User talk:LlywelynII

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, LlywelynII!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). 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 graphic 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 without embedding the image, type: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, which produces: `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?)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

⧼Wikibase-terms/LlywelynII⧽: العربية, български, Deutsch, English, ‎français, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎മലയാളം, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska, اردو, 中文

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. 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 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

English length units graph[edit]

You recently added annotation to this diagram questioning its accuracy for poppyseed, line, Roman mile and nautic mile. The former three have been taken from the then current version of en:English unit. The term “nautic” was a compromise due to space constraints, if I remember correctly. — Christoph Päper 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably mean en:English units but regardless you either misread your source or they were faulty. That whole image should probably just be scrapped in favor of one of the accurate versions. — LlywelynII 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filemover[edit]

Hello LlywelynII,

You are now Filemover. Please read carefully Commons:File renaming before using the tool. -- Geagea (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fun. Thanks. — LlywelynII 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-parent categories[edit]

Hello LlywelynII,

You have added the book category to authors category (Category:Harry Fenn, Category:Charles William Wilson). It makes problem of self-parent categories. -- Geagea (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't make any sense and neither of those people are authors.

If you're trying to say that I added the artist and editor to the Category:Picturesque Palestine... and that I added the work to the Category:Harry Fenn and CWW... Yes, I did. And that's not a problem: they should interlink. Do not remove the categories, pending a specific link to a specific policy supporting your desire to remove helpful information from these pages. — LlywelynII 02:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct way is to add the name of the author/artist/etc. to the book category. You can not add the book name to the author/artist/etc. One is parent category and the other is child category. -- Geagea (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could already grok that that's like your opinion, man. If you actually want people to take it as anything else, kindly point to the actual policy to that effect. I can add the book category to the editor and artist's pages and should, as it's more helpful to have them interlinked, regardless of how that affects your personal theories of category incestuousness. If there's actual policy otherwise, kindly link to it. — LlywelynII 05:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Commons:Categories#Principles: Hierarchic principle: ... There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly).. And it is not much helpful as Category:Harry Fenn already contain the list of the books inside the category. There is no need to categorized with the same categories. -- Geagea (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I can disagree but, yup, that's policy. Fixed and thanks for your patience and civility. — LlywelynII 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Orthographic T&O.png[edit]

Not entirely sure what the point of your annotations to that image is. The lengthwise axes of the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea are not at a 90° angle to each other, so in any attempt to approximate a geographically accurate view of the earth to T&O format, something's got to give... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Red Sea gives, not the Mediterranean, as shown by the numerous medieval T and O maps that already had the Red Sea at an angle but never deviate as to the proper orientation of the Mediterranean. — LlywelynII 00:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographically-detailed maps did so, but abstract diagrams did not, and it's the abstract diagrams which have an actual "T". The term "T and O" map would appear to be a slight misnomer when applied to circular northern-hemisphere mappamundi with East at top which don't actually have a real "T" structure. So I don't really see the purpose of your image annotations... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on your observation, you don't see the point of that file at all. My comments are for those editors who do. You're welcome to browse elsewhere or pay them no mind. — LlywelynII 13:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ptolemaic Italy[edit]

Hi LlywelynII. In the category "Ptolemaic Italy" I removed the most part of the categories. They were absolutely wrong. When you give a category 1 to a category 2, you put the category 1 into the category 2. In our case you have given to this category "... Italy" the categories of Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Corsica, so Italy was inside these islands. And this is not correct. Rather is correct the opposite. The categories that you gave, must be given to the single files of maps. I have done it. So please pay attention next time. If you have done similar mistakes in other categories, please correct them. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's a lot of work for me to correct just because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Ptolemaic Italy did not include those islands but they should be linked for the ease of our users. If you are planning similar uninformed reversion of other better-informed editors' work, talk to them first so that you can avoid a lot of wasted time for everyone involved. Please pay attention next time. Or just leave. Right now I couldn't care less. — LlywelynII 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metrication[edit]

I have updated this map, if you don't agree with my edit, please write me before reverting it.

