User talk:Flamarande~commonswiki

Welcome to the Commons, Flamarande~commonswiki!

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

Are you an administrator? No, I'm not. I only sometimes take part in the Commons community: wellcome new users and especially I tag incompleate files (missing license / possible violation of copyright ) and inform the uploader. As any unsourced and untagged images will (has to) be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Most people do not think to tag the pictures with a copyright tag and a lot of this images are very good !!! gildemax 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dennis - Category:Naval ships of Japan

Why did you empty this cat and moved content to ships of japan ? This cat is intended to be use for japanese military ships. And please do not redirect categories because that's not working. --Denniss 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Great work on categorizing battles! A question, though: what's your opinion on trying to match the en: category structure? Should we create a Category:Battles by country to go along with Category:Battles by type? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mistake

Heh, no problem ;-) I just set up the main Category:Battles to (hopefully) provide an alphabetical index into all of the sub-categories. On en: we would probably use something like List of battles instead, but there probably aren't enough interested people on Commons to maintain that. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Makthorpe - Japanese Imperial Navy - Image:Hiryu f075712.jpg

This is an image of this carrier under high level bombing attack by b-17's. There is a feature that is - "this ship is under attack". Now, if that is not naval actions, then fine- suggest some other cat. But I think it is wrong to omit the distinction. You seem to be on a category campaign, and fine with me, but just don't toss stuff that is meaningful.

Also - you on this image you added aircraft carriers, but that is redundant, because it is part of category Hiryu, which you may not have noticed because it was included from the Info template. -Mak 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in answering (I am human, and I fear that I need some sleep). The problem was that my brother turned of the main computer which is in his room or I would allready done it and you wouldn´t see my half-finished work. Well, I was trying to organize the diffrent pictures of the "Japanese Imperial Navy" under the "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy" and then place all the images of the Japanese aircraft carriers under the "Sub-category: Japanese Aircraft carriers". In the near future I plan to give every single "Japanese aircraft carrier" its own category, in which the proper articles and images can be listed and to use the allready exising ones. I plan to put the allready created articles inside of the proper categories. For example, a article about the "Japanese Imperial Navy" will be easily found in "Category:Japanese Imperial Navy". An article about the Yamato will be easily found in Category:Yamato which in turm be a subcategrory of Category:Japanese Destroyers wich in turn will be a Sub of "Japanase Imperial Navy" which will be a Sub of "Ships of Japan". A single class or ship of the Imperial Japanese Aircraft Carriers can alltoo easily be placed inside of this schema. Its looks complicated, but it is really easy to use.

As for the "category Hiryu" you are right, I had not noticed it. I allready put alot of images under "Japanese Imperial Navy" and I am going to start to sort them out under the allready existing categories. All images of Hiryu are going to be placed under the category Hiryu as well as any article about that ship.

To be honest, I think that a category called "naval actions" is bit too vague, but if you think it is worthy enough I won´t object to it. What I am afraid of is that almost any image, of any ship, of any military conflict engaged in a military action can and propably will be listed under this category.

I am still new here, I operate mainly in the english wiki and used to go from time to time "here" to see if there were any good images. Three days ago, I noticed the enormous mess in Category:Romans and just decided to improve it. I even made the Category:Roman navy. Please take a look at both of them. I was amazed how easy it was done, so I simply decided to continue. I don´t want to step on any toes, and I am sorry if I did. Flamarande 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly I don't care much about Category reorganizations. What I do care about is lost information about an image. If you call it a naval action or something more specific like "high level aircraft attack of ship", I don't care.

Please note the implications of Catscan on category design. Even if you have a general classification like naval actions and there are 2K images in it, it doesn't really matter. You search for category battleship intersected with naval actions and bingo- you have all the battleship involved naval actions. Note that if you make the category really really deep though, the novice may not find it. EG. Iowa class battleships in WWII (ISA) USN battleship in WWII ISA USN battleship ISA battleship. Now, the image is buried under 4 layers of categories, and the default 3 layers of catsan won't find the image. Sure the expert user will change the value to 4 or 5, but how does the user know that is a problem? They will get some hits and will probably assume that is all the hits. Whatever- if it is a strict tree then it is a problem. If it is a graph, and it is permitted to have iowa class be a direct child of battleship then the user doesn't run into the such problems with catscan and corresponding user problems navigating such a thicket of branches.

