User talk:Judithcomm/Archive 1

Archive 1

category Scheherazade (Bakst) already is in cat. Arabian night and Scheherazade as subcat of Category:Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade--Shakko (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if I disagree with the categorization? For instance I disagree about Scheherazade (Bakst) being a subcategory of Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade. These should both be on the same level, since both are an integral part of the same ballet. One is not more important than the other. And the ballet is named Scheherazade, but it is actually a retelling of the Arabian Nights, not about Scheherazade as a character alone. I tried to change the categories according to this, but someone overturned my changes. As a former librarian I know very well that no categorization is absolute. My main drive to categorize is to ensure that people will be able to find the pictures.

"These should both be on the same level, since both are an integral part of the same ballet. One is not more important than the other" - not true. Category:Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade is a main category for the ballet composed by Rimsky-Korsakov. Category:Scheherazade (Bakst) is a category for designs to Rimsky-Korsakov's ballet painted by Bakst. Category:Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade also is in category Arabian nights and it is OK with it. --Shakko (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.k, let's leave it like this, but I still disagree. Scheherazade was a originally Ballets Russes (Diaghilev) production, with music by Rimsky-Korsakov, choreography by Fokine, designs by Bakst, not to mention all the dancers. If anything, the main category should be Ballets Russes or Diaghilev.

Composer is a main person during creation of ballet/opera, and this ballet still on the stage during this century without choreography by Fokine or designs by Bakst but under the name of Rimsky-Korsakov (who wrote in in 1888, and show was made only in 1910). In the Category:Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade are the pictures of later performances of the piece and music fragments of it which also wasn't Diaghilev. Ballets Russes performance was only a couple of years from whole life of that music. The category Category:The Sleeping Beauty who was also Ballets Russes performance shows that rule more clearly. --Shakko (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes

Just an FYI, there is no direct or deliberate link between Arabian costume classes at horse shows and the "Arabian Nights" tradition, (even if there probably is one), so it's original research to lump the horse costumes in. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that you cannot verify it; the AHA won't admit it and claims the designs are derived from Bedouin tradition. In fact, if people overdo the belly-dancer look, they are frowned upon. (smile) Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more than a hundred years romantic Orientalist images of the Arab world have shaped all views on Arabs and their customs (including their costumes) in Europe and the America's. The Arabian Nights are central to these Orientalist views. Researcher Simon Shaheen wrote extensively about them, among many others. He states that most Americans mistake these skewed views for the real thing without being aware of it. So it doesn't surprise me there is no deliberate link as far as the AHA is concerned, but their own problem with the belly-dancer look is a dead giveaway; if they actually researched Arab Bedouin dress, they would never have come across anything remotely like a belly-dancer look. What's more: the world is also full of bellydancers who claim to be 'authentic'. I deal with these dancers almost every day and believe me, the claim alone is a indicator of fakeness. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with you (smile), and in the Arabian horse world, everyone agrees that there is little that is "Native" about "native costume" (though actually, it's toned down from some of the really over the top stuff they had in the 70s). We joke that the inspiration is more Hollywood; the en:Kellogg Arabians Sunday shows probably started it, and Valentino in particular popularized the Arabian horse in the romanticized form. Though it is no doubt true that Hollywood shares the same inspiration. Montanabw (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 18:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your edits into Le avventure di Pinocchio.....jpg. Thanks.

Please, tell me if your change (removal og a generic category Category:Book illustrations) comes from over-categorization; I'm looking for simple task for my new bot here, User:Alex brolloBot, and I'll appreciate a lot suggestions for simple but useful tasks. If you find any simple task on it.source-related information files, please suggest them to me! I'll be happy to help you, and to learn more. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can, I apologize if my message was obscure. I was precisely looking for "useful jobs" for my bot, just to let community see what bot can do; I will edit some of information files from Category:Histoire des églises et chapelles de Lyon, removing the Category:Book illustrations from its code, as a "text exercise" to get my regular "bot flag". I'll report your message in my talk page, just to document that it's not a fuzzy idea by me... but a really needed job. :-).

As soon as I will get a "bot flag", feel free to ask me for any (simple) job. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is running (very slowly: less than one edit/min, since it's unflagged). --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Ebony horse" was supposed to be a category. Can anyone tell me how to delete this page? Found it! I nominated 2 pages for deletion now.

