User talk:Mircea

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--gildemax 11:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Thanks for uploading Image:La2-demis-imandra.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. gildemax 11:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you finish the deletion request for African lakes (give reason etc.) as it is mentioned on the "Incomplete deletion requests" category. Thanks. Deadstar 08:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You'll find here a debate regarding how to link Commons pages with other Wikipedia projects. --Juiced lemon 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bzyb River was in Russia when the photography was taken: fickle international borders!

You are reviewing the categorization of landforms, so I think that you could be interested in Commons:Territorial division of the World, which proposes some principles in order to categorize media files according to the location. --Juiced lemon 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the gallery on the Cuenca del Orinoco being included in the category Orinoco River. In Spanish, the article on the Cuenca del Orinoco (Orinoco Basin) is much better made than the one on the Orinoco River. The same aplies in English, where the Orinoco River article is a poor one and there is not a general one on the Orinoco watershed. --Fev 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has been done with this category and why? Of course it has been done by you, therefore I am asking exactly you. I cannot find where this category has been placed, and why it is not placed anywhere now? -- Rainman 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forget it, I see -- Subdivision of Croatia. OK. Sorry for the intrusion. -- Rainman 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mircea - when creating new categories, please check whether you have the right name in regards to "of" or "in". You created "Bridges of New Zealand" when there is already the correct "Bridges in New Zealand" cat. A good thing to do is always try if either already exists, and to check what other countries use in the corresponding topcat (i.e. if you look into "Bridges by country", you will see that IN is correct here).

Its a difficult subject, I admit, because there are no hard-and-fast rules for it. So we need to do some extra checking when we create new stuff. Cheers and happy editing! Ingolfson 09:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for correction my mistake. Mircea 08:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mircea, categories containig one item only are nonsense, unless there is a hope, that more photos or maps fitting for the same category are existing.--Ulamm 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so, for the present "Canals in Poland" is better then "Canals" and "Poland". Mircea 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for recategorizing image:Kanal Jagiellonski.gif. This was useful, indeed ((added Ulamm 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC))).[reply]

• "Cat:Canals in Poland" contains lot sof items.
• Categories have the reason to find images with a similar theme. If you have only one photo of the Polish village of Golice, it is best categorized among category:Villages of Poland.
  • If somebody wants to write a general article about rural Poland, he can find his illustrations easier, if category:Villages of Poland contains rather images than subcategories.
  • If category:Villages of Poland contains a single-item-subcategory:Golice, it can contain the village street, or the church, or the graveyard, or the coat of arms. Therefore single-item-categories cause an evitable waste of time for people seeking a special type of images.
  • If somebody else has other photos of Golice, he can find your photo in that category as easy as he can find a subcategory. He can create the subcategory:Golice and fill it with his photos and your photo.--Ulamm 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in here and note that I disagree. Finding that image is going to be EASIER if it is sorted under Golice. Unless you do a search for the word "Golice", finding a specific image in a strongly populated cat is almost impossible unless you know the name anyway. And IF you do a search for the word "Golice", you will find it, even if it is the single image sitting in a cat three levels further down. Also creating categories early allows people sorting later images to place the media correctly, instead of someone having to resort them again, and again, and again... Ingolfson 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a confusion between sluices (water height regulation devices) and canal locks (devices that allow ships to travel to a river or canals with a level that is several meters lower of higher) as explained in the deifinition of sluices and canal locks. --Foroa 11:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I understand, you are right, this is confusion. I sort its at first according to country, but in Belgium was problem with redir from sluice to canal lock. Mircea 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deeper the categorisation goes, the more risks there is on confusion and the better we need to document the main categories. The redirect in the sluices in Belgium is there because someone tried to "uniformise" most canal locks in Belgium into sluices, whereas most pictuares concern canal locks and not sluices. --Foroa 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - we seem to have an interest in common! I've been working with aspects of the UK categories for a while now both a higher level & lower levels largely working on geographical aspects & over categorisation & "overpop" categories. I've been looking at "coasts" recently and see that Coasts of the United Kingdom is a sub of Geography of the United Kingdom (which is fine to me). However I also see that Beaches & Bays are in the Geography of the United Kingdom and I was wondering if they were not more properly sub categories of Coasts of the United Kingdom (indeed "Clifs" & "Headlands" too?)?