IMHO- we shouldn't create a deep structure unless the cats are getting so populated that we are forced to. Note also that these cats you are created can be created virtually. But really - no need to make an argument. I don't really care that much. The cat structure is very malleable and will be subject to many many many revisions in the future.

Regarding your comment on giving every single carrier its own category. This is very interesting and I think a contribution that will not blow away like dust in the wind like upper level cat changes inevitably will. There is one Hiryu- There is no controversy about that. If a picture has Hiryu in it, it is really hard to argue that the image should not have the Hiryu tag.

Note there is a bunch of information on these lowest level categories (I call them identity categories for want of a better term) that is associated with them. For example, there are corresponding articles in wikis for many different languages. If you go to category Category:Hiryu you will see an Info-Hiryu object on the page. Click on the edit button. If you change the values in these fields, they will be changed on all pages that carry the {{More|Info-Hiryu}} wiki text. These also insert the Identity category, so instead of tagging an image [[Category:Hiryu]], inserting {{More|Info-Hiryu}} gives you the translations, the interwikis, the IDcat, and the See Also links.

Don't use early versions of more (EG Endnote and Include_notes are obsolete). If you want to experiment, use More. I think there should be a VP discussion on it before widespread use is promoted. I welcome your use of it, so long as you have the understanding that I am not going to upgrade any of the articles you make that use it. We need it to have the best design. I don't think its design should be constrained by having to be backwards compatible with a bunch of commons pages. It's just premature. Okey dokey?

Further information in Template talk:More, I have not docced all the parms (you can switch of things like passing Text=n or Links=n). Please don't change the template code- it is exceptionally subtle, and even a carriage return can create wickedly odd results. -Mak 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Request you restore the info templates

If you now see the value of these, could you please undo the damage.

If you do not see the value, let's discuss what it is that you feel is superior to the info template way of doing these features. -Mak 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

deleting battle of midway

you are deleting the category battle of midway from images that are of events from battle of midway.

Really, I suggest you take more care considering your changes. - Mak 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent spate of changes to Ships.

Copied from User talk:Makthorpe Let's keep the exchange in one place. I propose here. Ok?

Really, I think you should pause to consider what it is you are deleting before you delete it. - Mak 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand (my english is not that good). The multilingual translations are allready there, I copied them quite easily frome the english wiki. Repeating the interwiki links is simply neccessary.

Let me give an example: We have the "Kaga" which is a an "Aircraft Carrier", specificially an "Japanese aircraft carrier" and is part of the "Japanese Imperial Navy", a part of the "Japanese Military" which belongs (or belonged) to "Japan". The ship participated in the "Attack of Pearl Harbour" and was destroyed in the battle of "Midway".

Those seem fine to me. I don't have any problem with your supercats. I like lots of supercats because it aids navigation via clicks and via catscan. -Mak 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Inside of the "Category:Kaga" and inside of the article "Kaga" I will copy these categories (quite easily) so that any user can jump from wherever he is, to any place he wants to go, quite easily. Of course, I won´t link Kaga to "Japanese food" or to to "Russian aircraft carriers" or something like that.

Fine with me. I don't really care one way or the other. -Mak 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have deleted these things if you think there are usefull, but try it out: go to any "ship of Japan" and the use the diffrent categories. Flamarande 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about different categories you are adding and deleting related to the structure of how ships are organized. I DO care when you delete a category that is not provided for with some synonym. Eg: battle of midway deleted from image remarked on above. If the Soryu was under B-17 attack during the battle of Midway then by golly the image should have that tag. -Mak

I will corect the deletions of the links of the images from the battles of Pearl Harbour and Midway. Ops, never said that I am perfect. Flamarande 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the templates you deleted or explain why what you have done has replaced what they do. Take a look at my version. Your version removes a myriad of capability.

You remarked on User talk:Denniss that you were surprized how easy it was to "clean up" these categories. Well, your actions have resulted in about as much degradation of information as improvement. Maybe you aren't perfect, but you have deleted more than one image from Battle of Midway. That's not just an error here or there. It is a pattern.

