics (an not just current geological continents), but also for other related items, notably resources, transports, flora, animals. And all these things having also lots of cross-related political topics in the history, and even today's economy.
When sorting things I found many duplicate or missing files there were categorized either in one of these topics but missing in others.
Linking them in the 4 classical divisions of the Americas is needed (also because there are frequent false assumptions about where is located the Caribbean: it covers parts of both geological continents. Latin America is also a very frequent classification and we need to reconcile them with topics by North and South. Culturally and politically in so many topics, the Americas is a "continent".
The 7 zones are still all there, all of them are accessible, I have removed none even if there are secondary axis (not so secondary in many topics which also clearly have strong bindings with the political divisions that the North/South distinction does not cover very well; things are even more complex with "Central America", normally only the continental part but sometimes extended too the the whole region of the Caraibbean, including parts of South America, notably Venezuela).
as long as all countries (or dependencies) are correctly sorted, we'll still find locations: I won't go below the country and dependencies level.
But I do not want to remove the distrinction between North and South which remains the main classification. Being able to search in one or the other of the 4 subregions of the Americas (yes there are more subregions), or 6 if we also count the 2 ecozones, with the southern one (nearctic) covering most of the Southern part of North America is possible and this does not require lots of categories. A few main topics only: Economy, Geography (which incldues Maps), History, Nature, Culture, Society (which incldues Politics, Organizations and People), Structures (which incldues Buildings and Infrastructure), and a few other subtopics such as Symbols (Flags...); I've not analyzed how to categorize Travel (which already includes Transport, but could also be part of Economy, and of Culture as part of Leisure, Transport itself has relations with Structures).
I've not added them randomly but because they were needed for correctly reattaching topics that I found and which were not correctly reconnected with files accessible using only one axis and other using another axis.
Yes this requires work, and this work has not been done before (and in fact many files could not be found at all using only the North/South division).
Note: subcategories of the Americas are not just North and South, things are more complicate than that (except if you look at it with only first assumptions that this should be used everywhere).
As contents in Commins become richer, we observe overpopulated categories and files that cannot be sorted precisely, spread everywhere. My intent is to allow precise categories to become reachable from all 4 or 6 axis.
verdy_p (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Verdy p, please read my remarks at Commons:Village_pump#Help.2C_please.2C_re_categorizing_North_America.2C_South_America.2C_the_Americas; consider them a formal warning from me as an admin not to proceed further in this direction unless you can develop a consensus to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
But you've incorrectly located islands in North America when they REALLY are in South America (e.g. Trinidad and Tobago, which is located to the west of Venezuela a few miles away and even on the same continental shelf with a narrow band of sea! It's not even in Central America, just like Venezuela, Colombia, French Guiana, Suriname, or Guyana are not in Central America, even though they ALL are in the Caribbean). Can't you understand that ?
Remember: I've NOT removed the North/South subdivision, and I have even restored Noth/South as direct members of "continents" (yes I accept to put Americas in "intercontinental regions", this is not an important issue, even if initially I expected to put Americas as a continent, but I accept your advice about it, as long as "The Americas" are kept with all its 6 subregions (2 geological, 2 cultural/politica, and 2 natural) needed for various topics). You cannot extend "Central America" (traditionnaly the continental-only isthmus of North America) to the Caribbean (which has always larger and also does not cover El Salvador, even if politically El Salvador may participate to some Caribbean international organization).
verdy_p (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Bremen (state)Edit

Template:Districts of Bremen (state) 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 template, 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.

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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

   FDMS  4    19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cat disambigEdit

Template:Cat disambig 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 template, 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.

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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

   FDMS  4    16:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

please stop your disruptive editingEdit

It is not the first time in the last 24 hours that you have made disruptive edits like this one

How can this edit be disruptive, and how the comment itself can hurt, it says to editors of that template documentation that the alias is no longer usable. Also I removed the interwikis that came from the previous unification of Distinguish and Cat see also... it was clearly appropriate. verdy_p (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(also Special:Diff/155430670 and Special:Diff/155420156).

You give indirect personal comment in your reason about "the author" and "the author" replies. Yes your comment was disruptive.
And yes your addition has been breaking pages in many places (notably with "Tfd" which is NOT to be used unless there's been a real decision to delete the template and replace it in pages). With just a "request", you should not break pages with such forced inclusion of a template that alters the layout of pages completely. verdy_p (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
For the hundreth time or so, the purpose of {{tfd}} is to gather wider consensus, that's obviously pointless if the DR has already been closed.    FDMS  4    18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
but the placement and layout causes problems, in addition the message is repeated everywhere the marked template is used. That message should use absolute placement (or insertion like site notifications). But advertizing the discussion is not to be done in random pages but in standard forums... the way it is inserted, it is forcing things like absolute deletion requests (and people will do it because you've broken thbe template to force an incorrect layout for everyone. verdy_p (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The pages a nominated template would disappear from / be changed on are not "random pages". What do you mean by "absolute deletion requests"?    FDMS  4    19:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons is not a play- or battleground; we have a mission here. Please only edit mellowly and refrain from disrupting the good-faith efforts of other users.    FDMS  4    17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also please note that when reverting someone, you have to make that clear in the edit summary and must not mark that edit as minor.    FDMS  4    18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me (or screenshot) what long not-autotranslated list you see here? The template I used is based on LangSwitch (with display:none if the set display language is English and a +/– link to encourage translating if it isn't), so there shouldn't be any long lists.    FDMS  4    18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I meant +/– edit links for the page title translations. Please respond to my question (where do you see a list?), otherwise I'm going to re-revert you and hereby ask you not to editwar in advance.    FDMS  4    19:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you add {{categorise}} to most if not all categories you are creating/editing, even if they are specific and not main categories?    FDMS  4    21:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do that only in categories that have subcategories for more precise subtopics. But not in metacategories that uses {{metacat}} instead (because these one must not contain any files, only subcategories), and not in tracking categories for maintenance only. What it says is that, if possible, medias and subcategories in that category should be categorized in the appropriate subcatgory, if this is appropriate.
Many categories in Commons should contain it (but not all), and not if this is very specific (as it does not follow a common naming convention for categories related to the same parent topic).
The term "main categories" by itself means nothing, it is contextual for each topic. If a category has subcategories for subtopics, it is also a main category for these subtopics/subcategories. verdy_p (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  No idea if it's allowed or not, but I just LOVE your edits that put the French communes back into French communes categories. I hated the "populated places" categories. Everything can be a populated place. This freaking lieu-dit where I live for example, and it has only 2 properties. No idea who invented this populated place stuff, but it's bullshit. Have a nice day/night Stanzilla (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Merci, et tu n'es pas le seul à m'avoir félicité pour cette initiative (ici ou sur Wikipédia), qui en plus était demandée depuis longtemps et m'a été récemment aussi demandée personnellement (aprs que j'ai mis de l'ordre dans les "Populated places" (mais il reste encore quelques sous-catégories thématiques de type "cities and villages": il n'y avait encore jamais eu de catégories par "commune" sur Commons jusqu'à ce que je les commence.
Je mets aussi à jour Wikidata.
C'est un gros chantier pour recatégoriser les différents types de localités en France (dont font partie les communes, les villes, les villages, les bourgs, les hameaux, les bastides, les "villages perchés", les "villes et villages fleuris", mais aussi les quartiers, les aires métropolitaines, les agglomérations...), le chantier avance département par département (le plus gros du classement est fait déjà pour le classement par région, le classement de tous les départements est fait aussi, il ne reste qu'à trier les listes de localités au sein de chaque département).
  • Cette anomalie existait depuis tres longtemps sur Commons (même avant quand ça s'appelait "Cities and villages of..." où on mélangeait déjà tout !)
  • Le fait que cela ait été renommé "Populated places" n'a rien changé sur Commons, mais cela faisait plaisir aux américains et anglais qui ont autre chose que les seuls villes/"cities", "villages" (ils ont aussi les bourgs/"towns", les "townships", et divers autres pays ont des appellations différentes).
  • Même en France on n'a pas des "communes" partout: on a aussi des "collectivités territoriales" uniques dans deux COM, des villages/îles/"royaumes"/chefferies à Wallis-et-Futuna, d'autres collectivités traditionnelles reconnues encore en Nouvelle-Calédonie, des "bases" dans les TAAF... et on a le cas particulier de la Ville de Paris, la seule collectivité française ayant ce statut mixte compétent à la fois comme commune et comme département, on devra aussi ajouter maintenant les "métropoles" dont Lyon, le Grand-Paris; à Nantes on aura aussi les "pôles de proximité").
Rien que pour vérifier les listes de communes (et pas d'autres choses qui ne sont pas des communes), c'est une vérification pointilleuse (au passage dans cette comparaison, je vérifie aussi que ces listes sont correctement triées: peuvent gêner les accents, et les articles initiaux). Je compare la catégorie Commons avec la catégorie correspondante sur Wikipédia en français, jusqu'à obtenir le bon compte.
Plus tard on s'occupera aussi de la classification française des types de communes:
  • communes associées (qui ne sont pas du tout des "anciennes communes" ni non plus des "quartiers" puisqu'elles ont encore un maire, un état-civil et une personnalité juridique même si elles n'ont plus de conseil municipal!!)
  • communes qui sont des "municipalités" (communes simples, communes en fusion-association ou "communes nouvelles" plus récentes) etc...
  • seules les communes totalement fusionnées (sans maire délégué) sont d'anciennes communes (et souvent aussi, pas toujours, des villages ou hameaux, ou groupes de villages et hameaux, ou groupes de quartiers au sein de la nouvelle commune)
-- verdy_p (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Localities of cities and villages categoriesEdit

Could you please explain what these categories mean? The title isn't clear. Maybe you could put a description in them to explain, at least in the highest-level category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This main category in each country was not created by me (I just collected the existing ones already existing in most countries). But it contains various entities below the administrative level of municipalities (or similar depending on countries) and which are not necessarily administrative units by themselves, they are a subgroup within "Populated places" (also a category not created by me but added for all countries of the world).
For France, I've fed "populated places" with two separate categories : one for "communes" (main administrative unit, higly desired since long), and another with "Localities of cities and villages" (all entities below that level, including "villages", "hamlets", "city quarters", and other more specific categories for France such as "bastides", "villages perchés", "villes et villages fleuris").
There are also come categoies being collected for "cities", "towns", "villages" under the urban division of France (each country has its own specification of what is "urban" and what is "rural"), and there will also be categories for "metropolitan areas" (in France it can only group entire adminsitrative "communes" but it is not an administrative unit by itself) which won't fit within "communes" and can only be sorted in "Populated places".
I just adapt to the existing situation.
Note also that France is not fully subdivided into administrative "communes", and not all communes are "municipalities"; most of communes in France are municipalities, except a few uninhabited communes kept for historical reasons as they were completely destroyed during World War One and that DO have a (delegated) mayor, but NO elected municipal council, and about 700 communes that are associated with another within a "commune nouvelle" (these associated communes also have their own (delegated) mayor which is elected by the municipal council, but they don't have their own municipal council and own budget):
Some French overseas don't have any commune but they have their own local form of "municipality" generally shared by another administrative role within the same territorial collectivity (this is the case in Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy where the unique collectity manages all administrative missions of a "commune", a "department" and a "region". But even there there are localities ("city quarters", "hamlets"); this is also the case for the French Southern and Antartcic Lands (which is a territorial collectivty, but has no communes, no municipality, but has 5 "districts" containing "bases").
Once again I have adapted to the international situation created by "populated places" (before it was named "Cities and villages"), "cities", "towns", "towships", "hamlets", "city quarters", and by "localities of cities and villages" (I did not create these main categories, most of them come initially from US or UK, but they are mostly based on a broad non-admistrative urban/rural division of territories with various statuses), but without sacrificing the effective administrative subdivisions effectively used in France (in parallel to its own evolutive urban/rural division).
It was really urgent for France to avoid the confusive mixing caused by the designations created initially for US/UK (it was impossible to distinguish communes from other populated entities in France, and lots of confusion were present). Look for the previous message thread: everyone wanted categories by "commune" in France (just like they also exist in all Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia).
I personally don't like "Populated places" (I'm visibly not alone) but not even "Cities and villages" as it was named before. Some people have more recently proposed "Human settlements" to replace it more generically, but it is still very experimental. I'm not opposed to this proposal but even if it is accepted for use everywhere, it will NOT replaced categories by "Communes" in France, "Municipalities" which are also a bit different in France, "Cities", "Towns", "Villages", "Hamlets", and other entities which may or may not be administrative)!
For now, I'm concentrated on terminating the classification of "Communes" (highly desired since long and various people have asked it to me, and then thanked me for my initiative, here on Commons or on Wikipedia).
Later I'll work on the project of sorting "Municipalities" (and the different kinds of "Communes": Wikipedia incorrectly states for most of them that they are "former communes" ("ancienne commune" in French), when they actually are active communes with a true "mayor", but which are however no longer municipalities (no local municipal council).
And later, correctly sorting "Former communes" (for topics related to History of France, People of France, and Former subdivisions of France, and depending on dates), which may be today parts of another commune, or fragmented in it, or that could be now either "Villages", "Hamlets" or "City quarters".
There are currently important territorial reforms in France (regions, departments, communes, groups of communes), and this creates lots of confusion in all wikis, I want to disambiguate all topics accurately, but without sacrificing the history. The same is true in fact all around Europe: we really need a clear separation between the administrative subdivisions (including historical ones) and today's urban vs. rural evolutive description or statues of territories (independantly of their current or past administrative statuses), because they absolutely don't evolve the same way and in the same time.
verdy_p (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers. My apologies if you're getting this message more than once, and/or not in your favorite language.

