User talk:Kevyn

Recategorization of Church pages

Hi Kevyn

I see you have made a re-categorization work on the chuch pages. All was not written in the same manners, so I think it is good.

Thank you. The lack of organization in the collection was bothering me as I was uploading photos.

However, I am not content with the fact that there are "Category:Churches" at the same time as "Church" with partly the same content.

Category:Churches vs. Church. One is a category, the other is a static article page. Wikimedia Commons is operating under a system of two layers, which are not always complimentary. One layer is the static article system, and another layer is the category system. There seems to be no consensus among Wikimedia Commons users which system should be used. Some prefer static articles (like Church), and others prefer categories (like Category:Churches). This disagreement cane be seen at Commons:Images_on_normal_pages_or_categories:Vote. One cannot search for text in categories, while one can also not organize static article pages well.

I am remaining neutral on the subject, and working in both.

As I see it "Church" could be used as a thing related to "Mosque", "Cathedral", "Basilica" etc, as different form of worship buildings.

Church in English is almost always specific to Christianity. (Cathedral and Basillica are types of churches, and should be treated as sub-categories.) Mosque is specific to Islam, and should be treated separately from Church. All of the above (plus synagogues, temples, etc.), are types of religious buildings.

But all church buildings ought in my opinion to be best categorized under "Category:Churches" (and sub-cats).

I agree, as long as we do not categorize mosques, temples, etc. under churches.

The categorizing of the Pantéon in Guadalajara might be good as there was no separate page, yet. Will take the cat away, when making a page.

I do not think it is necessary to take away the category on the image, but it is optional, as long as the page the picture is on has the category.

(English is not my mother thounge, so I can not either see if it is difference in expression between "Swedish churches" and "Churches of Sweden" (or "Churches in Sweden"?)

This is an issue of simplified English for non-English speakers. English seems to be the de facto language used for titles. I believe that naming the article and/or category "Swedish Churches" is a bad idea, because it is an adjective-noun construction. In English, adjectives change spelling somewhat (Sweden becomes Swedish), and this can be very confusing for non-English speakers, especially with the more difficult spellings and the non-logical rules of English. I believe that a non-English speaker is more likely to recognize an English noun than to recognize an English adjective derived from a noun.

That is why I prefer the construction noun-preposition-noun, because the prepositional noun does not have its spelling changed. (An example would be "Churches of Sweden" or "Churches in Sweden".)

When I started working on the recategorization, some pages were named "of" and some were named "in". I chose "of" to be the one used consistently throughout for the following reasons:

I choose to use the "of" construction instead of the "in" construction because it is more general, and it is more scholarly. In English, "in" almost always indicates location. "Of" may mean the same thing as "in", but it also may mean "from" or "in the style of". So "Churches in Sweden" can only mean a church located in Sweden, but "Churches of Sweden" may also mean a church built in the style of Sweden, or it may be a church that was built in Sweden, but moved. (Or, in other parts of the world, where the border has moved, while the people have not. For Sweden, as a self-contained country with fixed borders, this is not a good example, but for some other parts of the world, it may be, and I wished to have consistency.)

Also, for non-tangible higher concepts, such as "Language" or "Philosophy" or "Economics", "of" is what is usually used in English - "Language of Sweden", "Philosophy of Sweden" or "Economics of Sweden." I use "of" to be consistent with that.

Also, anything portable from the country of origin should use the construction "of" - "Art" can be taken out, "People" can leave, "Cuisine" can be prepared elsewhere. The construction "Art of Sweden," "People of Sweden," "Cuisine of Sweden" are all connected to Sweden, but do not necessarily indicate that they are "in" Sweden (Although it is possible that they are).

So, that's why I use "of" for the churches: It is consistent with other category names, and still means the same as "in".

It might be clearer in the future perhaps, good to see someone working with it, I felt a bit lonely for some time.

I am glad to be here. I have been on Wikipedia for a year, but have only started working with Wikimedia Commons.