Judith, muchas gracias por la categorías que has añadido, y sobre todo por la creación de la de The Baker Dancer. Saludos. Dorieo (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judithcomm. I like your style here: [1]. How is one to find one of manet's most important paintings when the dedicated category is buried all the way under "Paintings by Manet in the Musee d'Orsay"? People should not have to know where a painting is located to find it in the category system, but it seems that many are happy to do it this way. Regards, Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Hi Judith, I noticed you categorized File:Ali Baba et les quarante voleurs (1902).ogv, as well as 2 pictures from the film in Category:Ali Baba et les 40 Voleurs (1905 film). Please note the film is actually from 1902, not to be confused with the 1907 remake. You may refer to the two articles I wrote on the subject on the French WP, fr:Ali Baba et les quarante voleurs (film, 1902) and fr:Ali Baba et les quarante voleurs (film, 1907). The same applies to the 2 photograms from the 1902 film, File:Zecca-Ali-Baba-1.JPG and File:Zecca-Ali-Baba-1.JPG. Also, voleurs should not be capitalized in French. In order to avoid possible confusion with the 1905 film by Georges Méliès on the same subject, would you mind making the corrections, i.e. put them in Category:Ali Baba et les 40 voleurs (1902 film) or Category:Ali Baba et les quarante voleurs (1902 film) and request deletion of Category:Ali Baba et les 40 Voleurs (1905 film) ? Thanks and happy editings, — Racconish ^Tk 19:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reply ? Thanks, — Racconish ^Tk 12:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?? I mailed you a short while ago. What kind of reply are your looking for?

I answered your email. Just let me know if you agree to these corrections and if you will do them yourself. Cheers, — Racconish ^Tk 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes are done now, but the deletion request of Category:Ali Baba et les 40 Voleurs (1905 film) is a problem for me. Could your please do this? Thanks for the help.

No problem ! Happy editing, — Racconish ^Tk 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Judithcomm,You have a habit of omitting dance categories without a reason or a discussion. example: File:Cupid and Psyche-Hermitage.jpg Yair-haklai (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a deal: I let you do your thing on your Dance in art page and you let a simple dance librarian like me do the catagorizing. Ok? You convince me that either Cupid and Psyche are actually dancing here, are known as professional dancers or are symbols or personifications of dance.

From my experience you have to ask for permission before you do something.

Have a look at this picture of the godess Diana. Is she dancing? Looks like it, but my knowledge of Greek mythology tells me she's probably just running. Why? Diana, also known as Artemis, is the godess of hunting. In art she is frequently depicted running, sometimes together with some animal or a bow and arrow in her hands or both. So the fact that she has one, or even both, feet from the ground almost certainly means that she is running, not dancing.