Hello, Verdy p,

I am contacting you because you have left feedback about VisualEditor at pages like mw:VisualEditor/Feedback in the past. The Editing team is now asking for your help with VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translatable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template "Categorize"Edit

Hi Verdy. Please don't add the template {{categorize}} when it is not necessary, like [here]. This template is not a colorful decoration for poor categories, but an important notice for categories that are crowded with all kinds of files. So use it only in these cases, if it is necessary. Thanks for your help. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. There was nothing wrong here. All categories of the same type by decenials are for subcategies (by year)... And if a year is missing, a new subcategory should be added. That category should not contain any pages/files. verdy_p (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that you are wrong: you confuse the template {{categorize}} with the template {{metacat}}. What you mean it's given by the template {{metacat}}. More: such specific categories by continent will never contain one file. So I invite you again to not add unnecessarily the template {{categorize}} to the categories. Thank you for your collaboration! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Categories by decade like the one mentioned usually contain only subcategories by year, but they can contain files as well. For example, if a file is known to be from a certain decade but the exact year is not known, the decade category can contain the file directly. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You are still wrong, because this is NOT a metacategory, and some files covering that area but not a specific year in that decenial would be appropriate there (there are examples).
It would be a meata cat if it was "Oceania by year" where the criteria requested is a precise year for which there must be a subcategory.
I already know the semantic difference between the two templates, but you seem to just look at what is currently visible in some categories annd have not understood that really are Metacats... (alwyas a categories that must never contain any file, but only used for navigation across several criterias of searches in order to locate the final category where the content is. Metacats are mostly helpers for the autocategorisation of files by tools so they will reach the correct precise category but these files can be looked for using diffrent axis of searches. verdy_p (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I said that wrong. A category "Foo by decade" is a metacat and should not contain files. A category such as "Oceania in the 1780s", the one mentioned above, is not a metacat and can contain files. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you've understood the problem by now. If not: Please stop using the template Categorise inflationary (like here). sy --Jotzet (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't create empty categories !Edit

Hi Verdy p. Please STOP to create empty categories like here or here, and everywhere in the metacats by continent. What is your program about these categories? Let me know. Different way they will be deleted. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi. You can modify File:Wikiversity-logo-en.svg with Ukrainian text "ВІКІВЕРСИТЕТ" ? — Green Zero обг 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

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 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Communes in BéarnEdit

Bonjour, Verdy p, J'ai vu que tu as créé la Category:Communes in Béarn. Selon moi, néerlandais, Béarn n'est pas un territoire administratif, et il est inapproprié de parler de commune in Béarn. Amicalement. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

C'est pour y mettre ce qui était déjà dans la catégorie Béarn, des communes... certes ce n'est pas un territoire administratif, mais les communes le sont. Le but étant seulement de classer la catégorie Béarn où tout était mélangé (et surpeuplé, donc peu lisible: en les mettant à part on laisse le reste du sujet "Béarn" plus accessible).
La catégorie "Communes in Béarn" n'est de toute façon pas décrite comme un territoire administratif, mais juste comme "Communes in Pyrénées-Atlantiques" (ces communes y sont bien toutes, crière administratif) et "Béarn" (critère historique, puisque "Béarn" lui-même est dans une catégorie historique). Je ne vois rien de choquant.
Si ça te choque alors pourquoi avoir classé déjà des communes dans la catégorie Béarn ??? J'ai conservé toute l'information, sans en ajouter. verdy_p (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Verdy p,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Countries of EuropeEdit

When you edited Template:Countries of Europe you did not look into alphabets of languages you edit, so you missed several facts:

  1. Letter X in azerbaijan alphabet goes right after letter H;
  2. Letter Э in belarussian and russian alphabets is third from the end and is not near letter Е;
  3. C and Ch are different entries in czech and slovakian alphabets (some slavic alphabets have entries consisting with more than one letter, but it is hard to understand for roman-language speaking man)
  4. Letter Ř goes after letter R and these are different letters in czech alphabet
  5. Letter Š goes after letter S and these are different letters in czech and slovakian alphabets
  6. Letter Č goes after letter С and these are different letters in slovakian alphabet
  7. Letter Ø is second from the end and is different from letter O in danish alphabet
  8. Letter Ö is the last and is different from letter O in swedish alphabet

--Tohaomg (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not look at this, because I synchronized the various languages not contining the same lists of countries; also, there was no support for language fallback; In fact not all languages they were sorted, most of them were using the English sort order, only the label were translated (so that G could come before F)... I could have then looked at each alphabet for each language, but for now it was just consistant.
For now I just used the default UCA order:
  • about 'Ř/Š/Č' in Czech I already ordered them after 'R/S/C' (no error)...
  • and 'Ø/Ö' in Nordic languages I know I could have sorted them at end, but it was consistant with the UCA order.
  • About 'XЭ' in Cyrillic, I was not sure where to place them, yes this is my error, but they were not grouped correctly anyway across Cyrllic languages (that were not sorted for most of them).
Anyway this is a transitory situation, because I'll use another utility to more easily manage the list to display, and separately sort the items per language but in a simpler syntax.
verdy_p (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I will write a program by myself and will check all languages if the order is right. Ukrainian and russian are my native, so there can not be any mistakes in them, because I wrote them.--Tohaomg (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm writing it already, duplicate work. I perfectly know how collation works. There are still too many errors in these templates. verdy_p (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Sorry, but I don't see any reason to add a "*" to the category Geography of Paris, Society of Paris...--Paris 16 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please talk before continue: Category talk:Paris!--Paris 16 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:Paris 16. You have gone back to making category-related changes that are against standard practice. Please stop. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
These are standard practices on these unified categories that have the same bases. Paris is not the only category of its kind. verdy_p (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
In addition I've received many thank you for these edits that fix broken categories. They are all regularized, and where there are several ancestors for the same content along different path, they are all "crossed" to be complete, without leaving contents in some parent in another branch (we can then put contents to the finest semantic level.
I started this edit sessions about the new French regions in several messages asking me to do that as someone did not understood how they were organized and broke the intercategory navigation. verdy_p (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that you are the only person who has that standard. If it were a standard, there would be documentation somewhere saying which are the "standard categories", and a discussion where it was agreed to.
Besides that, some of what you say isn't clear. For example, I don't understand what you mean by these words: unified categories, same bases, crossed, finest semantic level.
I'm probably going to undo a lot of the changes you made. You need to discuss this kind of thing before making these changes. If you continue without doing that, I will ask the administrators to intervene. You have a long history of making this kind of disruptive change, and that can't continue. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it has been used in really many, many categories and by many people. The root categories of Commons give the general guide and France follows the same scheme. Cross-categorization are also ortogonalized, without loops. Categories are sorted with similar keys. Really you've not looked a lot around and just focus on the case of Paris, as if it had to be alone.
And I repeat: I've been told to do that several days ago, to continue the generalization of French regions, fix a template, and help orthogonalizing these.
I receive thank you almost every hour for this global cleanup of French regions and reattaching the departments correctly in them first by the most general topics. verdy_p (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Another sort key issueEdit

Hi again. I'm in the process of standardizing the sort keys for meta categories. I noticed in this edit for Category:Cupolas in France by region that you assigned a sort key of ".by region" in this category code:

[[:Category:Cupolas in France|.by region]]

That is incorrect. It should look like this:

[[:Category:Cupolas in France| region]]

That's one space followed by the sort criterion. Please use that method. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No the space is used for something else. The dot is used by metacategories (X by Y, within category X, is sorted by ".by Y"). This is not new. verdy_p (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The space is used for metacategories. What did you think the space is used for? I do see it used incorrectly quite a bit, but it is for metacategories. If you think otherwise, please point to the documentation. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
There are frequent cases where spaces is used for something else, notably for direct subdivisions, or sorting dates/numbers in a category by date/year/number. I can give you many examples.
You cannot understand that coherent sorting in each category is still preserved, and that the . is used in all related categories for the same criterias. verdy_p (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can also point to examples where it is used incorrectly. That doesn't make it correct. Those other things that it is used for can usually use their own names for sorting: no special sorting is required. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You cannot, I made these correctly, unless you reverted it and broke it. I'm seeing that you creatre very lazy/abbreviated sort keys everywhere that don't work once we collect things together.
Sorting France is a job I've made since long and regularized, you're just breaking it with false assumptions. verdy_p (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
If you are doing it only for France, that is not good. It should be the same everywhere. As an example, look at the metacategories in Category:Chemical compounds. I have never touched those, and you can see that they are sorted with a space. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
No this is not just for France, but now you've decided to use an abusive bot to do massive edits. Those categories you change are now massively broken, mixing everything. This is a clear abuse, you don't look at what you do, most categories you've touched with your bot are now completely broken ! They were scrupulously sorted. DO NOT USE ANY BOT to sort categories, you don't know what you're doing. verdy_p (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I still believe you are wrong. The overwhelming majority of metacategories I've worked with use a space at the beginning of the sort key. Before I started making the changes, I did a search for the kind of sort key you describe. I found between 500 and 600 of them. Since there are almost 80,000 metacategories, it cannot be said that the sort key you prefer is the standard. Besides that, when you specify a topic category with the {{MetaCat}} template, it assigns a sort key that begins with a space. It wouldn't do that if that weren't the standard. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please be civilEdit

For now, I have stopped making the changes you disagree with, although I will be following up on the issue with a community discussion. However, in the meantime, when you revert the edits I made, or leave messages about them, please be civil. It is not civil to use an edit summary like "stupid bot" or call edits "abusive". I was acting in good faith, whether you believe it or not. I have not been uncivil with you or called you names, and have always assumed good faith on your part. If you cannot do the same, I will make a complaint about your behavior: not about the fact that you disagree or that you have reverted edits, but about the language you have used in talk page messages and edit summaries. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I commented earlier that your massive bot edits was REALLY stupid and that this killed the logicial ordering of many categories that were scrupulously made manually and coherently. You just killed that abnusively. You are the abuser when you do such massive edits without looking at anything. In fact such unexpected massive use of bots with a normal account and without any discussion and not even any log is completely against the Wikimedia policies.
Stop mixing everything (and in fact there are lot of other errors you do, when confusing French regions and merging them as if they were the same). You don't know at all what you do and really you are completely incorrectly informed about France, keep on doing things in a country you better know or live (US). Don't alter France at all. verdy_p (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/209269119 et al.Edit

Hi, please refrain from edits that are purely syntax-cosmetical in nature and do not objectively improve the respective page in any way whatsoever. Thanks,    FDMS  4    22:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I just updated the template above it to support more languages and needed a null-edit to see the updated page. I checked also that European countries were all properly linked with that template, and was checking possible aliases for names (making neceddary changes if needed in the template to locate the necessary pages correctly). This looks cosmetic for you but is part of a needed regular testing process to fix possible issues that could subsist (even if I made a many tests elsewhere using a sandbox version. Wiki pages do not reflect imemdiately the changes, so null edits are frequently needed. But here it was just a mre copy-pasting of code validated in other pages and that should be identical on this one. It just happens that this code just wiped an invisible trailing space, no change was expected, except showing the correct sort order and the corerct language (when selecting another language with the ULS). verdy_p (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


I undid your revert of my change to this category. {{Categorise}} is not needed on this category because the {{Photographs}} template already explains that the category should contain only other categories. Besides that, {{Categorise}} adds Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to the page, which isn't needed because it should be in Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. Please don't add {{Categorise}} to this page again, no matter how many people have thanked you. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Normandie et Province normandeEdit


Euh, je ne comprends pas du tout ton point de vue, l'article fr:Normandie ne me semble parler que partiellement de la « Province normande » (quoi que cette locution rare soit sensée désigner), il parle de la province de Normandie qui a existé de 1204 à 1790 (pour la partie continentale), il parle aussi du duché du Normandie (qui a existé de 911 à 1204) et du territoire qui existe depuis 1790, il concerne aussi la Normandie insulaire, le territoire culturelle, etc. Bref, ce que l'on appelle couramment la Normandie et qui est d'ailleurs logiquement le titre de l'article. Je ne vois pas de justification pour donner un autre nom à ce lien...