So please restore the damage you have done. (removal of the info templates, and removal of Battle of Midway from relevant images. -Mak 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(copied from Makthorpe talk page)

I think you allready corected everything before I could do it myself. But I don´t know, I can´t see any advantage of using this "interwiki template" instead of the categories. To be honest, I think that the categories are simply easier to use. I mean, just look at the category Japanese Imperial navy. really go there, try the diffrent subcategories of shipclasses, they link tho all the relevant categories, which themselves have any existing articles quite efficiently. This interwiki for example does not link to the ships class (aircraft carrier). I can´t see any advantage. Flamarande 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(end copy from Makthorpe talk page)

No I am not anyone's custodian. Please clean up after yourself. Please correct your damage - eg. removing images formerly tagged as battle of midway. You will find these errors by reviewing the history of the articles you have changed.

First terminology. Interwikis are the en:, de: links on the sidebar. The ones in blue in the cell are just links- they can go anywhere. Besides, it is not an interwiki template. Compare your version to mine. Where are the translations on yours. Where is the ability to link to external sites on yours. Where is a centralized location for storing interwikis that can be transcluded on images as well as categories. Say France adds a wiki article on the subject. Into template, you update in one place and everyone has the update. Your way? you have to visit every single page that has interwikis and change them. Very labor intensive. So on what basis do you think it is better to delete the Info templates? -Mak 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I allready replaced inside every image (that I could find) from the battle of Midway the correct Category:Battle of Midway they are more or less 17, I think. I hope that no image is missing. Ops, I thought the interwikis were the strange blue boxes. Ahh, now I see: you are mad because of interlanguage links (the links that link to other wikis in other languages) Well I wasn´t finished with those, and I certainly plan to copy them from the english wiki. Man, you are too quick, let me do it first. The work is not finished yet. Look at the categories and articles of the diffrent japanese aircraft carriers, they show the final version. I was beginning to do it with their battles. Flamarande 22:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the category:Attack of Pearl harbour and its article, I have conected them with the other wikis.

I am not angry. And I looked at Pearl harbor. I like your energy but really I think you need to stop and study this problem. Now, let's assume we do things your way. What do you propose to do? Copy all the translations for Pearl Harbor to each and every image that was involved in the pearl harbor attack? Really, this is a hugely labor intensive way of doing what you propose. And I keep asking but you keep refusing to answer- how is it that you are going to put all the See Also's in one place? My method does that. It also allows those see alsos not just on the category page, but on ALL the images pages on which it is used. So again, what do you propose, that you copy paste these links on every single image? And how do you propose to update them? Another round of updates everytime someone gets a wild hair to change the categories because it is so easy? -Mak 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I never planned to update every single image, thats why categories and articles are there for. I never planned to link all the images with all the interlanguages wiki. Man, that would be a vast overkill. I was planning to organize the images and the articles under the proper categories. But only the categories and the articles themselves deserve the "interlanguage interwikis" = links to other wikis. Jesus, if I did that with every single image, I would go completly nuts (more than I allready am).

Let me give you an example: Someone finds an image. This image is the ship "A" which fought in the battles "1" and "2" and is part of navy "Y" of country "X". Ship "A" is shipclass "77". Someone clicks upon it, and easily adds category "A" (for the ship), "1" and "2" (for the battles), and nothing else!! Nobody should add "Y", "X", or "77" inside every image. Category "A" would do that itself (besides linking to the other wikis) because category "A" links to "Y" "X" and "77". You really are tagging every single image with all that info? Flamarande 23:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you didn't plan to. But I have a way of achieving just that. You have to touch the image to add a category, yes? So you have to touch it once. If you add Category:B-17 Flying Fortress to say Image:NARA 28-1277a.gif. While you are at it, you can indicate that the cateogry Pearl harbor attack also applies. Bingo. You now have translations for both those concepts on the image page. You want to google even in japanese for both bomber and pearl harbor and you will get a hit on this image. Sound nuts? Think about it. You also get the see also's here. You also might be interested in the VP discussion concerning google. -Mak 00:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trying to automate conversion of categories is that only a human can understand secondary features. Such as- OK, it is a picture of B-17, but it was also a burned on the ground as part of the Pearl Harbor attack. So you can't just plow through all the B-17 pictures and delete all the ones there replacing them with your own. You must consider them one by one. Tough break, I know. -Mak 08:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I note your continued activities this morning changing categories rather than cleaning up errors pointed out on battle of Midway. You have preferred not to correct the errors you made in your haste to change categories. I have pointed out to you that you deleted some pictures from the category battle of Midway. I suspect there are more such errors, but I am not going to follow you around looking at every edit you make.