Any views or comments welcome - thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :o), you can recategorize it. Mircea 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked my opinion on this by Herby, and I note that I have sorted this the same way (Bays as subcat of coasts) in Category:Coasts of New Zealand. I'll adapt the country category scheme if nobody sees an issue. Ingolfson 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really is helpful thanks both & to Ingolfson - I'll use your schema on the UK - it looks very good to me. If I can help at all do let me know --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar subject - are you aware of this bot's possibilities? It is very useful for keeping an eye on specific categories & things being added so I just got this. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is a good idea! You can contact this bot and explain it to its(him). Mircea (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just does it anyway - you need to create your own page with categories that you want to watch (limit of 100). This is a better link but if you want help setting it up I'll try. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mircea (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - your page is here & I've started it with 3 of the categories you seem to be interested in. Obviously add other ones as you want & put it on your watch list. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lagoons in Australia is correct and Category:Lagoons of Australia isn't. Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it according to "Lakes of Australia". See "Category:Lagoons by country" and eventually correct all countries. This is problem of more landforms. IN or OF. Mircea (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most category's have started to be renamed from of to in and those above are due to be changed and there has been discussions. the term of is incorrect. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will not more rename to "of" Mircea (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do not put category Category:Mountains of Poland in categories you've made for peaks in Tatra Mts please. For example: Category:Kończysty Wierch, Category:Rakoň. Please put Category:Peaks in Poland instead. It will not break categorization scheme, because in Category:Mountains of Poland mountain ranges are located (mountains meaning) and peaks in Category:Peaks in Poland subcategory. Regards, --Michau Sm (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzięki za uporządkowanie kategorii Tatry. To była prawdziwa stajnia Augiasza. Zrobiłeś kawał solidnej roboty tworząc kategorie w języku angielskim, likwidując kategorie nadrzędne i tworząc kategorie szczegółowe. Ostatnio skrzyknęliśmy się z ToSterem i też tam trochę zrobiliśmy porządku. Jeszcze nie wszystko jest skończone, no i trzeba na bieżąco będzie kontrolować i poprawiać nowe zdjęcia. Przyjęliśmy taką zasadę: główne kategorie i podkategorie w języku angielskim, szczegółowe kategorie i strony (szczyty, doliny, potoki, i tak dalej) w językach narodowych - to co na Słowacji po słowacku, to co w Polsce po polsku, to co na granicy - to zależy kto pierwszy wstawi, więc przeważnie jest po polsku. Należy też tworzyć do stron redirecty w językach: polskim, słowackim, czeskim i angielskim. Pozdrawiam. Selso (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since a long time, I noticed that you do a great job here. If you want to do a lot of uncontested moves for naming harmonisation, such as the Wadi's, it might be less work for you and for us if you simply put your move requests in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands under the form {{Move cat|Old name|New name}}. For moves, if the new category is not created, the move creates it with a copy of the contents of the old one. The moves allows us equally to avoid redirects which I delete anyway because redirects to compensate for "xxx of/in/from yyy" errors confuse the users anyway and cause the creation of even more erreneous "xxx of/in/from yyy" errors. Please note that I generally refuse/revert redirects from not empty categories: this is the role of the move requests or CFD's. Keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mircea, thanks for all the work in categories for bodies of water. I reset you latest change for the Bay of Biscay from "Bay" back to "Gulf". Despite its english name, it is a gulf, not a bay. Even the english wikipedia states "The Bay of Biscay is a gulf of the North Atlantic Ocean". The other languages also state gulf: Golfo de Vizcaya, Golf de Gasconha, Golfe de Gascogne, Golf von Biskaya.... So please keep the gulf categories. Regards, --Telim tor (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I added categories Gulfs of Spain and Gulfs of France in categories Bays of Spain and Bays of France Mircea (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cataract Gorge.jpg doesn't have a waterfall in it. I know the technical name of what you're seeing but I just can't get my mind working ATM (Having a mental blank ATM but most likely come to my mind when I'm not trying to remember the name). If you look closely you can see it looks like a step (even with the water flowing) and is sort of like a miniature man-made weir (most likely used as a swimming hole in the Summer). I have seen them in creeks and streams before but they're not waterfalls. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should these also be moved? I own a bot that could do it. odder 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that yes. Mircea (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravím. Kategorie typu Category:Ponds in the Czech Republic by region má, myslím, smysl zakládat teprve ve chvíli, kdy budou rybníky souběžně kategorizovány i podle nějakého jiného kritéria (třeba podle typu, účelu, povodí atd.). Pokud se k ničemu takovému neschyluje a ani ty nic takového nechystáš, tak vytváříš jen zbytečný mezistupeň v kategorizaci. --ŠJů (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