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC) PS: je vois que tu viens de changer pour « Normandie (région culturelle) », cela me semble déjà plus logique mais la précision me semble plutôt perturbante (le contexte - notamment l'année - me semble amplement suffisant pour comprendre que l'on ne parle par de la région administrative crée en 2016).

Non, regarde à quoi est lié Wikidata: c'est bien à la région administrative et non la région culturelle qui a une autre entrée, c'est surtout pour éviter cette homonymie que j'avais mis ça... il y a déjà 1 an !!!
En plus bien avant qu'elle entre en vigueur cette nouvelle région faisait déjà parler d'elle sous son nom, elle n'est pas apparue soudainement en janvier 2016, c'était annoncé officiellement depuis des mois.
Alors que pendant longtemps "Normandie" ne désignait que la région historique ou culturelle, ou l'ancienne province du royaume de France et encore avant le duché indépendant de Normandie (celui qui a conquis la Grande Bretagne et l'Irlande et fait des conquêtes encore ailleurs quand c'était un royaume beaucoup plus étendu avec des "comptoirs" autour de la Méditerranée ou en Mer du Nord).
La preuve que les gens confondent les deux entrées Wikidata ce sont les liens Wikidata vers d'autres wiki qui pourtant ont deux articles: il tapent un mot pour chercher un article franocphone et ne regardent pas plus loin s'il y a des homonymes. verdy_p (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
J'ai beau te lire et te relire, désolé je ne comprends toujours pas, quelle est le problème à ce que Template:Normandy qui pointe vers l'article « Normandie » indique « Normandie » ? Et pourquoi n'avoir changer que le français ? Dans toutes les autres langues, c'est bien l'équivalent de « Normandie » sans précision aucune.
Et si tu veux vraiment éviter l'homonymie (je ne vois aucune raison pour l'éviter mais admettons), c'est plutôt sur un autre modèle (Template:Normandie ? d'ailleurs pourquoi avoir créer ce modèle doublon qui fait exactement la même chose que le modèle Template:Normandy et qui est inutilisé...) qu'il faudrait préciser « région Normandie » ou « Normandie (région administrative) » (qui n'existe que depuis un an alors que l'entité culturelle *et* historique existe depuis plus d'un millénaire).
Quant à Wikidata, je ne vois pas trop ce que cela à faire ici et j'y fais régulièrement des corrections (et pas que pour les Normandie, il y a des nombreuses erreurs avec d'autres homonymes comme église et Église ou opéra, opéra, opéra et opéra).
J'ai l'impression que tu es partie d'une bonne idée mais que t'es pris les pieds dans le tapis et qu'au final la situation est bien pire qu'au départ...
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Bien pire en quel sens ? C'est bien l'homonymie initiale qui a été lé source de confusion depuis longtemps (et bien avant mon passage) dans les divers wikis liés maintenant sur Wikidata qui mélangent les deux entités qui sont pourtant séparées sur leurs propres wikis quand ils ont des articles bien séparés pour la "région" historique et la nouvelle région administrative. Je ne pense pas m'être pris les pieds dedans, mais distinguer les noms aide à mieux les distinguer, que ce soit sur Wikidata ou sur les autres wikis où justement on doit mettre une distinction dans le nom d'article. Avant l'introduction de la nouvelle région, il n'y avait qu'une seule référence à la région historique, maintenant la nouvelle région adminsitrative se retrouve mélangée avec d'autres concepts historiques et pas liés au bon endroit quand ces wikis se mettent à jour.
Tu ne peux pas comparer de toute façon à la situation avant début 2016 puisque là il n'y avait pas de confusion réelle (même si la nouvelle région a eu son nom très tôt avant son entrée en vigueur et a été la première dont le nom était décidé, et en fait voulu depuis des décennies par les deux anciennes régions qui voulaient leur unification). verdy_p (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Deux modèles pour faire la même chose. Des traductions incohérentes (ou plutôt cohérente pour toutes les langues sauf pour le français où il y a nom inattendu). Cela ne te semble pas pire ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Où as-tu vu deux modèles ? Nulle part. Si un modèle existe pour lier les régions culturelles, il utilisera le nom approprié selon les cas ("province", "duché", "royaume"... même si c'est pour les lier au même article sur la région culturelle ou historique. Si un modèle est fait pour lister les régions administratives françaises, il utiliser uniquement le nom de cette région sans aucune référence à l'entité historique ou la région culturelle dans cette liste, et il ne doit y avoirnon plus aucune ambiguité pour choisir l'article à lier sur n'importe quel wiki qui distingue les deux dans des articles séparés (comme la wikipédie francophone). En revanche il ne doit y avoir aucune ambiguité sur Wikidata qui doit clairement séparer les deux pour toutes les langues qui font les distinctions, avec la priorité donnée à la région administrative quand ils ont un article distinct pour cette région. Les liens interwikis depuis n'importe lequel des articles des wikipédies portant sur la région adminsitrative doivent pointer sur des articles portant sur la même région administrative et non l'article sur les entités historiques ou culturelles.
Bref ce n'est pas du tout un problème de modèle. Si problème il y a cela ne vient pas de Wikidata mais des wikis qui veulent distinguer les sujets dans des articles séparés (mais aussi pour les utilisateurs de données hors Wikipédia qui ne veulent pas avoir la Normandie adminsitrative actuelle liée à Jersey ou les conquêtes anciennes conquêtes normandes, notamment en Grande-Bretagne et Irlande): on a raison de séparer la région administrative actuelle en tant qu'entité distincte de tout ce qui a pu exister dans le passé ou de ce qui y serait encore lié culturellement. Wikidata doit donc clairement identifier la région administrative et inclure des liens interwikis les plus sélectifs possibles, même si certains wikis ne font pas la distinction et fusionnent tout dans un même article mais avec des sections séparées (auxquelles il devrait être possible de renseigner aussi wikidata de façon distincte en utilisant des ancres pour l'élément concernant la Normandie culturelle ou historique, mais ce n'est pas encore possible je crois: Wikidata refuse de lier deux éléments distinct à un même article sur le même wiki, mais on devrait pouvoir lever cette barrière avec une ancre complémentaire en plus du nom d'article et de l'indication du wiki).
Note: les noms des articles Wikipédia ne sont de toute façon pas des traductions exactes, on a partout des différences causées par des cas d'homonymies propres à chaque langue, et donc des précisions ajoutées ! Les homonymies des noms en tête dans Wikidata en revanche sont une vraie plaie (même si on a un champ "description" séparé... qui n'apparait pas toujours ou ne se met pas à jour): si on veut mentionner un nom officiel dans chaque langue, on a un champ séparé pour ça dans les propriétés. verdy_p (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Normandy et Template:Normandie, cela ne fait pas deux modèles ? (c'est bien d'écrire des pavés entiers mais si c'est pour ne pas lire ce qu'écrivent les autres...). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ne mélange pas tout et n'affirme pas des choses aussi gratuites. J'ai bien lu ce que tu as écrit. Tu me parlais de Wikidata, là tu passes à autre chose sur Commons, où les deux notions sont utilisées et ont leur propres catégories distinguées et classées très différemment. Certes le nom peut être trompeur, mais comment distinguer ? Les noms de régions françaises sont en français dans les catégories et modèles (exception faite de la Corse qui est nommée en anglais ou corse). Commons a énormément de choses qui ne concernent pas la région adminsitratives actuelle, mais la normandie culturelle ou historique. On a d'autres cas ailleurs (et pas qu'en France non plus). Tu ne peux pas réunir Jersey ici avec la catégorie franco-française Normandie.
Mais rien à voir avec Wikidata ! C'est un problème de classification sur Commons uniquement (et accessoirement sur les wikipédies selon leur propre classification). verdy_p (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Euh, visiblement on ne se comprend pas (pourtant, je suis d'accord avec quasiment tout tes arguments), je fais une dernière tentative ici.
À quel moment ai-je jamais parlé de Wikidata ? C'est toi qui a amené le sujet et ma réaction a tout de suite été « Quant à Wikidata, je ne vois pas trop ce que cela à faire ici ». On est donc d'accord pour ne pas parler de Wikidata et rester sur Commons (qui est le site où l'on se trouve et mon sujet originel). Ceci dit, tu sembles mal connaître le fonctionnement de Wikidata, je peux te l'expliquer si le souhaites (mais dans une autre discussion et une fois celle-ci close pour éviter les confusions).
Je parle donc bien du modèle Commons {{Normandy}} et plus particulièrement de son intitulé dans le rendu en langue française. Tu as modifié cet intitulé le 10 avril 2015 (qv. le diff : Special:Diff/156660576) mais en français uniquement et sans raison valable à ce qu'il me semble ; peut-être ai-je tort, c'est justement pour cela que je suis venu te voir pour en savoir plus (tout le reste n'est qu'argumentations indirectes).
Par ailleurs (de façon indirecte donc) je vois que tu as crée le même jour, le modèle {{Normandie}} qui fait exactement la même chose (et qui est inutilisé). Pour les catégories, c'est encore un autre sujet que tu soulèves (et qui me chaut peu ici) mais si tu veux aller sur ce terrain Category:Normandy a pour intitulé « Normandy » seul sans précision aucune et la description en français commence bien par « La Normandie » là aussi sans précision, enfin on trouve en sous-catégorie « Channel Islands‎ » (je n'ai rien à réunir, la réunion est déjà là depuis 2005).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
En 2005 la région Normandie n'existait pas encore ! L'autre modèle est pour la nouvelle région administrative de 2016, forcément donc plus récente (mais pas identique à la Normandie traditionnelle) !
Que voudrais-tu? Que la nouvelle région indique en libellé "Normandie (région adminsitrative)" dans ce modèle (dans Wikidata puisque c'est de là que le modèle prend son nom) ?
En attendant nombre de références "administratives" utilisent encore "Basse-Normandie" et "Haute-Normandie"... qui n'existent plus ! Si c'est pour les attributions d'auteurs ou localisations d'événements avec le modèle "Normandy", ne mentionner que la région traditionelle n'est pas assez géolocalisé quand on veut bien parler de la seule région française (union des deux anciennes régions) et pas des îles anglo-normandes.
En fait ce qui te choque c'est surtout l'apparente synonymie de sens des noms des deux modèles. Préférerais-tu que "Template:Normandie" soit renommé (ici sur Commons) "Template:Normandie (France)" (en français), tout en laissant "Template:Normandy" nommé ici en anglais (puisque c'est une région au moins bilingue ou l'anglais est officiel aussi et que c'est l'usage sur Commons dans ce cas de garder le nom anglais dans les régions multilingues) ? Et veux-tu que les deux modèles affichent exactement les mêmes libellés (tous deux pris de Wikidata) alors qu'ils pointeront sur des pages différentes ? Tu vois bien que ce n'est pas si simple...
verdy_p (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Note au passage que le Modèle "Normandie" quand je l'avais créé pointait bel et bien que la région administrative. Quelqu'un d'autre est passé (diff) et a choisi la mauvaise entité sur Wikidata, que je viens de remplacer avec la référence correcte pour pointer comme c'était le cas au début sur la région administrative. Ceci peut expliquer pourquoi certains ont même remplacer un modèle par l'autre en croyant que c'était la même chose mais dès le début ce n'était pas la même chose (avant de que le switch initial soit remplacé à tord, mais pas par moi car je n'avais pas fait d'erreur, par l'import du label Wikidata sur le mauvais élément). verdy_p (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
J'ai bien une suggestion, c'est de renommer ici sur Common le modèle {{Normandie}} en "Template:Région Normandie" (pour que cela corresponde aussi au nom de la catégorie sur Commons.
Au passage j'ai ajouté des warnings pour différencier les deux modèles qui ne couvrent pas les même zones (le modèle pour la région sera en fait approprié pour ce qui concerne la Normandie française, même avant 2016, tant que cela ne concerne pas les îles anglo-normandes, car ce sera plus précis en terme de géolocalisation et classification). Et je viens de modifier l'ancien modèle pour qu'il utilise lui aussi le libellé pris de Wikdiata (sur le bon élément correspondant à la région culturelle ou historique), comme avait voulu le faire (mais incorrectement) celui qui a sélectionné le mauvais élément Wikidata en écrasant totalement le modèle 2016.
Au début, avant cet écrasement, le nouveau modèle a bien été utilisé, mais l'écrasement a eu un effet de bord, car après lui certains ont remplacé "Normandie" en "Normandy" (avec usage de robots intempestifs comme AWB) pensant que finalement ça pointait sur la même chose (et toi aussi tu l'as pensé, mais ce n'est pas de mon fait, tu n'as pas regardé l'historique de ce modèle pour comprendre le pourquoi du comment !). Du coup des distinctions pour la France ont été ensuite perdues. verdy_p (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Merci pour les quelques corrections et avertissements (et effectivement, mea culpa je n'ai pas regardé l'historique du modèle qui ne m'intéresse pas), par contre tes remplacements de modèles me questionne. Par exemple avec Special:Diff/225167376, sauf erreur d'interprétation, tu fais travailler Creator:Gustave Courbet en 1841 dans un territoire qui n'existera que 175 ans plus tard (même situation pour Creator:Félix Martin-Sabon, Creator:Louis Dubois, Creator:Salomon Leonardus Verveer, Creator:Émile Appay, Creator:Willem Carel Nakken), pour Creator:Jean Goujon cela me semble encore plus bizarre (vivement que ces modèles reprennent directement les données Wikidata, ce sera infiniment plus simple).
Pour moi dans l'idéal, les deux modèles afficheraient tout les deux « Normandie » (ce qui est le cas actuellement, si cela reste ainsi je serais très content). Et au pire des cas, si il faut choisir et apporter une précision, ce serait plutôt sur le territoire le plus récent et le moins connu qu'il faudrait l'ajouter (ie. la région administrative), dans le doute il vaut mieux que les gens se servent de {{Normandy}} qui est plus large donc toujours vrai (même si moins précis) plutôt que Normandy qui génèrent des anachronismes (tel le lieu de travail de Courbet). Et il faudrait ajouter la précision dans toutes les langues, pas juste en français. Le renommage de {{Normandie}} en {{Région Normandie}} irait dans ce sens.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sur Commons ce n'est pas qu'une question de nom, ou même de date, mais de géolocalisation, pour distinguer surtout territorialement ce qui est en France de ce qui ne l'est pas. Courbet a travaillé en "Normandie" française, pas à Jersey, même si ce n'était pas encore une région administrative. C'est une précision somme toute vague dans la description de Courbet, mais suffisante pour regrouper divers lieux normands situés sur le continent. Ceci dit cela n'exclue pas quelques voyages occasionnels, mais si il y a eu création artistique à Jersey, cela devrait être indiqué séparément de "Normandie" (l'actuelle région française). Dans tous les cas les géolocalisations d'artistes indiquent des divisions actuelles et pas les divisions historiques (ni même leur nom historique s'il a changé). verdy_p (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Étrange, je n'ai jamais entendu parler d'une telle habitude, as-tu une discussion indiquant cela.
Encore plus étrange, si c'est le cas, pourquoi avoir deux modèles ? et pourquoi toutes les modifications que tu as effectué ?
Cela me semble définitivement illogique et contre-productif de pratiquer sciemment l'anachronisme. Surtout, plus la discussion avance moins la situation me semble claire... :( Je pense que je vais arrêter la discussion ici.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Je pensias que tu avais compris, mais non. Les deux moèdles sont des entités différentes, même encore aujourd'hui l'une limitée à la France dans ses limites actuelles (la région adminsitrative) l'autre plus large et bien distinguée sur Commons depuis longtemps, mais aussi su bien des wikipédies et avec des liens différents. Ces modèles de Commons sont appropriés pour la classification sur Commons et s'appuient sur des éléments distincts de Wikidata de la même façon que Wikidata a vesoin de cette distinction pour différencier les wikiliens qui y sont inclus.
Il reste alors deux choses séparées: le nom affiché par le modèle "Normandie" tout seul devrait correspondre à la région française qui existe depuis bien plus longtemps que son entrée en vigueur comme région administrative, et sinon la Normandie culturelle qui n'existe en fait plus depuis 1 millénaire quand la partie continentale de la Normandie a été annexée par la France et le reste gardé sous contrôle de la nouvelle couronne d'Angleterre conquise par la Normandie qui a en revanche perdu son sol natal ! Pourtant cette Normandie culturelle a persisté mais a un usage en fait bien plus restreint et la plupart du temps, "Normandie" se réfère à la Normandie française (qu'elle soit région administrative, depuis peu, ou pas, sachant aussi que toutes nos régions adminsitratives françaises sont en fait assez récentes dans l'histoire et n'ont même pas encore 50 ans et ont déjà été remaniées pour certaines en en créant d'autres). verdy_p (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Non définitivement je ne te comprends pas et je te le répète depuis le début de cette conversation... Pourrais-tu répondre à mes questions pour essayer d'avancer ? Ma question n'est pas sur la différence entre les deux modèles (que je cerne plus ou moins) mais sur le pourquoi de l'existence deux modèles si on est sensé n'en utiliser qu'un seul. Et surtout sur le pourquoi, on est sensé n'utiliser que les « divisions actuelles ». Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
(désindentation) Où ai-je écrit qu'on est sensé n'utiliser qu'un seul modèle ? s'il y a lieu de se lier à la Normandie culturelle (parce que cela touche toute cette région et pas seulement la France) on utilisera l'un, si cela ne concerne que la France (pour géolocaliser dans les bonen catégories et lier à l'article sur la région française (peu importe d'ailleurs qu'elle soit de 2016, cela reste valable pour les deux anciennes régions), ce sera l'autre. Si cela concerne uniquement la Haute-Normandie ou la Basse-Normandie ou Jersey, ou Guernesey ce sera encore un autre modèle (et d'autres liens wikipédia), eux aussi utilisant un autre élément Wikidata plus précis. Je ne vois pas ce qui te choque là dedans !
C'est exactement comme si tu voulais un seul modèle pour Paris et pour l'Île-de-France, ou un seul modèle pour l'Île-de-France et la France (la France historique n'était pratiquement que l'Île-de-France et un petit bout du Val de Loire, et pourtant on n'a pas de modèle pour cette France du Moyen-Âge, on se réfère à la localisation géopolitique actuelle quelque soit les éléments à classer sur Commons, ce qui facilite bien des choses). Ailleurs où il y a eu interaction (anciennes batailles, etc...) on se réfère à une sous-section "Histoire de" dans chacune des sections consacrée aux éléments géopolitiques ou géoculturels actuels.
La "Normandie culturelle" dans son acception actuelle désigne la région Normandie actuelle, plus les actuels bailliages de Jersey et Guernesey (et rien d'autre en Europe, même s'il y a eu des conquêtes normandes et même si la couronne d'Angleterre se dit toujours normande par ses possession personnelles, séparées du Royaume-Uni), et elle a une actualité par plusieurs institutions et manifestations culturelles liant encore ces régions entre elles sous cette "identité" commune (principalement "la" langue normande, bien qu'elle ait des variétés, quelques fêtes communes qui passent d'un endroit à l'autre, et les représentations officielles de l'une dans l'autre telle que la représentation officielle de Jersey à Caen, et sinon leur déjà très ancienne histoire commune mais il y a des siècles de ça quand la Normandie continentale n'était pas encore française !). verdy_p (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Je ne veux rien si ce n'est comprendre. En bonus, j'aurais aimé avoir des descriptions cohérentes (territorialement *et* temporellement, avoir juste le premier me semble illogique). Au moins, la locution inédite « Province normande » a disparu, c'est déjà bien et j'arrête donc là la conversation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Contente-toi juste de voir les distinctions telles qu'elles sont faite sur Wikidata, et sur Commons, et sur les Wikipédies dont les liens sont différents et ne couvrent pas du tout la même entité territoriale. La normandie culturelle existe toujours mais territorialement n'est plus d'actualité depuis le 13e siècle et même avant depuis l'annexion d'abord par l'Anjou (et même en partie auparavant avant par la Bretagne dans le Cotentin au Xe siècle, quand la Normandie s'appelait encore "Neustrie" et que la France c'était juste un territoire autour d'Orléans et quelques petites enclaves forestières de chasse autour de Poissy et en Picardie) le Cotentin ayant ensuite été repris par l'Anjou quand il n'y avait toujours pas de "Normandie" territorialement parlant, puis par la France en guerre contre les Anglo-normands (là c'est la réelle naissance de la Normandie territoriale, un peu plus grande que la Normandie culturelle des anciens "Norses"/"Vikings" et même encore après la révolution quand on y a adjoint le Perche pris à l'Anjou) ! Bref il s'est écoulé près de 1000 ans, et les "pays" d'alors n'ont plus du tout la même signification. Si on parle de la "Normandie culturelle" il faut remonter à Guillaume le Conquérant, mais doit-on y inclure les conquêtes d'outre-Manche ?(alors que culturellement il n'y a pas eu réellement d'invasion, la nouvelle Angleterre a été surtout un mix de Norses, de Celtes bretons, d'anciennes populations issues de l'invasion romaine et d'autotochtones d'origine nordiques qui s'y sont mêlés, les "Angles" pour donner le nom à la nouvelle couronne normande, qui au passage s'affirmait aussi héritier de la couronne de France pour convoiter l'Aquitaine et a conduit à la Guerre de Cent Ans)
Regarde donc juste la classification existante. Ces modèles ne font que la reprendre en l'état, mais en donnant un sens territorial clair à la région administrative 2016 comme la somme exacte des deux régions administratives de 1973, et sinon avant de ses départements depuis la révolution (exceptions faite de certains petits changements frontaliers suite aux fusions de quelques communes). verdy_p (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
verdy_p (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Countries of EuropeEdit