I think that she is running. Yair-haklai (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith, I see you are removing a stream of files from the category silent films. Do you doubt Ali Baba et les quarante voleurs (1907) or Aladin et la lampe merveilleuse (1906) are silent ? Cheers, — Racconish ^Tk 06:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no doubt about that, but these two films have their own category, which is already listed als a silent film. Putting the individual items in the Silent film cateroy too felt like overcategorizing to me. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks, — Racconish ^Tk 19:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are doing a good job here. Note that categories such as Category:Images from KIT, objecten Functionele categorie - dans, dansornaat en toebehoren are temporary categories. While most of those larger categories have been just moved in the related Commons categories, in many cases, I preferred not to flood destination categories and to connect them somewhere on the side (hence the tilde sort key) so that users could take from it what was relevant before deleting it. --Foroa (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I follow you. In this case the whole catagory is relevant, at least to my subject. So renaming the whole thing would be the thing to do. Why 'deleting it'? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated, those are temporal cats as an in between the cats/keywords of KIT and the ones on commons. As far as I know, all files are downloaded since several years and they will not serve any purpose any more. There are no redirects from it, but still many red ones as you can see here. The transfer/integration job will be done when there are no more such categories left. So we have still a few things to arrange ... --Foroa (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that all these categories should be emptied out and then deleted, because they are temporary? --Judithcomm (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, those categories in Dutch and their specific naming structure are not really compliant with Commons naming rules, but there is no hurry and as stated, I prefer not to flood other categories with images that are not completely relevant or could be better categorised. I guess that they count on good souls like you that will eventually clean that out, but I expect that it will need another 5 to 6 years. I reckon I categorised and cleaned out only a few thousands of them. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DanceSafe does not belong under Category:Seattle Hempfest just because that's where we got our photos. It's an international organization. See DanceSafe. - Jmabel ! talk 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case it may be a good idea to add some of the wiki info to Category:DanceSafe. And it can still be under the Hempfest category, since - as you say - that is where the pictures were taken. Or maybe a new category "DanceSafe at Seattle Hempfest"? --Judithcomm (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Category:Walk Like an Egyptian for File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - Gasworks Egyptian 01.jpg and File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - Gasworks Egyptian 02.jpg? No obvious relation to the song. Just someone in Ancient Egyptian costume posing in the manner of a wall painting from Ancient Egypt. People were doing that long before the song existed: I can specifically say from my own experience that people in Seattle (where these pictures were taken) were doing a dance where they moved along a wall in poses like that years before the song came out. Shouldn't that category require some known relation to the song? - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right that the pose/dance/walk was there long before the song. Just look at all the movies containing 'Egyptian' dancers that all have those hooked hands and arms. Maybe the song was even inspired by these movies. Personally I do not find it neccessary to connect the intention of the person on the photo to the song; I just use the term that came from it, because everybody knows what it means. --Judithcomm (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • So maybe we can rename the category? Because it is awfully specific. For that matter, I just remembered that there are similar moves in the video for Steve Martin's (earlier) "King Tut": much more verifiable than my memory of people doing this in Seattle.
    • If you insist, we could use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Egyptian_revival_in_dance for all media that do not refer directly to the song.
      • I would prefer that, but won't insist. As an alternative, I think it would also be OK to add a note on the category that it refers to a certain set of dance moves rather than to the particular song. I guess what I object to is the effective tie of these images to a particular song. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your last suggestion has my preference. I'll try to think of a text, but if you feel inspired, be my guest. You think we should ask the user who came up with the category in the first place? --Judithcomm (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good solution. I made a minor addition to what you wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC),[reply]
            • Fine by me. I removed just one word from your text. Happy editing! --Judithcomm (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How come you removed this dancer from the dance cat? Palosirkka (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dance is a main category, so I try to move all pictures to other, more specific, dance categories. Flamenco is also a dance category in my opinion and from the number of dance pictures I find there many people agree with me. 'Flamenco dancer' better for you? Nice picture though! Is it yours? --Judithcomm (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. Thanks for the explanation and your patience! I too quite like that image but alas, it's not mine. Palosirkka (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The first known manuscript of the Arabian nights dates from 14th century. If this manuscript is 13th c., it cannot be Arabian Nights. I didn't find anyinformation on it on the Internet, so I removed the category by prudence. Regards, Calame (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which manuscript are you talking about here? There is one listed as Arabian Nights in the Dutch wikipedia: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_nacht --Judithcomm (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added the above category to my photo File:King's Cross railway station MMB 95 321406.jpg. While I accept that HP was filmed at King's Cross, why add just my one photo, and not the station category? Similarly for the viaduct, the library, etc? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is a bit intuitive. In some cases, like the picture of Loch Shiel: there is a category, but this one picture is clearly recognizable from the films. The same is true for the viaduct, I think. It is especially true for the library, since the category is so large, with so many pictures irrelevant to HP. I have exchanged the King's Cross photo for the category --Judithcomm (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that perhaps what you want, instead of Category:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), is a gallery page. Categories are rather all or nothing - either everything from category X is in category Y, or none of it is. With a gallery you could pick and choose a lot more easily, and without it seeming quite so random as to what makes it into your category and what doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. That would apply to all the individual HP films. "All or noting", I do not follow. Especially since it's all fiction, there are two separate worlds of categories: the real world and the fictional world. --Judithcomm (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that in category terms, it doesn't make sense to include one photo of Alnwick castle but not another. Galleries can be selective. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About these two edits - I don't think every mythical being mentioned in the Arabian Nights qualifies as a Genie, and Ghouls are a case in point. (Meep, gibber.) --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ghoul is an unpleasant type of jinn (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoul) and as such it is also a genie, which is the English for jinn. But I agree that most people think of the friendly Aladdin type. --Judithcomm (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you'd revert your removal of Category:Dragons from this image. The blue dildo is apparently meant to be modelled after a dragon penis. I'm quite happy for it to be in some subcategory (dragons in art, dragon anatomy, whatever), but it should be somewhere in the dragon tree. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that these things are actually meant to represent part of the dragon anatomy, then I wouldn't mind if you revert my changes. --Judithcomm (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do once I'm at home. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have merged this into a wider DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Warner Bros. Studio Tour London. All follow the same reasoning. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a new "Freezing" tag or category or bot or anything (other than deletion) is needed for the many files at the following link deletion request--Ashashyou (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category about wax figures had lack of subcategories. I tried to remedy. Yes, "historical characters" is a very ambiguous term. You can change the name of this subcategoy if you want, or you can move the files to other categories, or you can delete the category... it was just a temporary place to put files not about actors, sportspeople, politicians, ecc...Sorry for the bad english. :)--SunOfErat (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear Judithcomm,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Judithcomm. You have new messages at Odysseus1479's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Ditto at 03:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hallo Judith(comm),

Sorry, i do not understand your un-do-ing of my addition on Category:Tolstraat 154, Amsterdam, i.e. removing the Template:Building address .