schyluje se :o), resp se chystám, další možné podkategorie jsou ostrovy na rybnících, rybniční hráze, výpusti, ryby v rybnících, výlovy rybníků atd. jen jsem od někud potřeboval začít a každopádně je to běh na dlouhou trať. Mircea (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mircea, this in/of business is indeed a pain. The simple rule of thumb: natural things are of (plants of, rivers of), human made things are in (churches in, canals in). Of course, you have the mixed things. The waterfalls are wrong because someone managed to insert a rename of them. If in doubt, I check on the en:Wikipedia. But is remains troubles indeed. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Máš nějaké kritérium, co je ještě "stream" a co už "river"? Asi se to dá odvozovat z názvu (ženský rod obvykle znamená řeku, mužský rod je obvykle zkrácenina plného názvu potoka), ale mezní případy (např. Loděnice alias Kačický potok neboli Kačák) by asi bylo dobré ponechat zařazené v obou kategoriích. --ŠJů (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ano, nechť je Loděnice v obou, jinak jsem se pokusil začít diskusi zde (cs:Diskuse:Potok), ale zatím se nějak nezadařilo ji rozvinout. Mircea (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... in Category:Watersheds of Africa. Your work animated me to do some work with important Landmarks of White- and Blue Nile and some other smaller edits. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted, that at the top of the category system something is wrong. The categorization of Category:Drainage divides only with Category:Drainage and the categorization of Category:Basins only with Category:Rivers seems wrong. Maybe the categories are redundant? --Martin H. (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are problems, but solution isn't easy (drainage is "similar to"canalization or sewerage, watershed is drainage basin or drainage divide...), you can try it, but this will be great work. Mircea (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravím. Díky za systematickou péči o vodní kategorie. Tentokrát mám drobnou připomínku.

V kategorii Huťský vodopád jsem umázl dvě z tebou přidaných tří kategorií: kategorie povodí je nadbytečná, pokud vodopády jsou již zařazeny pod kategorii potoka, kategorie okresu je nadbytečná, je-li vodopád zařazen do kategorie obce (něco jiného by bylo, kdyby v rámci kategorie okresu existovala nějaká tématická podkategorie). Kategorii Category:Bodies of water in Liberec Region jsem zatím nechal, třebaže zatím je taky vlastně duplicitní (také pod ni spadá celý Huťský potok). Snaž se prosím při systematických zásazích do kategorizace dbát na to, ať tam netvoříš zbytečné duplicity v kategorizaci (overcategorization). --ŠJů (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

k té kategorii povodí, měl jsem na mysli že časem by mohla být kategorie Waterfalls of Elbe Basin a tak sem chtěl i vodopády řadit přimo do kategorie povodí, s tím okresem souhlas (některé okresy si časem třeba zaslouží kategorii Waterfalls in Nějaký District)Mircea (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myslím, že kategorie podle povodí by měla fungovat především v logice věci, t. j. vodní plochu zařadit do kategorie vodního toku, na kterém leží nebo který z ní vytéká, ten pak do toho, do kterého ústí atd. Nemá smysl to ještě navíc přemosťovat kategoriemi typu "potoky podle povodí", "rybníky podle povodí", "vodopády podle povodí" atd. Objekty, které jsou relativně bodové (t. j. rybníky, vodopády atd.) pak je vhodné kategorizovat jednak podle správního členění (objekty v kraji, případně v okrese), možná i podle geomorfologického členění (vodopády v Krkonoších, štěrková jezera v Polabské nížině atd.) a pak samozřejmě co nejpřesněji do místa podle katastrální příslušnosti. --ŠJů (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokud se ti do toho bude chtít, myslím že už by to chtělo kategorii Lakes of the Czech Republic by region. Dokud neexistují kategorie jezer podle krajů, tak je nutné každé jezero řadit jednak mezi Lakes of the Czech Republic a pak ještě do "Bodies of water in ... Region", rozdělením jezer podle krajů by se tohle zdvojení odbouralo. --ŠJů (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, ale kdyby to chtěl provést někdo jiný, taky se nebudu zlobit :o) Mircea (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Však ono jich není zase tolik, snad se toho časem někdo ujme. --ŠJů (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Sounds of Austria to Category:Sound from Austria (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of Austria;Sound from Austria;r;