My job is not to be your personal clean up crew. If you prefer not to take care with your changes, I can simply revert them all until a day you have more time to be careful.

If this is not your preference, then please review the changes you made in ships and correct your errors. - Mak 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard. I see the particular errors mentioned have been fixed. Thanks. -Mak 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ship cat structure naming conventions

You may or may not have investigated the general rationalizations of the naming conventions that is being attempted in regards to Naval ships. Discussion may be found here Category talk:Ships. Please come give your 2 cents if you'd like.

I have begun some work on this. The convention is Foo of Bar country eg. Naval vessels of Japan. Yamato would be cat:Battleship of Japan, and also under cat:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Just to let you know some of the former cats eg Japanese destroyers will be renamed if there are no huge objections.

-Mak 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Category:Maps of Roman Gaul

Hi Flamarande – thanks for your message and concern:

... There aren´t that many maps and images of Roman Gaul to warrant "Category:Maps of Roman Gaul" and "Category:Locator maps of Roman Gaul" (at least in my opinion) ...

I guess that's where our opinions differ. My view is that Category:Maps of Roman Gaul currently has five members, to which I can imagine more being added (e.g. more or less contemporary renditions of the area). I'd also say these maps were a distinct group previously within Category:Roman Gaul, i.e. a subcategory. Meanwhile, Category:Roman Gaul province locator maps is one of those "locator maps" categories, i.e. a category type that has an established "pedigree"; otherwise, yes, I'd've left them as members of Category:Maps of Roman Gaul. Hope all that makes sufficient sense.
Thanks again, David Kernow 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete reorganization of "Category:Maps", beginning with "Category:Old maps"

Hi again Flamarande,

I wrote down my vision how maps (countries, provinces, old maps) should be organized...

(from Village pump:) "Historical maps" is simply an too ambigous description, whereas "Old maps of..." is simply easier too understand, but we have to add the proper text you propposed.

Nobody has made any objection to using "Old maps", so let's go ahead!

(Village pump:) First we have to turn the article Maps into a redirect to "Category:Maps"...

Maybe – or make Maps a showcase of the great variety of map types to be found in Category:Maps?  But I think this decision can wait.

(Village pump:) There is simply NO need to have a sub called "Maps by continent"...

Maybe not, but I'm not sure yet. I guess "Maps by continent" is one way (the main way) to categorize maps, but there are others, such as the "Maps by theme", "Maps by source", "Maps by language", etc that already exist. Again, I think a decision on this doesn't need to be made now.

(Village pump:) Inside of "Maps of Europe" we should have all maps and images which show Europe along diffrent views (geographical, linguistical, religious, etc). "Maps of Europe" would also have subs...

Agreed.

(Village pump:) Only IF needed (if there are simply too many maps) should we create more categories like "Maps of European Languages" and "Maps of European Religions"...

Maybe; but imagine that you're someone interested in language or religion (or another theme) looking for a map – why not have some "Maps by theme" as well as "by geography"...?  (I am trying to play "devil's advocate"!). First, though, I agree that sorting out a basic but comprehensive geographical categorization is the priority. I just don't want to exclude future possibilities.

(Village pump:) We need the following categories: "Maps of Spain", "Maps of Portugal", "Maps of Andorra", and "Maps of Gilbraltar". Then we need subcategories: "Maps of Pre-Roman Hispania", "Maps of Roman Hispania", and "Maps of Muslim Iberia"...

...Which suggests to me a "Maps by historical era" might be the theme to sort out once the geography categorization in place...?

(Village pump:) Maps which are (more or less) over 100 years old of these areas should be organized under "Old maps of Spain", "Old maps of Portugal", etc. A old map of Roman Hispania should be under "Old maps of Portugal" and "Old maps of Spain" and certainly also be in "Old maps of the Roman Empire" and NO-WHERE else. There is no need to create another sub...

Not until the geography categorization is sorted (and yes, maybe not at all). I think using "Old maps of..." should really help.

(Village pump:) only if there plenty of maps of Aragon should we create "Maps of Aragon" which should be a sub of "Maps of Spain". Only if we have plenty of images of the Spanish Empire should we create such a sub ("Maps of the Spanish Empire") which should be a sub under "Maps of Spain"...