Hello! Thank you for optimizing Template:Countries of Europe, but when you added Jersey, Guernsey, Man and Kosovo it seems you added them at the random places. I checked ukrainian, russian and belarussian translations and in all of them these states were on wrong places, so I think all other languages need to be checked for right alphabet order. I already asked my friends to check georgian and polish, others we need to check ourselves. --Tohaomg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not use "random" place, but they were missing in the list; see the previous comments above (since 26 May) on the same topic. I've made sure that the list were complete, but other people have also made their own change. Note also that the exact name displayed may have been changed in Wikidata and may now sort differently. Strictly the orting is not necessarily the exact country name but the significant part of the name igfnoring terms that may be removed such as "Isle", "the", "Republic"... Initially the lists were compeltely unsynchronized, containing duplicates or missing country names, now they all display the same list, only in different order and it is easy to check that all lists are complete. I have fully documented the process to change the display order. Read the doc, everything is there. My edits were complete 8 months ago... verdy_p (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nouvelles régions françaisesEdit

Bonjour @Verdy p:.

Merci bien pour template:Regions of France/sandbox, que j'ai utilisé pour finir de recatégoriser la Nouvelle-Aquitaine (vaste travail manuel, qu'un robot ou AWB n'aurait pas pu faire, car il fallait créer 1 catégorie pour chaque 3 transférées; j'ai fait appel à des programmeurs sur les bistro fr et en, mais aucune réponse).