(The change by Grenavitar in Swedish churches perhaps I did not understand.) Xauxa 23:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Kevyn 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin

Thanks for your explanation, as the forming of "Churches of Sweden" is consistent to the other categories I can accept that as an appropriate way to do it. (You named Sweden as not being a good example, but in fact I found one good example also here: "The Swedish Sea-Men Church" (do not recall the official name) have churches around the world, it is a Swedish church and it is placed in several foreign countries).

When talking about mosque and churche, I was of course talking of different types of worship building, as sub-cats.

I have not decided which form I like best, but for the moment I have a slight preference for static pages, as you can see a picture in many ways and can not put every possible category in the image file. Thanks for taking your time. Xauxa 06:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands

Thanks.... The country has the definite article and I did it the wrong way :[ thanks for fixing. Grenavitar 02:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, before you thank me, better check out en:Talk:Netherlands. I didn't before I moved it all, and now I regret it - it seems that the editors on Wikipedia have come to the conclusion that it should be filed as "Netherlands" instead of "The Netherlands" Gaaaah! Wish I had checked out how Wikipeia was handling the country's name before proceeding with the move. I'll leave it as is for now, until somebody complains (which no doubt they will). C'est la vie. Kevyn 02:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Texas AG photos -- PD?

Where did you find that the Texas photos were released to the public domain? I poked around on the AG's website but I didn't find anything that seemed relevant. Deh 21:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm presuming them to be PD, because they are created by a governmental agency, and they are issued as part of a press release. If this were a U.S. federal agency, there'd be no question, but since it's state, I guess I'll double check. I've just sent an email to the Texas AG office to be sure. Thanks for pointing that out. Kevyn 06:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I have confirmation. All images on teh Texas AG web site are PD. I have copied the email from the Press Secretery to the discussion pages of the images in question, for future reference. Kevyn 05:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Great! (I wonder if they figure the lack of a Copyright statement was sufficient--that would be funny, for an AG's office.) Thanks for checking on this. Deh 19:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bandeiras animated

I've answered in Template talk:Português. e2m

InterWiki links

hi kevyn. you missnderstood me! I didn't say, InterWiki links aren't necessary and I never removed them out of articles! as all the others, I'm supporting interwikilanguage links, cause they really helps users. what I find isn't necessary are interwikilanguage links in categories to (not corresponding) articles Schaengel89 @me 14:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I did not misunderstand you. You deleted InterWiki links from a category which were pointing to corresponding articles. I disagree with that. Kevyn 02:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People of X vs. X people categories

Kevyn, I have reverted your changs of the "Czech" categories. I understand, that you wanted to get all categories into People of X pattern, but this is not suitable for us. The Czech Republic as a federal republic uf Czechoslovakia was created in 1969. How about the people of the previous period. The composer Antonin Dvorak, who died 1904, for example, was not a man of the Czech Republic. He was a Czech and he was born and spent major part of his life on the territory of what is now the Czech Republic, but at his time there was no Czech Republic. Well, you may say how about Franz Kafka or Sigmund Freud who weren't Czech people, but - neither they were people of the Czech Republic. They were people from Prague or Pribor, they were Jewish and German people, citizens of Austria-Hungary etc. but not people of Germany or Israel. That's my point of view. Miaow Miaow 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bizzare Cross-linked category problem

hey guys. don't mean to intrude here, but i was trying to edit the Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_the_U.S. and saw a lack of the actual page content in the edit. There was no talk there, so I decided to "watch" the page. At that point i saw there was a talk area, but it brings me here! Any idea how to get this fixed? Iggynelix 00:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ak47 or M16

the weapon you talk about concerning visitors to Cu Chi seems to be a M16 (US weapon) rather than a AK47.

Nice job on Image:Air Mobility Command.svg

What method and editor did you use to create it? Ah, I see now, VectorMagic.com. I'll check it out. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Kevyn (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Icosahedron

Hi Kevyn,

Can you adjust the shaded yellow colors to match better? (And make the black lines a little darker/wider?) Tomruen (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't have the skills necessary to do that. Kevyn (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

File:VictoriaKanasaVolgaGermanStatue.jpg

File:VictoriaKanasaVolgaGermanStatue.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!

Grcampbell (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:CasablancaHassanIImosque.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures_of_Christianity

Category:Sculptures_of_Christianity 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!

–⁠moogsi (blah) 13:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)