Rename Category:Sounds of Cape Verde to Category:Sound from Cape Verde (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of Cape Verde;Sound from Cape Verde;r;

Rename Category:Sounds of France to Category:Sound from France (0 entries moved, 10 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of France;Sound from France;r;

Rename Category:Sounds of Germany to Category:Sound from Germany (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of Germany;Sound from Germany;r;

Rename Category:Sounds of Italy to Category:Sound from Italy (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of Italy;Sound from Italy;r;

Rename Category:Sounds of Japan to Category:Sound from Japan (0 entries moved, 21 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sounds of Japan;Sound from Japan;r;

Regarding your request to move category "Sounds of Japan" to "Sound from Japan" etc. on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands - This is not an uncontroversial move as in my eyes, you're going from plural to singular & that's against what the norm would be on Commons. Can you open a {{move}} request for that please? I don't think it'll get processed at all otherwise. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion is possible, but unification is necessary. I'm transfering to Category talk:Sound by country Mircea (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've commented there. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion notification

Category:Sounds by country, Category:Sound by country and some of their subcategories have 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, acccording to the English spelling rules, generic terms in a proper name should not be with a capital, so province with lower case is OK (In en:wikipedia, use of lower and upper case is a mess). In Iran, there is a mix of uppercase and lower case, so we can go either way. You decide, but I will oppose similar changes in other countries where the lower case is correctly and almost consistently used. --Foroa (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this is not unified, than categorization is more dificult :O( Mircea (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion notification