Il restera les points suivants :

  • certaines catégories des anciennes régions administratives continueront d'exister; il faudra alors peut-être renommer, comme Category:Aquitaine vers Category:Aquitaine (former region) (et alors modifier ton template), pour distinguer l'Aquitaine (région historique) et l'ancienne région administrative. Idem pour Limousin (cuisine limousine, etc.). Il y a déjà Category:Poitou (pas d'ambiguïté).
  • as-tu une idée de la future évolution de ce template au nom provisoire ? Remplacera-t-il à terme template:Regions of France ? Il est maintenant très employé en tout cas...
  • y a-t-il eu des idées d'autres contributeurs, des débats ?
  • je ne compte pas m'occuper des catégorisations des autres nouvelles régions (commencées ponctuellement par d'autres; on peut faire confiance au temps, mais c'est long... ;-).

Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Non aucun renommage pour les anciennes régions. L'Aquitaine reste l'Aquitaine, indépendamment de la "Nouvelle Aquitaine" ou de l'Aquitaine historicao-culturelle dont les frontières ont pas mal bougé dans l'histoire selon les régimes (pas toujours dans le Royaume de France, avec plus ou moins d'extensions sur les territoires voisins et plusieurs scissions). Cette culturelle historique (tout de qui précède la création des départements juste après la révolution) tombe dans une catégorie "histoire" difficile à classer autrement et qu'on liera plus ou moins selon les dates et événèmenents localisés, ou personnages, ou batiments historiques et les collectivités qui en ont aujourd'hui la charge ou la responsabilité administrative. Mais il est en fait très difficile de classer géographiquement cette ancienne Aquitaine qui ne correspondait à aucune des limites actuelles, pas même les départements ou le pays.
Bref Aquitaine doit rester sur l'ancienne région composée des départements actuels (même si dans le détail il peut y avoir des ajustements frontaliers entre départements suite aux actuelles fusions de communes ou créations de communes nouvelles: ce sont des différences mineures. Et sans ambiguïté la Nouvelle-Aquitaine est composée des anciennes régions. Seuls certains contenus localisés dans une commune ou fraction de commune seront également reclassés et liés à d'autres collectivités en cas de besoin. Note qu'on a aussi des catégories pour les anciennes provinces du royaume de France, mais ce ne sont pas et cela n'a jamais été des "régions", ce sont juste à la limite des régions culturelles. verdy_p (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sur wiki:fr, l'Aquitaine risque d'être renommée en "Aquitaine (ancienne région)" ou "Aquitaine (région administrative)", et Aquitaine (homonymie) en Aquitaine (question posée au projet:Nouvelle-Aquitaine), car la région administrative appartient aussi à l'histoire et n'aura vécu qu'un demi-siècle comparativement à ce que toute l'Aquitaine, aux contours fluctuants, mais qui a toujours été une réelle entité, embrasse au cours de son histoire : province romaine, royaume, duché. Et oui en effet, il s'agit d'un contour géographique à un instant t...
Par ailleurs, depuis la nouvelle réforme territoriale, les regroupements de communes se font toujours dans un même département (donc dans la région). Mais peut-être que certains départements demanderont à changer de région (aucun bruit là-dessus pour l'instant, mais la loi le permet). A suivre...
Jack ma (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Aucune raison de renommer: l'Aquitaine est renée vers les années 1970 (d'abord en tant qu'entité adminsitratives sans conseil) puis dans les années 1980 en tant que région réellement. Pendant 2 siècles elle n'existait plus du tout administrativement, mais seulement culturellement sans contour exact. Avant ça ce n'était pas "l'Aquitaine" mais la province d'Aquitaine (sans le Royaume de France), et avant le Duché d'Aquitaine (là ses contours ont été très changeants selon les guerres du Moyen-Age avec l'Angleterre, la Normandie, et l'Espagne (avant l'annexion de la Navarre pour la rétrocession d'une grande partie à l'Espagne). Bref il n'y a jamais eu "l'Aquitaine" toute seule (culturellement le mot a pendant 2 siècles désigné surtout le "Duché d'Aquitaine" dans son extension maximale avant l'annexion au Royaume de France).
L'Aquitaine toute seule aujourd'hui ne correspond qu'à notre ancienne région administrative depuis les années 1970 jusqu'en fin 2016, et elle n'a aucun successeur sous ce nom (la Nouvelle-Aquitaine c'est encore autre chose et bien plus grand), toutes les référence à Aquitaine sans précision sont donc sans ambiguité à l'ancienne région (correspondant à peu près à la région culturelle).
Renommer pour faire référence à des éléments très flous d'il y a plus de 2 siècles auxquels ont est obligé de donner une précision de titre et de date selon les occupations et vassalités... je me demande pourquoi verdy_p (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sinon le modèle /sandbox je l'ai créé il y a déjà des mois. Il est maintenant très utilisé pour référerncer les noujvelles région adminsitratives, mais l'ancien (régions d'avant 2015, que j'avais créé aussi) est abusivement bloqué depuis des lustres. J'ai fait une demande de débloquage en demandant de mettre le contenu du /sandbox mais ça n'avance pas.
il ne devrait donc y avoir qu'un nom mais au vu du blocage abusif, je me suis résolu à référencer le /sandbox en attendant car il y a beaucoup d'élagages et de regroupements à faire sur les nouvelles régions (je l'avais commencé bien avant qu'elles soient effectives, le /sandbox mentionnait au début des "futures" régions devenues actuelles et avant il référençait les "régions" devenues "anciennes régions", puis j'ai mis à jour les noms des noms finals des nouvelles régions. Les différents cas d'homonymies et redirection je les ai gérés pour faciliter les transitions.
Sinon si le nom de l'ancienne région Aquitaine doit changer ici, c'est le nouveau modèle /sandbox qu'il faudrait changer, mais aussi l'ancien aussi qui ne contient QUE ce nom (malheureusement impossible de le faire au vu du blocage adminsitratif). D'ialleurs l'ancien modèle est bloqué aussi sur l'ancien de l'ancienne région Centre qui a changé dès début 2015 sans changer de frontière : le modèle /sandbox y pallie pour le moment.
Je ne vois pas pourquoi il devrait y avoir deux noms (et on ne référencera pas dedans les noms de provinces ou duchés historique dans cette palette qui concerne la France actuelle : ces autres entités sont dans une sous-catégorie Histoire de France, difficiles à classer sinon par date... verdy_p (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Bonjour. L'Aquitaine aujourd'hui ne correspond plus à aucune région administrative depuis le 1er janvier 2016, remplacée par la Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Donc merci de ne pas rattacher les catégories des cinq départements concernés à la catégorie:Aquitaine, ou à ses sous-catégories. Donc, lier à la fois des communes ou autres entités de la Dordogne, par exemple, à la Nouvelle-Aquitaine et à l'Aquitaine est un anachronisme. Père Igor (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Je désapprouve aussi totalement ces résurrections de catégories inutiles telles que Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes, sous prétexte qu'elles apparaissent dans un modèle appelé à évoluer, mais protégé pour l'instant. Voir discussion plus bas, en anglais, "Reason ... ? ". Il faut simplifier : un lac est en Charente et en Nouvelle-Aquitaine, il n'est plus dans Poitou-Charentes (qui n'existe plus, tout comme Languedoc-Roussillon, Champagne-Ardenne, etc. depuis 2016). Par contre, des catégories pourraient être créées concernant les divisions administratives actuelles, et il y a beaucoup à faire ne serait-ce que dans les nouvelles communes, intercommunalités, arrondissements, etc. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Soviet UnionEdit

Hi, I've moved the Vehicles of the Soviet Union back to that category. Please compare to the two categories for the US Category:Vehicles of the United States and Category:Vehicles in the United States - these are quite different concepts.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd note "vehicles built in <country>" might be a better name, judging by Category:Vehicles by country of manufacture.

But the problem is that you want now a distinction. Before I made any change, one category was redirected to the other and their content merged, but this redirect did not work for subcategories using "in XXXX" and that would fall "in the Soviet Union"
All I wanted was to empty the redirected category (this redirect was done before me and the distinction you want was simply lost).
My edit was consistant with this previous merge of both categories (not made by me!).
So it's not just my edit that you have to revert, but the previous edit (made by someone else) that merged both categories (and you'll have to sort again all the contents between the two distinguished categories) !
~Do you understand ? I did not make anything wrong. This merge was already done but inconsistantly, and it was already not working! verdy_p (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
By switching the redirect you introduced an error, by changing the meaning. "X of Y" means "X belongs to Y"; "X in Y" means "X is inside Y".
The split is easy: If the category name includes "of" it needs to go to Vehicles of the Soviet Union. If it includes "in" it stays in Vehicles in the Soviet Union. If it relates to a brand - like Category:KAZ vehicles it is "of", just as Category:Chrysler vehicles is in vehicles 'of the United States. As the Soviet Union no longer exists, but it built a lot of things, "of" will have most of the content.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
No this was not an error because it was impossible to move a subcategory in the new redirected category. Very few categoeries in fact support the distinction you mean (I know what each expression means, you don't need to explain that, but even with your revert, you were still confusing both as they were one meaning, so you did not solve anything).
The real error was with the person that initially decided to merge the two categories (it was not me). I jsut wanted to clean categories and use the scheme already used for all sister categoies in the parent categories, to be consistant. And it was not clear (with the existing redirect) that TWO distinct categories were expected (but the new category had itself incorrect categoization, breaking the naming scheme as well as navigation bars creating red links...
Since then, I see that someone else has in fact reverted the merge, and both categories are now coexisting and their content have been sorted correctly; so your revert was in fact not correcting anything: there's no more any redirect, and it's fine and navigtion still works as expected (including for children subcategories). verdy_p (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

BSicon categoriesEdit

(pinging Useddenim, Tuvalkin) Hi, why did you move several BSicon "set grey" categories to "set gray"? I understand the wider issue of consistency with the parent "gray things" categories, but the BSicon categories should probably match the filenames. Please move them back. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The names of BSicon colours were discussed, rationalised, and agreed upon after months of work. Unilaterally and arbitrarily adding an alternate spelling will just create en:WP:FORKING.
It clearly states on Talk:BSicon/Colors:

Any changes to icon colors should first be discussed at Talk:BSicon/Colors.

Please revert your changes.

Also, you changed Template:BS-color/category without any edit summary. What were you trying to do? Useddenim (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

These edits are handling the obvious homonymy of "gray" and "grey" used in a lot of categories, aand with many existing redirects that fill up. I have cleaned all of them to use a single name (this does not change the names of icons themselves (which are also inconsistantly using either variants). Also nav templates were broken and did not correctyly handle synonyms, or were pointing users to the wrong category one, or were missing ones...
Your most common naming convention is kept as is, but now regularized more strictly. verdy_p (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are zero BSicons with titles containing "gray" and 866 icons with titles containing "grey". I'm not sure what you mean by "your most common naming convention". The category name should match the set name, or we'd have to swap all the purple/violet categories because the set violet icons are actually closer to purple and vice versa. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are still many issues in those categories that do not link properly, their names are still not fully regularized. Once again I have not changed any image name. On Commons we don't follow any pattern for file names, only for categories, because files cannot be redirected. So I've not broken any existing usage of images on Commons or in any other wiki. verdy_p (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of the categories have red links or are named inconsistently because we're migrating the categories from the Icons for railway descriptions/ root to the BSicon/railway/ root (along with other assorted changes). It takes time to rename 1,000 categories and re-sort files. None of the categories were named "gray", however. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong, I've found many of them and made sure to handle the synonyms (the two terms are frequently mixed on Commons, they are regularized, and we can properly display them as synonyms, as I did, without duplicating the contents. And you can then find the categroies with either terms, they will all go to the same target. verdy_p (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
If you're talking about the category template and the thing which adds Category:[color] icons, I don't think it was configured properly (there were several categories which were sorted into "u icons", "f icons" and "g icons" because those were the set names which were input). Please elaborate on where I'm wrong. There are also still a lot of categories named "set grey". (For what it's worth, I created at least 40 of the 51 set grey categories in March and April and I don't think any of them were named "gray".) Again, the spelling has nothing to do with other Commons categories or we'd need to change every "uw" to "diagonal", every "BHF" to "station" and every "k" to "circular" (and there are still some categories named partially in German). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I know this is not complete, I just find where redirects were already applied but left non-empty. I just make sure they are merged correctly. Both names may be used in searches but we will reach the relevant category independantly of the GB vs. US Engliish orthography used (both are also synonyms in HTML, I've not found any case for now where this should mean something different, except in proper names for people and places). So it's best to support both orthographies with redirects, but still use a consistant naming for navigation (we'ell still display both aliases in nav templates), because we all know that people will want to use either. verdy_p (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you're still misunderstanding the point that the BSicon categories are named after the icons and that the naming is entirely abstract, but I don't really mind as long as it's all consistent. There are still about 30 of the categories named "grey". Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about that abstraction of categories, Commons is not made for that. What is important is to be able to find the images with their effective names which can be abstracted because they are used through tempaltes generating their names. But locing them in Commons in categories is a separate problem and we need a broader consistancy and must still avoid redirected categories with contents. And these categories are linked to others outside the icon set, in a way that must be consitant with these other contents and where synonyms of both terms are expected, but redirected. There were thousands categories cleaned up, now there remains only categories where the redirect is not obvious and simple to fix, notably for (Wiki)species. I've dropped the total number of non empty redirected categories from several thousands to ~40 with basic edits (something that bots were supposed to fix, but that did not occur because Mediawiki still has difficulties to count members in categories, so bots don't detect these cases if we don't perform at least a temporary dummy edit in them and immediately revert it). Doing this also helps image imports, because import wizards know where to go and can propose more relevant categories directly. verdy_p (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Although well-intentioned (but wrong), none of the above explains this change you made to Template:BS-color/category. Useddenim (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong as what ? verdy_p (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, as in "grey" is simply a natural-language descriptor for icons coloured      #cccccc. These icons could have just as easily been named "set charcoal" or "set smoke". The consensus was to use "grey". The fact that there is an alternate spelling for the word is completely irrelevant. As noted above, if we were to allow the creation of   (BHF gray) in addition to   (BHF grey), it would create unmanageable forking. If you want Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set grey to be a member of Category:Gray icons as well as Category:Grey icons, fine; but the simple fact is that all of the BSicons within the category are BSicon_XXX_grey.svg. Period.
Since you don’t appear to be willing to stop this disruptive renaming, I am going to have to take this to ANI. Useddenim (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Which fork ? This properly detects the common alternate spelling and sets correctly what is wanted. Once again the file names themselves are not changed at all. verdy_p (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It does what you want, with no regard for consensus or rationality (grey items in Category:Gray). Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I think the edit to the template was largely housekeeping; nothing involving grey/gray was in the edit. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Category redirectsEdit