Je terugdraaien van mijn bewerking/toevoeging op de categorie Tolstraat 154, Amsterdam snap ik niet. Het gaat om het sjabloon Building address. Dat is een bestaand sjabloon en het wordt iig voor gebouwen in Nederland redelijk veel gebruikt (o.a. door RCE). Dus dan neem ik aan dat het een goede manier is om info toe te voegen. Ben je tegen gebruik van dit info-sjabloon ? , of tegen gebruik voor een categorie ? Of is er iets anders ?

Benieuwd naar uw antwoord, Mvg , Paul Be --Paulbe (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deze template heb ik nog nooit gebruikt gezien voor een categorie, alleen voor files. Hij voegt hier ook niets toe, omdat het adres in de naam van de categorie te zien is en ook via de link naar het monument nummer. --Judithcomm (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've seen you removed the category "Elizabeth Tower" from my image File:London (UK), Westminster, Elizabeth Tower -- 2010 -- 6.jpg. You can see the tower on this image and IMO the category is one of the important categories of this image. I reverted this. Hopefully it's OK for you. Or did you have special reasons? --XRay ^talk 06:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I removed the category because the tower is part of the Palace of Westminster and the whole building is in the picture. So it feels like overcategorising to me. --Judithcomm (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I understand. "Elizabeth Tower" is a subcategory of "Palace of Westminster". That's right. The image is in the category "Palace of Westminster in 2010", not "Palace of Westminster". So it's looks like overcategorising, but IMO it isn't. (Your last edit File:London (UK), Elizabeth Tower, -Big Ben- -- 2010 -- 1.jpg is right. It's overcategorisation, that's true. "Big ben clocks" is a subcategory if "Elizabeth Tower". Thanks for this edit.) --XRay ^talk 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising will allways be slightly intuitive as well as a matter of opinion, not just method. There really are many pictures of this building. I just try to do my bit to get some sort of system going or follow the lead of someone else and just categorise. Just look at what they did with the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Eiffel_Tower ;-) --Judithcomm (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to order a new flickrreview on your images where you forgot to give the source, just type {{Flickrreview}} as in this edit

The bot later marks the image. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already did this for me. Thanks! I didn't forget to give the source but named the 'album' on flickr the photo's were in and not the direct link for each image. But apparently the bot needs a direct link. Learned something today... --Judithcomm (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're welcome. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When you create sub-categories for places like Category:Salcombe, can you add all the relevant parent categories not just the location. For instance, Category:Transport in Salcombe should be in Category:Transport in Devon (or even better Category:Transport in Devon by location.

Also bear in mind that there may be cases like this which shows Salcombe as a significant background subject, but the beach is not in Salcombe.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I added the Category:Transport in Devon by location like you suggested, but you could have done this yourself. As for locations: pictures taken FROM a place as wel as pictures OF the place can both be placed in the same category. If there are many of both, it probably is best to split them in two categories. Lots of pictures of Salcombe are taken from across the water.

I don't know Salcombe myself, but categorised on the basis of seeing it in a Miss Marple episode and uploaded some more pictures. I used Wikipedia and Google street view to check my assumptions, but if you know more, please feel free to help categorising. --Judithcomm (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise I could (and should) have fixed one I highlighted - sorry for not doing so - reason for bringing to your attention is its likely that same applies to several similar categories.

From past work in this area I'm confident that most the images should have the correct locations; I agree the FROM place and OF place should be categorised. The problem with the specific image is its of Salcombe from a beach in East Portlemouth.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The systems for categorising differ from one place in Commons to the next. Sometimes it depends on the (number of) available images, sometimes just on the preferences of the editors who were there first. Personally I do not particularly like the exclusively 'system' approach, where you sometimes have long chains of categories, each containing one single category and at the end there is only one file. And I'm sometimes baffled by the way a painting is dissected: every detail gets it's own category. You probably know what mean ;-) Happy editing! --Judithcomm (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]