Category:Rivers by country by name 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Hello. Useless category, now you should create Category:Male chess players, but what for? (as what for Category:Female chess players?). pjahr @ 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this isn't useless category. This is expected subcategory of category Women by occupation Mircea (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not useless. Totally useless. Keep on working, pjahr @ 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Murghab River.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravím. Kategorie Geography of the Czech Republic by region a její (zatím tři) podkategorie mi připadají jako zbytečná komplikace. Kategorie krajů jsou už samy ze své povahy geografické, takže nevidím žádný podstatný přínos v tom, když objekty a místa v kraji budou do kategorie kraje vkládány prostřednictvím mezikategorie "Geography of ... region". Opravdu myslíš, že je v kategoriích krajů tolik negeografického obsahu, že je potřeba ten geografický takhle vyčleňovat? Ono prakticky každé téma vymezené územím kraje je geografické, i kdyby to byla třeba národopisná nebo dopravní geografie, takže tématické vymezení takové kategorie je nejasné. --ŠJů (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravím. Jestliže existují geografické kategorie podle měst (viz.: Category:Geography by city) nevidím důvod proč by nemohli existovat podle krajů, které mají větší rozlohu než města. Další možné srovnání jsou např. švýcarské kantony, které jsou vesměs menší než naše kraje: Category:Geography of Switzerland by canton. Mircea (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenže ve všech těchhle případech je to značně problematické použití. V těch švýcarských kantonech je to myšleno zhruba jako "přírodní geografie" (nejsou do toho řazeny dokonce ani města a vesnice), a ve většině těch ostatních případů (měst aj.) je to nahodilá sbírka témat, kterým by většinou bylo lépe přímo v nadřazené kategorii, ve které většinou zbývají témata, která jsou také nějak geografická (oni i třeba ti komunální politici a mapy výsledků voleb jsou předmětem politické geografie). Někde tam řadí jen geomorfologii a vodstvo, jinde zase i třeba ulice, někde mapy, ale copak geografie se nazabývá i budovami, sochami a čímkoliv jiným? Takže jde o zamyšlení, jestli vůbec tyhle podkategorie mají nějaký smysl a jestli v systému nedělají víc bordelu než užitku. --ŠJů (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Podle mě toto členění určitě má smysl. Pořád ještě zůstává spousta oblastí, které nepatří do kategorie Geografie a lze je třídit podle geografických celků. Stačí se podívat na kategorii kteréhokoli státu, kde lze nalézt spoustu podkategorií, které nelze zařadit do podkategorie geografie ... (sport, kultura, vzdělání, dokumenty, videa, atd. atd.). Mircea (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pokud rozumíš geografií jen přírodní geografii, tak od toho máme kategorie jako "Nature of Central Bohemian Region". Pokud tím myslíš mapy, tak máme "Maps of Central Bohemian Region". Ale pokud budeš vycházet z toho, že např. sportovní, sociální nebo kulturní geografie geografií není, zatímco sídelní nebo přírodní geografie je, tak bude hodně nahodilé, které další typy objektů tam vezmeš a které ne. Dokument týkající se kraje podle tebe geografický není, ale kategorie s fotakmi řeky protékající krajem geografická je? Kategorie s fotkami z kraje geografická je, ale kategorie s videosoubory z kraje geografická není? Já zatím pozoruji, že v tom logika není a jen to tříští dosavadní věcně uspořádanou kategorizaci. Kategorie se mají nazývat primárně podle svého tématu a nikoliv podle oboru, který se tím předmětem zabývá. Speciální lokální kategorie "geografie" by měla smysl snad jen pro fotky geografů, jejich náčiní nebo jejich pracoviště, ale pro objekty v krajině jsou geografické ze své podstaty už samy kategorie krajů. --ŠJů (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jde mi o to, aby to bylo pro všechny země stejné a ne aby ČR byla výjimkou. Nejlepším řešením by podle mě bylo to vyřešit přímo v nadkategorii, kde by se napsalo, co kam zařazovat. Nelíbí se mi když to bude u krajů/regionů v každé zemi jinak Mircea (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jako příklad jsem našel např. rozdělení mezi Nature a Geography Category:Nature of Bavaria a Category:Geography of Bavaria - což bych si obdobně představoval i pro české kraje. Mircea (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the Czech Republic by region 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

ŠJů (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial lakes 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you deleted many interwikis here. Apparently you leave only the links to Wikipedia with a category page about Carabobo. Please note that many other Wikipedias don't use the category pages that much. Therefore a link to the page with information such as [[ms:Carabobo]], [[nl:Carabobo]] or [[nn:Carabobo]] is useful because the user has a direct link to the page. I suggest you put them back. Regards, Wouter (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this page. IW for pages are up and IW for cats are left-down. OK? Mircea (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salto Angel 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salto Sapo 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Codornieces_Creek 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sound_from_the_United_States 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers_of_Turkey_(asian_part) 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North River 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red River (Mississippi) 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 104.243.168.128 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what is such non sense? Apart that the exonym is "Venice", not "Venezia", the province of Venice has not existed since 31 December 2014, when it was replaced by the Metropolitan area of Venice. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Mircea (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, ta deska není na budově observatoře, nýbrž na opěrné zdi pod observatoří (za plotem). --Gampe (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ok Mircea (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aisen Region 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schemas 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydronymy by black 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naryn 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milí fotografové a editoři projektů Wikimedia,

každý rok společně nahrajete na Commons tisíce svobodných fotografií. Chceme vám všem poděkovat a také vás ocenit. Vyberte ty nejlepší z vašich fotek a přihlaste je do 30. 10. 2020 do soutěže Czech Wiki Photo 2020! Soutěž je otevřená i úplným nováčkům. Autoři tří nejlepších fotek si odnesou vouchery do Foto Škoda a speciální wiki-odznaky. Přihlášené fotky bude hodnotit i Honza Rybář, držitel Czech Press Photo.

Baví vás focení pro Commons i mimo soutěže? Staňte se fotografem Wikimedie, půjčujeme fototechniku a proplácíme cesty - více na Fotíme Česko.

Těšíme se na vaše snímky!
Za spolek Wikimedia Česká republika
Jakub Holzer
jakub.holzer@wikimedia.cz -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces of Tajikistan 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill River 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]