Hello, Verdy p. May I ask what is the purpose of edits you have made on numerous category redirects, such as and Every time you make edits like this, you stop my bot from working on that redirect for a week, since it automatically waits seven days after the last edit to a redirect. If there is some useful purpose to this, fine, but it is not obvious what you are doing. In any case, I would respectfully request that you not touch the few category redirect pages that I have specifically marked as being used for testing. --R'n'B (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any special marking that you wanted this category. These edits were only to "touch" a category and revert it immediately. I don"t care at all about the few users that want to use bots that fail for non obvious reasons. Commons is not made for specific bots run by a single user. All what I have made was to cleanup the long list of non-empty redirected categories, there were so many, several thousands (and since very long). Now there remains just a few, where manual edits (such as fixing some templates) is necessary. verdy_p (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In summary: check your bot if it's not working. All I did was a workaround for a known bug of MediaWiki which still does not always properly count the number of members in categories, leaving many non-empty redirected categories not detected by bots and stacking. These extremely temporary pseudo-edits helped fixing that: I just added a parent category and immediately removed them, using HotCat because it is much faster than using manual edits and because of limitations in existing standard bots: Mediawiki cannot fix its counts if there's not an actual change in pages to force their reindexing. All this is done. This did not costr a lot to the server, because these categories were already mostly empty or already empty (what I did fixed the broken member counters so that these empty categories are no longer visible as subcategories of their new target).
The number of non-empty categories has fallen from several thousands (very old for some of them) to less than 20: the rest can be handled manually more "easily" but are about more complex cases that bots cannot handle, or that are controversial (such as the existing redirect for "People with pigs" using a too specific taxon name instead which is almost unknown to a vast majority, and certainly incorrect for these contents where exact species are NOT so specific and may relate to other species commonly refered as "pigs". In frequent cases, we annot identify the specy, notably when these are not photographs, but drawings / paintings / sculptures / engravings, or text documents, or even scientific documents about multiples species). verdy_p (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Verdy p, maybe you should leave this "touching" activity to people who can do it without actually changing the category. For example, in the past, I have sometimes used AWB to make dummy edits to the redirected categories. That clears Category:Non-empty category redirects without changing the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the fastest method I've seen, and it works. dummy edits with AWB requires too many steps for what is a very deceptive and long task. It has almost no impact on performance as the "touch" affects categories that are already empty, or nearly empty, and very few pages are affected. The result is made almost instantly, HotCat does this very fast without needing any bot (and anyway bots are missing lots of categories. We need a real touch that really edits some changes in pages: this means really adding and removing content (adding a temporary category does not affect anything in the page and it is extremely easy to remove without using any revert tool, simply with HotCat "remove from Temp category). Basix edits that don't perform any edit do NOT work! And adding random spaces in the middle of pages for such pseudoedits is frequently unsafe. verdy_p (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Notre also that I did that because I saw that it was required really on LOTS of categories (where MediaWiki had quirks counting member pages during a very long period of time); it was very easy to do. Now the number is manageable (only a dozen remain, with more complicate problems, including the probably controversial redirect for "People with pigs"). verdy_p (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am trying to test a change to an existing bot to see if it works. I was politely requesting your assistance in this task; if you saw it as a challenge or somehow threatening, I hope it was not anything I said that gave you that impression. It would be very helpful to testing if you would avoid this practice for a week or two. --R'n'B (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

BSicons and vehicles by colorEdit

Phillipe: I know you from the Unicode mailing list and from FotW, and I have no desire of crossing swords, or even paths, with you. Are you going to play with BSicons and vehicles by color? Go ahead, but I’ll wash my hands from it. Life is too short, and Commons is too wide, for me to be forced to put up with your antics. -- Tuválkin 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Antics... you want to be offensive ? What is wrong with gray=grey when both are used on Commons ? And if you think that I did not fix things, really you should look more precisely, notably when real errors were obscured by the syntax in some templates and really not easy to see. I've received thanks from multiple users for these edits, only a couple of users complain because they just created these and did not detect the quirks they left around. verdy_p (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Please try to be more careful, particularly with templates, in future (note that Template:VehicleColors still contains a lot of deprecated HTML attributes like align and valign which were deprecated in HTML5, should be fixed). I think it would have been much better if you tried to discuss these changes first, in part because of the esoterism of the BSicon system. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
15:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
These old attributes were already inserted by other people than me. I did not replace them ! verdy_p (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, there's nothing wrong with including Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set grey/whatever in Category:Gray whatever, but there was absolutely no reason to change every instance of "set grey" to "set gray"! Useddenim (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coherence of names and ability to search using both equally... I have not deleted anything, they are synonyms. These are excellent reasons. verdy_p (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Zur InformationEdit

Vgl. User_talk:Birne1993#Lemma_Category:Werdenberger_See. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Regions of SpainEdit

This seems wrong to me. Normally, when you refer to the "regions" of Spain, you mean the historic regiones, which are not 1-to-1 to the present-day autonomous communities. See en:1833 territorial division of Spain. I don't know the history on what may have happened to the previous subcats of Category:Regions of Spain, but at least a few years ago they were correct by this understanding. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The previosu was referintg to even smaller entities, the comarcas, which was worse. I changed that redirect to something more significant and that more or less matches the historic regiones (that have no categories themselves unless I did not see them). verdy_p (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I would think File:España - División provincial y regional de 1833.svg and a lot of other maps would belong there, but probably Category:Territorial evolution of Spain and Category:Maps of former provinces of Spain suffice. Still, it's weird that we have Category:Prefecturas españolas de 1810 (with exactly one image!) and no category for the 1833 division that lasted (with minor changes) over 140 years. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well these are effecvtively historic regions, the ancestors of today's autonomous communities. Unless there's a category created for these long-lasting former regions, there's still no better choice. I just replaced the redirect to comarcas which were completely wrong (and there were already comarcas subdivisions in these former regions).
If you want to create another specific category, it should be named "Former regions in Spain" (sorted within "former subdivisions of spain", itself within "subdivision of spain") and you'll then change the redirect to it. It may be useful for historical documents or old maps, or for properly categorizing old personalities in their former regions instead of today's autonomous communities. Additional categories for former regions may also be added and sorted within one or more categories "History of autonomous community name" as well as in "Former regions of Spain". The "former subdivisions of Spain" would be sorted in "History of Spain" and in "Subdivisions of Spain". verdy_p (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi, you had been the last one editing the module; and Rillke seems not being active. I need a small expansion to the module, a function that returns the file extension as-it-is, e.g "PNG" as "PNG" or "JpeG" as "JpeG"; currently the only function "extension" returns the extension of Date Fukushima chapter.JPG as "jpg". Can you please add this function? Thanks for your answer --sarang사랑 07:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am not LUA-capable but in the meantime I tried to add the case sensitive function "csExtension"; it seems to work well. Please repair or smoothen the module if I made something wrong, or too much. Thank you --sarang사랑 12:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you need a "case-sentitive extension". Even the extension functions have been deprecated in favor of mimeType(). Filenames otherwise should be used "as is" without trying to parse them or split them. In Wikimedia we need either **full** file names (most often not readable), or caption names (that will be translated). The full filenames are just used as is as default descriptions, but technically they are only opaque identifiers. Adding case variants will not simplify their reuse. In my opinion you new function should have used "extension()" directly with the same loggged message about its deprecation (that you have circumvented). verdy_p (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, good that you repaired and simplified the module! I needed the new function after some problems with defaulting the extension, as in {{Superseded}} which uses the extension option of template {{F}}. Now it works fine. --sarang사랑 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


-- User: Perhelion 11:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


-- User: Perhelion 11:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cours de la république – panoramioEdit

Transféré sur la page de discussion. verdy_p (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ILGA downloadsEdit

Hi Verdy p, I see you have in the past dowmloaded ILGA maps and would like to know which license you used. I want to download their annual report on State homophobia, which they specify is under free license, without mentioning which one specifically. Could you help me on that? This is the report I want to dowmload in French:

ILGA INFORMATIONS SUR LES DROITS D’AUTEUR La 11e édition de Homophobie d’État est le fruit des recherches d’Aengus Carroll et Lucas Ramón Mendos, rapport qu’il a rédigé et qui a été publié par l’ILGA. Ce document est libre de droits à condition que vous fassiez référence à la fois à son auteur et à l’Association internationale des lesbiennes, gays, bisexuels, trans et intersexes (ILGA). Référence proposée Association internationale des lesbiennes, gays, bisexuels, trans et intersexes (ILGA) Carroll, A., & Mendos, L.R.,Homophobie d’État 2017 Une enquête mondiale sur le droit à l’orientation sexuelle: criminalisation, protection et reconnaissance (Genève,ILGA, mai 2017).