--Carnby (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Waldseemueller Map.jpg[edit]

File:Waldseemueller Map.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
To perform file name swaps.
When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaifeng[edit]

Hey @LlywelynII: ! Happy New Year! I want to say that the edit here: [1] in which Kaifeng is said to be from pinyin seems like a mistake to me because there are citations on the Kaifeng entry that show that the word 'Kaifeng' existed in 1938/9-- before pinyin existed (1956/8). (I don't know if you got my other message about this.) I am currently taking a year off from Wiktionary. I just wanted to try to make sure you're aware of that information. You're one of the few out there interested in these words, so I wanted to share this with you. I plan not to respond to anything you might say for at least a month. I know opinions can differ. Otherwise, keep up your good work! Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Map) Categories[edit]

Hi, please understand the category tree (Commons:Category): A map of the whole world, regardless of when it was made, is obviously expected to have Japan, Russia and possibly Tibet and Pennsylvania on it. We have millions of maps, and categories are supposed to organize them (like to like). Sorting all maps according to all objects that are shown on them into the categories of each and every object labelled (like it was done here) clutters all the categories that are concerned. When I open a map of "19th-century maps of France", I expect maps that are explicitly focused on France or a part of it - not world/continental maps that happen to have France as a small labelled area in Europe. A "Map of Xi'an" should be a map that actually shows Xi'an in more detail than just as a dot, preferably a city plan or a plan of the Xi'an province. If you really must point out all regions indicated, you might tag them in the description, instead of the categories.

Also, if you must use categories per year/decade/century, please choose the most specific existing category. "19th-century maps of France" obviously includes "1875 maps of France" - so if you have a 1875 map of France, it doesn't need the century-category. On the other hand, maps should please not sit alone in a category, in order to allow better browsing: When there is only one genuine "1543 maps of Birmingham", it belongs into "Old maps of Birmingham|1543" and "1540s maps of England|1543" (the "|1543" is a sorting key, sadly underused in most cases). Compare Category:Old maps of Montreal (strictly organized, but very hard to browse) and Category:Old maps of Genoa (unorganized, but easy to browse for the ones you want). Once there are many dozen maps in an "old" category, and you notice that many are from one specific century/decade/year, or many from one single mapmaker, you can go the way of Category:Old maps of London.

I hope this small guide might help everyone. On the example world map I linked above: You went all the way to categorize by prime meridian, map projection, map author and other specifics: that was really great! --Enyavar (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Enyavar: The point about Xi'an and the city maps was completely fair since it can more properly be handled by the Wikidata stuff now (which I was in the process of doing).

Most of the rest isn't, particularly about maps being completely lost if isolated only in the most exact subcategories, although obviously if I'm going to spend most of the day making sure that things like phantom islands, Nuytsland, Negroland, and Carpentia are marked and in the right categories so people can have examples and you're just going to come along and completely blank everything out of some misguided sense of neatness or assumption everyone will do this for every map if it happens here, you and the project can obviously go **** yourselves and just label all your own maps to the level of inspecificity you personally feel comfortable with.

Restore all this you obnoxious pill. — LlywelynII 20:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't call other people names. Here is an example of what I mean with including some tags in the description so that the map can be found in a keyword search. But "sorting" a map into 200+ categories just makes no sense at all. You did a lot of work there, but I'm afraid that Nigritia, just for example, can be found in basically any other random world map of the 1600s-1800s, for example here, or here, and I really chose these maps randomly. Category:Negroland should contain maps where Nigritia is not just a tiny label on a world map, but where there is actually a map of Western Africa showing a few details. And the same goes for "1590s maps of Spain" etc. --Enyavar (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you have now stopped to over-categorize maps. However, my point remains that maps should be categorized for the primary feature depicted, not for minor details, even if it is exciting to find quirks like a mention of Atlantis or the Saxemberg Island. The "World map without Antarctica", "Connecting Tasmania and Australia" or "Island of California" is okay because those are prominent and recognizable features. But a mere label does not merit a category. THIS is clearly a map of South America, not of a phantom island. THIS is a map of the Isle de Saxembourg (I cropped it for you: if you'd like to do so yourself, please check out the very helpful Crop-Tool). In the hope to have helped you, with always my best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]