Agreed.

Notice that the exagerated tecnicality of "Historical maps of X" makes it as useless as "Locator maps of X" (keep it simple)...

Right now, I'm wary about removing the "Locator maps" categories as I think they might be linked to Wikipedia somehow. Also, these "locator maps" do seem to serve a very specific purpose, i.e. fall into a category. Can we postpone action on these for now, please?

We need to kick out all the articles from the european countries from Category:Maps of Europe.

Agreed. I hadn't spotted these before!

I have sorted all the european countries into Category:Satellite pictures of Europe that I could find.

Great work!  Maybe Orgullobot or another bot may be able to help us.

I am really interrested in cooperating with you in a complete reorganization of "Category:Maps".

I really sense your enthusiasm and look forward to the work!

Best wishes, David Kernow 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let´s always keep in touch, and coordinate. Ok?

Will try to. There may be some times when I might not respond for one or two days.

I left the category name for "modern maps showing old [things]" unfilled in the Category:Old maps explanation; assuming you like the explanation, what do you think that missing name should be?  Category:Modern maps showing history..?  (Not sure about that suggestion...)

...let´s deal with that problem after we have sorted the main mess.

Okay. I've left Category:Modern maps showing history there for the time being as a reminder. David 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,
Those yellow maps of Japan in Category:Old maps of Japan are modern "locator" maps; I could start moving them into their own category...?  I'm guessing the provinces they highlight are old, no longer in existence...?  David 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

...I have to stop now. I'm impressed by your speed of work – I hope I can keep up!  When I return, I'll continue adding/updating the explanations, unless you think something else needs doing first. Thanks, David 01:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am finished with Category:Old maps of Japan. I put all the wrong maps in the cat "prefectures of Japan". If someone disagrees with what I have done, I will propose to create another cat called "Maps of former provinces of Japan" or "Maps of former prefectures of Japan" or somehting like that. As I don´t know what is a old province/prefecture or not someone with the required knowledge will have to do it.

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm just taking a break from sorting out Category:American Civil War maps; back in a while. Yours, David 14:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New place for our messages

Hi Flamarande,
Please watch, link and leave messages re the maps reorganisation at User talk:David Kernow/Maps reorganisation, where I've just moved the thread from User talk:David Kernow and answered your latest message. Thanks!  David Kernow 11:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flamarande,

Dave and I have been interacting on this Maps reorganization from about the time you seem to have lost interest or stopped taking action... call it a month now. I'd posted some comments to the above page, and Dave and I were waiting for some repsonse from you.

In the iterim, I'd started an interwiki cross-linking and normalization of the categories you developed here using templates. Those are debugged with a consensus they need better names. The trial interwiki system has survived challanges on en.wp formal Tfd and Cfd (politics!) and is under discussion here. (See my talk)

Dave has asked me to make this into an official WikiProject, so there is much happening indirectly, albeit not in image moves yet. I've emailed several folks and CC'd the email The Usual Place for you to look over. Hope you'll continue lending your expertise and wisdom to the nascent wikiproject. I can be emailed directly or indirectly via wiki facilities, but prefer to edit WYSIWIG and suggest the immediate discussions be taken to email where we can all copyall our answers.

Hope to hear from you soon. I should have tried direct contact sooner, but have four other projects I juggle plus took a wikibreak. Best regards // FrankB 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Flamarande,
Hope you're not overwhelmed with work. Just to let you know I've made one major change recently, which I hope you approve: I moved the contents of Category:Maps by continent (Category:Maps of Africa, Category:Maps of the Americas, etc) into Category:Maps and Category:Maps by continent is now listed for speedy-deletion. There's also a few thoughts on our Maps reorganisation page. Hope you are well.
Best wishes, David Kernow 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with maps

Hello Flamarande! If you have problems, as do I, with Image:Worldmapeurope.jpg‎, you should also check Image:Worldmapasia.jpg (and Image:WhitePopulation.png, Image:EuropeanPopulationDiaspora.png)... Unfortunately it is not easy to delete a file in the Commons, except for license and maintenance reasons, since POV and factual accuracy do not aply (I have tagged them all as having "The factual accuracy of this description is disputed."). I really do not known what more can be done... The Ogre (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Flamarande. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Flamarande~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Old_maps

Old maps 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!

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)