Kind regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Which file exactly ? I'm not sure this was even coming directly from their site, but I know I have worked on such a map (but can't remember where it was)... verdy_p (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't even find any map related to ILGA, except a more recent download made by someone else (you! not even giviung such credits that you're asking to me!)...
Did you delete my files before asking if I had made that myself, based on their (PDF) reports? I'm sure I worked on an SVG version and ILGA does not publish any map in SVG ! verdy_p (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Salut. je ne sais pas ce que tu as cherché à faire, mais tu as cassé le modèle, qui ne reconnaît plus les majuscules. Exemple ici dans la Category:Ministers of Justice of Bulgaria ; ce modèle devrait lister l'ensemble des catégories de type "Ministers of Justice of" +pays d'Europe. Il ne repère que "Ministers of justice of Bulgaria", qui est une redirection, et aucun de la dizaine d'autres existant. Merci donc de corriger, ou de revenir en arrière. Rhadamante (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Cela ne vient pas du tout de ce que j'ai fait aujourd'hui (en Afrique). Le module (écrit par d'autres avant) ne reconnait pas les anciens alias possibles si on ne le lui indique pas: des données sont donc manquantes ou il manque des liens et il faudrait peut-être renommer certaines catégories qui ne suivent pas la même convention de nommage. Sur le module générique ce que je lui ai ajouté est la reconnaissance de certains caractères latins accentués manquants pour le tri automatique par défaut (nécessaire pour certains noms latins, comme le "Î" ou "i" oublié en français pour le mot "îles", ou d'autres lettres latines en polonais, catalan, tchèque, etc.), et la reconnaissance du préfixe "Category:" pour former des liens et non une catégorisation même si on oublié le ":" initial (qui n'est donc plus nécessaire au début du préfixe). verdy_p (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Dans le passé cela marchait peut-être avec la version "template" (qui testait la présence de certains alias), mais pas depuis que la version "module" est là. Il est également possible que des liens de redirection aient été supprimés sur Commons pour reconnaitre un nom de page ou de catégories avec ou sans capitalisation insignifiante comme synonymes. verdy_p (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
OK je vois le problème: en voulant matcher le nom de l'espace de nommage (ceci n'est fait QUE sur un espace de nommage spécial tel que Category ou File où un lien nécessite un ":" initial), le préfixe est localement converti d'abord en minuscules; mais ensuite la réécriture du préfixe trouvé utilisait cette conversion en minuscules, au lieu de reprendre la chaîne originale du préfixe pour lui substituer seulement l'espace de nom spécial sans toucher au reste du préfixe. J'ai corrigé comme tu peux le voir dans Category:Ministers of Justice of Bulgaria.
Il ne sera plus jamais obligatoire d'indiquer ":" initial dans le préfixe (erreur fréquente auparavant), mais le module conserve l'espace de fin de préfixe s'il y en a un indiqué. On aurait pu forcer l'ajout d'un ":" initial partout, mais c'est un "quirk" qui en cas d'excès aurais produit un lien vers "::Category:Nom" et je préfère réserver le "::" initial pour une extension future des liens spéciaux de MediaWiki. verdy_p (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Pouvez-vous lire et suivre quelques discussions?

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

J’ai fait un faux pas ici et voila conséquencesIncnis Mrsi (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Quel est le problème ? verdy_p (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

C'est un bogue du module Fallback qui ne gère pas correctement l'option "default" comme cela le faisait dans le passé, je suis en train de voir ça.
Ce n'est pas un bogue du modèle Maps. verdy_p (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Merci pour le dépannage! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
La version sandbox est prête et testée. Il ne reste qu'à la déployer. Comme indiqué, les fallbacks de Commons sont traités en priorité, puis les fallbacks de Mediawiki (à l'exception de 'en' qui est présent partout, sauf si la langue cible est l'anglais, auquel cas 'en' est gardé en tête), puis 'default', puis enfin 'en' à la fin. Le résultat est visible sur Module talk:Fallback/testcases (qui utilise la version sandbox) et affiche la liste complète des langues dans l'ordre (y compris la langue demandée en tête de liste).
Cette liste est la même maintenant pour "translatelua", "autotranslate", et "LangSwitch" (ce n'était pas le cas avant qui n'utilisait QUE les fallbacks de MediaWiki) et n'oublie aucune langue de repli possible et respecte l'ordre des fallbacks indiqués d'abord dans le paramétrage du module Commons, puis dans l'ordre de MediaWiki (seulement les langues qui ne sont pas déjà listées dans la liste locale).
Au passage j'ai supprimé les récursions non finales (dans l'ancienne fonction fallbackloop qui était non optimale) pour réduire le nombre de boucles nécessaires et il est garanti qu'une langue ne figurera qu'une seule fois, ce qui là encore accélère le rendu final en évitant de tester des langues plusieurs fois.
Si je peux améliorer encore les choses c'est d'inclure dans les fallbacks les codes langues en plusieurs versions (exemple: "co-it" devrait avoir "co" automatiquement inclus) pour être pleinement conforme à BCP47 (et il ne serait également plus nécessaire de paramétrer localement, ni même sur MediaWiki, le repli de "de-ch"ou "de-at" vers "de", ni non plus "fr-ca", "fr-be" ou "fr-ch" vers "fr", ni non plus le repli de "zh-hans" ou "zh-hant" vers "zh", ni non plus le repli de "sr-ec", "sr-el", "sr-latn" ou "sr-cyrl" vers "sr").
Mais il sera encore possible de paramétrer localement (ou sur MediaWiki) le repli de "nds" d'abord vers "de" avant "nds-nl", et le repli de "nds-nl" d'abord vers "nl" avant "nds"... verdy_p (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Countries of South AmericaEdit

Hi Verdy p. I see that you have been editing the template {{Countries of South America}}. I am not an expert in the matter, that is why I am asking you: why does Uruguay appear as "UruguayFY" ? It happened from this edition onwards. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, it should show the label as defined (and translated) d:Q877 in Wikidata. I made the edit you cite a long time ago. May be the label in Wikidata was modified at some point, but I dod not see any label in any language defined there where I see "UruguayFY" (may be it was already corrected there). Also the template I created is now handled by a LUA module created long after my edit several months ago (modeled from the similar template for Countries of Europe, which was the first converted this way using a module, based also on the initial template I created).
If you still see this incorerct label, which language are you displaying? verdy_p (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reason for keeping former French regions ?Edit

Are you sure that your reverts towards administrative divisions long dissolved makes really sense? I'd say no. --Århus (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons keeps lot of historic documents to these former regions. They are still needed ! verdy_p (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: new regions have in fact very small quantities of contents, removing the former regions breaks many page that are left uncategorized in lot of missing categories.
Copmmons is not just about current entities, most contents in fact are historical and the former regions have existed since much longer than the new ones (for which the categorization is still superficial. Many medias are now spread over unliked categories and not where they were expected due to the removal. There's no much maintenance in keeping these former regions. verdy_p (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As to the historical dimension of former regions: yes, that's true *for some pictures* but certainly not for every sub-category, as a matter of fact for *most* sub-categories the history is totally irrelevant. --Århus (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Verdy_p. I agree with Århus. Re-creating such categories like Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes is irrelevant and a loss of time, just because it appears in a blocked model, {{Regions of France}}. Poitou-Charentes no longer exists, but the category is still used should continue to exist for a few old regional maps, like Category:Maps of Poitou-Charentes, and some cultural events. The actual divisions in France are the department and the region (here : Nouvelle-Aquitaine, since 2016), that's all. See discussion above (in French, where @Père Igor: agrees with me). Please spend no time in this. Cordially, Jack ma (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
These decategorizatrions were done without keeping the necessary links; now there are many files left in categories that are not at the most precise geolocalisation. And many of these files do NOT apply to the new regions (which exist only since 2015) but only to the former regions, putting them in the new region is clearly ambiguous when they can be, and should be geolocated more precisely and not mixed with other files applying to the whole new region. Most of these files are about former regions that have existed since much longer than the few years where the new regions have existed.
There are separate categories for new and old regions and it's simple to keep them separate and not confuse users which don't know which one to use, but even if they choose the former regions these should still have all the contents they had (notably their departments which occur in both).
There are lot of other historic reghions in Wikidata which cannot be described with today's administrative units, including for example the former provinces of France. It's very hard to track correctly the history of places if you mix everything according only to the new definitions (which are not accurate enough to describe correctly and completely the former area, and without including other areas which were not part of them, and were also historically distinguished and separated from other competing historic regions which now may fall partly in another new region, possibly partly in the new one discussed here or another). If you mix everything, the data model suddenly becomes flawed, and it's impossible to calssify and sort items correctly and precisely, as this gives contradictions by unexpectedly conflicting declarations, and it will be impossible to use Commons to find accurate contents related to a precise known area at a precise date or period of time (you'll get lot of false positives with lot of content non relevant to the scope of the search, and lot of content which should be there but are now excluded due to the deletion of necessary links).
These categories have NO cost at all, they form a separate parallel structure; most files (but not all) will use more precise geolocation, except those that are directly bound to the former regions (and there are a lot of them!) and where the new region is simply incorrect (these files are correct for a specific date or period where the new region did not even exist! they cannot be poart of the normal categorization of new regions but CAN be part of the topics related to the **history** of the new region, which is not born suddenly without any past).
Removing these old regions is equivalent to erasing completely the history of the new regions, as if nothing happened there before 2015: you are making the equivalent of an autodafe, you are burning books and create new regions that have NO past at all. verdy_p (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The most precise geolocalisation is the department, all categories have it. Some categories of the former regions (between 1947 and 2015) are now useless like Bodies of water... or Geomorphology in... Department then new regions only apply. And we are not speaking here about historical regions, but administrative regions.
To be more precise (I take an example) :
Jack ma (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
They were NOT empty and there were various files left there in these "deleted" categories (yes I reclassified them, there are still files in some of these regions). This heppens regularly. There's in fact no need at all to delete these categories, it's just enough to keep them as is (and make them all part of the relevant category of "by former region" inside the category "by region"). This allows checking these and finding files that still fall into the categories for old regions, just because that's how they are known and users expect them. Many users in Commons have files related only to the old names (they are not all French and do not know exactly how the new regions are composed), their sources already indicate the name of the former regions (that were those that existed when their original subject was considered, as seen in the asserted dates of creation).
Deleting them will not free up any space on Wiki server (they are only hidden, but this unnecessarily complicates the task of Commons users, and of various import bots that will suggest various categories not matching the expextation, so users will select them more or less randomly). I've also seen other users recreating them (but not reclasifying them correctly as they were, or creating them with variant names, creating various orphan branches or duplicate branches for the same topic, which is by evidence still desired and expected). verdy_p (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need most of the categories for former regions. The only things categorized under a former region should be things that apply to the former region but not to the new region. There's no need to categorize under both a former region and a new region. Since departments apply to the new regions as much as to the former ones, we could start by removing those.
  • Some other former region categories we don't need are bodies of water (and similar geographic features), monuments historiques, nature, structures, and visitor attractions. This is because thee are all physical things that don't move and they apply to the new regions as much as they did to the former regions. The former region categories could be merged into the new regions' categories and then be either redirected or deleted.
  • Categories we might want to keep for former regions include things like coats of arms and flags of the former region (but not those of subdivisions of the region), some government categories.
  • Some categories would need discussion. For example, the people categories: do we categorize a person under a new region if they died before the new regions were created?
Those are my preliminary thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
But all departments are applicable as well to the former regions. If you break these links, contents will fall into these regions even if they could be subcategorized in categories for departments that are both children of categories of newer and older regions (when they both exist). It's a fact: sonce these were removed, many files are left orphaned in random parent categories for France, as people (and import bots) don't know how to find a more relevatn categoy, or they are added to both regions when they could be categorized directly in the more local department (or smaller divisions). There are numerous examples: these categories have a near zero coast, will most often contain only categories for departments but there are always exceptions to this where the medias will not belong to a precise departement but are still not very well suited for the newer regions. You cited maps as examples, but there are also maps of water bodies: under your rule they would need categorize in the category of waterbodies of a new region, and in the categories of another older region, and this generally causes lot of confusions and does not allow easy imports: the number of categories to place for each file becomes larger and you've not saved any space, jsut made the categorization even more difficult to maintain and unpredictable (that' why since this deletion many categories localized for France that were clean and eaisly maintained before are now full of dispersed files that are hard to find where they should be.
I still maintain that these categories have NO cost, help saving costs, helps import tools, helps users to locate where to place their files appropriately, and then help other finding them where they should be (files on orphaned categories are just forgotten, hard to find, frequently they will be uploaded again as duplicates (most often with under a different name and categoized differently). These deletion of categories that were perfectly accurate and relevant before, has absolutely NO benefit to anyone and the large manority of users better know the older regions under their older names that were known since long the new regions (only 3 years old) have stil lnot updated all their documentation and still refer to the older regions in their own legal archives and communication. As well INSEE and statistics agency, or ISO references still refert to the older regions that have been there since at least the begining of computing (and later the Internet and Wikimedia). We have lot of documents stil lcreated today that refer directly to the older regions: they have not really disappears, the only thing that disappeared is their current administrative status and their current regional assemblies, but they are not the only topics related to these regions which have a very long tradition in France. So these "old" regions are still very far from being "historic" (it won't happen before one or two generations, and for legal documents it won't happen before at least 70 years, i.e. roughly 3 generations). The new regions also have still not passed a significant step of stability and acceptation, they may be reformed again or could be totally removed, and only the former regions of 2015 will persist (the "new regions" will be forgotten even more rapidly!). verdy_p (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Verdy_p : Empty categories should not be kept on Commons. I will delete them when I have time for it for Nouvelle-Aquitaine, as I did last year. Typically : Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes (see above) : they contain NO file, except department categories that are in the actual region. The Category:Bodies of water in France by former region seems to be useless (if all are empty), and Category:Categories of France by former region should be peopled only by categories that contain actual files (e.g. Category:Maps of Poitou-Charentes). Jack ma (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
They are not empty, and there a still files or other (non-empty) categories that should be there too, but whose link was cut. You still don't understand that deleting them offers no benefit at all, it just further complicate later maintenance and semi-automated categorization during imports, where files will have many superfluous categories added to them randomly, instead of the single one that is accessible through all search paths. If you looked really to the issue, you would knwo that instead of just making blank assertions (about how it should be in your opinion, but which is not because we find exceptions everywhere and each time we need to recreate the missing categorties that were incorrectly purged and deleted, mixing everything elsewhere in some broad parent category that rapidly becomes overpopulated, because peopel don't know where to better place their content).
There's a clean way to avoid breaking this and without compilcating the life of uploaders, it's by clearly identifying former regions and newer ones and separating them. There are lot of files that are not just focued on only one topic but that cover multiple topics and the simple fact of not subcategorizing these topics by the same regions that they refer to directly means that we endup with lot of miscategorization. People should not have to wonder which one to choose when an accurate closer (smaller) region should match all cases. verdy_p (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that we won't get agreement here on this user talk page, and that even a majority opinion here wouldn't be binding. Maybe we need to take this to CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All this discussion is linked to {{Regions of France}}, where initially both the former regions appear as well as a new ones in a transitory and temporary state, in order for us to move the categories from the old regions to the new ones. The official administrative Regions in France are the new ones since 2016. See the template discussion page, where even you, Verdy_p, wrote "Later this version may be updated to keep only the new region names." The former regions have only existed from 1947 to 2016, not for centuries as you said (let's not confuse betwwen historical regions and administrative regions, that are groups of Departments). It is not necessary to re-create thousands of categories if only very few are (and will be) used (for Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie, no link was lost when I deleted categories of the former regions, the Department categories are the base nearly everywhere). No category in Nouvelle-Aquitaine nor Occitanie was overcrowded, because eveything is under Department categories. Many categories under the former regions are to be deleted. I agree to talk about all this at another discussion page... Jack ma (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You quote what you like because I added this precision "but they are still contested politically and adminsitratively in courts, and former regions are still widely used and needed for many historic reasons and because most open documents in Commons are still referencing the former regions and actually not the new ones except in cases that are still exceptional". You also removed the Maybe that started the sentence.
My reasons are clear: these former regions are still in use much more often than the new ones (except for official adminsitrative purpose, which is still very exceptional compared to the rest). And we can find many examples of this everywhere (including in the content of the media files themselves which cite them directly, and in all regions named in documents that fall in public domain). Administratively they have existed under different status even before 1947 even if their boundaries were not always stable (and I'm not refering to the former provinces in the Kingdom of France up to the end of the "constitutional monarchy" in 1791, before the 1st Republic and its creation of departments with radical change of the geography; regions started to have some effects during the 1st Empire, at prefectoral level only but also with some restoration of powers of the clergy or organization of commerce, police, army, agriculture and education, more or less taking their names from the former provinces, and with the progressive organization of regional academies; this was effectively formalized completely in 1947; lot of old cultural documents refer to them; lot of statistics refer to them; even ISO3166-2 took time to refer to them and there are still international uses along with ISO 3166-2). For now there's no real sign of deprecation, even in today's medias (including TV, tourism): these regions are effectively no longer adminsitrative but will persist for long as cultural regions with their own identity well distinguished from the fuzzy identity of the new larger administrative regions. verdy_p (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
As well when I said "we may remove" it was only refering to the content displayed by the navbox, and not about the categories themselves. And it is perfectly possible to disable conditionally the display these links in the navbox in categories related to the new regions, and display only them in categories for former regions (there are examples in navboxes for countries that show how this can be done). verdy_p (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with you. The process of moving from the old to the new regions in France is slow, but still in progress. Excuse me, but you are acting by pure nostalgy. It is like re-adding all parallel categories to Germany with Category:German Democratic Republic and Category:West Germany, every single category like e.g. Category:Bodies of water in German Democratic Republic, and adding categories "... by former countries". In France, administrative regions have been replaced, officially and definitively. But, historical and cultural regions still do exist, like Picardie, Alsace, Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Limousin ... but not Poitou-Charentes, Languedoc-Roussillon, Alsace-Lorraine, etc. Not every former region was a cultural one. We have to distinguish administrative regions from historical regions. Jack ma (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"We have to distinguish administrative regions from historical regions". Yes I perfectly agree withg that statement. But there is not any confusion at all as they are clearly distinguished (as "former regions", themselves part of "cultural regions" and of "former divisions" of France, within which we find other entities like the former provinces, former communes, former arrrondissements, including former ones that are now in other countries, like Algeria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany). And this is absolutely not a question of "nostalgy", but effective use (and because this is part of history and most authored items found in Commons are +70 years old or are not in Commons, the new ones being authored by Wikimedia users themselves or being in the public domain when they originate from some juridictions). Even the new enoough docuemnts were created more than 3 years ago, and still refer directly to the former ones. The former DDR is not a good example because it is still much older and it took more than 30 years to transition its past. Yes the "administrative" regions have been replaced "adminsitratively" (I would not bet about "definitively", adminsitration changes constantly), but absolutely not in newcoming documents or documents still being created now. Politicians and official sites still refer to them (e.g. "New Aquitaine" is much too large for focusing anywhere precisely for everything, by evidence it has geographic divisions, but the department level is too small for many uses).
Locating items in Commons is not easy and as evident as what you think: if we can effectively identify a specific commune, we'll sort in that commune for even for some of them this is also too large and we need to focus more, or sometimes do the reverse. The current administrative hierarchy is also less and less effective because it is less and less "hierarchic". Even INSEE has NOT removed the former regions from its statistics and its "COG" because it needs to keep statistics continuity (and many statisitcs are not refreshed every year, take the example of general population survey, it won't occur every year but every 10 years, so minimum conituity requires keeping them for 20 years!!!). verdy_p (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit-warEdit

When you make a change and it is reverted, you take it to talk. You don't obstinately continue to try to make changes that are not agreed. In this case, they are positively detrimental, and I explained why in my previous edit summary and have now explained at length on Module talk:WikidataIB #Ability to categorise. Module:WikidataIB is in use in over a million pages, and significant alterations to its functionality need to be thoroughly tested before deployment. Please don't waste my time any further, or I will seek administrative action against you. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I signal the bug. This is a very basic fix. I don't know why it is rejected, because it is effectiuvely creating incorrect categorizations via related links that should just be displayed. There's a theory but it currently does not work as intended : I did not change that at all, ther's no change in functionality.
You have made an edit war on this, it's unbelievable you don't admit it. It was not a "test", the tests were done before applying it and there was no break at all. verdy_p (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no bug. You don't understand how the module is used and you cluelessly started fiddling with it. The version you messed up offered a template designer the option of displaying a link to a category by setting |linkprefix=":", or of adding the page to the category by setting |linkprefix="". Your mistaken change removed the second option and forced the display in every case. If you believe that an infobox where the module is used is adding a page to a category where it should be displaying a link to that category, then give me a link to an example of that. Otherwise, I'll thank you not to meddle further in things you don't understand. When you screw up you ought to have the decency to admit your mistake and apologise. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There are really bugs when values are displayed as annotations of values (e.g. annotations of values with dates and references giving a location, such as a place of publication, or a reference to the origin of a name: they should display the label, instead the infobox categorizes and no label is displayed).
I did not say something wrong, you just refuse to admit the bug, and you should have the decency to apologize for your attitude and your mistake, when you screw up bad assumption about things that you still don't want to see or just understand... Given your agressive "professoral" attitude, you should also apologize. You can do errors/bugs like everyone, but refusing to admit it is difficult to pass.
Almost all uses of infoboxes are displaying links to categories and NEVER want to perform any categorization (what you want to do but that was never intended and never documented; the Wikidata ontology is almost never the same as the Commons categorization, there are exceptions everywhere on Commons, and an infobox should NEVER autocategorize without extreme care, proper documentation and a way to disable it on Commons by removing the explicit parameter; you made it implicit and it is extremely bad). verdy_p (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)::
What infobox exists where "the infobox categorizes and no label is displayed"? Give me the link. Either put up or shut up and stop wasting my time. If you don't like the documentation, then fix it yourself, because I'm under no obligation to make it to suit your taste. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not "my taste" but real bugs in basic rules of Commons, that are violated by incorrect assumptions you made without checking (and by deviating an usage to perform something like autocategorization that was never decided, and in fact wrong and undocumented).
Once again you are unfruitfully agressive with your unqualifiable language ("wasting my time", or "shut up", sic!). I'm NOT wasting your time, but want to make you aware of a problem: the infobox does not work as expected if labels displayed are instead performing autocategorisation. This is unexpected and should not have occured.
Once again you are "obstinated" (sic!) to perform "detrimental" (sic!) assumptions that the Wikidata ontology (not made just for Commons) has the same structure as Commons categories and that references in infoboxes collected from Wikidata info are intended to perform categorization on commons, this is wrong and should never be implicit. What you do with this invisible extension of labels is simply bad. Labels are just labels to display and link nothing else. If you want you can still create another API (getCategory instead of getLabel) but I bet it will be rejected on Commons which is not categorized this way directly via infoboxes (which are used without any parameters). verdy_p (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
More nonsense. There are no bugs, other than the imaginary ones in your mind.
MediaWiki does not have a special "category" text. When we do this manually, we create categories from the label we give to a topic, just as we create links from the same text. That's why Commons is able to direct a default link to the Category: namespace, rather than to the main namespace as the other projects do. There is absolutely no reason to do that any differently when we generate links from the text that we have available on Wikidata. Who the hell do you think you are to call my programming "bad"? I have a damn sight better track record for producing code than you have.
Now give me an example of where "the infobox does not work as expected" as you continually claim. You can't, can you? --RexxS (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
See Category:Reinette du Canada, you'll see that the template incorrectly categorizes in Category:Normandy for what is normally a label displayed after a approximate date as an indication of origin. This is a proof, absolutely not imaginary. That label should link to the category, not perform ANY categorization.
Stop your constant abusive (and nonsense) aggressions, and your obstination of saying you cannot do bugs. The bug is real ! There are countless other examples where labels linking to categories are actually categorizing incorrectly and not displaying the expected label.
I'm not here to loose your time but your obstation is a severe loss of time for all others and your constant attitude is completely unacceptable, totally anticollaborative and fully contradicting the Commons policy.
If you refuse to admit you can do bugs, and reject your own faults to others, you have NOTHING to do in Commons. In addition you make constant false personal assertions against me without any proof (and it's easy to proove that you're unable to perform any basic search or investigation for correctly reported problems, anbd notably by changing unilaterally and secretly a function that was not designed for your goal: autocategorization by inference from Wikidata has NEVER been discussed or approved, and it has NEVER been really experimented but you have made it in a template used by millions pages where experimentation and bug tracking should have been used since the begining before applying it globally).
I proposed a solution, you refuse it abusively by constantly using war terms. Stop your personal war. verdy_p (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


Qu'est-ce que tu penses: est-ce “moins cher” (pour le server) d'utiliser le Module:File que #ifexist ? -- sarang사랑 07:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A mon avis c'est quasi équivalent, la fonction du module existe à destination des modules eux-mêmes (car c'est alors moins couteux que d'invoquer le parseur MediaWiki depuis Lua pour traiter un #ifexist). Bref la fonction est supportée pour Lua, mais pas utile pour les pages ou modèles wiki.
De plus la fonction fileExists vérifie aussi l'existence de métadonnées pour les fichiers (ce que ne fait pas #ifexist qui ne teste que l'existence de la page wiki de description: #ifexist peut retourner vrai pour un fichier supprimé car sa page de description wiki existe encore).
Donc #ifexist est l'équivalent d'un "pageExist", moins fort que "fileExist" qui accède réellement au fichier indiqué par le nom de page.
En terme de coût sur "le" serveur, la fonction Lua "fileExist" fait un accès supplémentaire (pas à la base de données wiki, mais au système de fichiers externe, ce ne sont pas les mêmes serveurs, il n'y a aucun coût supplémentaire sur le serveur de base de données) : il le fait pour identifier le contenu (avec un parseur de fichier), vérifier son type et obtenir d'autres métadonnées. verdy_p (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Verdy p".