User talk:Bohème

English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bohème!

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 #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?)

--SieBot (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Présentation ?

Bonjour et bravo pour votre chantier de classement des sculpteurs français.

Pensez à prendre un petit moment pour créer votre page d'utilisateur. Vous n'avez pas besoin de raconter votre vie, mais sur un projet multilingue comme Commons, il est très utile de préciser au moins dans quelles langues on peut échanger avec ses petits camarades. L'usage consiste à utiliser le système Babel, que vous pouvez par exemple voir sur ma page d'utilisateur. Si la syntaxe vous paraît difficile à suivre, indiquez-moi quelles langues vous pratiquez à un niveau suffisant pour pouvoir discuter par écrit et quel est votre niveau d'anglais. Je créerai ensuite la boîte pour vous. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Inlay work.jpg

Since star of David is commonly known as a Jewish symbol, there is no point in removing this category. Etan Tal (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As you like. --Bohème (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:OLGCDec08Floor.jpg

Hello. this edit you removed the category for the building shown. I assume this was an accident, so I put Category:Our Lady of Good Council Church, New Orleans back. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ups, sorry. Well done. --Bohème (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reines de France et Femmes célèbres

Bonjour Bohème,

Pas de problème. Je pense que le plus adapté est Statues des Reines de France et Femmes illustres au Jardin du Luxembourg car il s'agit d'un titre quasi-officiel de cette série de sculptures, et l'anglais ne serait pas nécessairement le meilleur. Bien à toi.--LPLT (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Porcelaine, céramique et faïence

Bonjour Bohème,

comme tu es le spécialiste de ces matières, je te prie de jeter un coup d'oeil ici. Les diverses photos sont catégorisées de façon assez approximative, peut-être pourrais-tu y apporter davantage de précision. Merci d'avance, Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Promenades in Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie

Pour info--Bapti ✉ 08:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Street food

What is up with this edit? The removed categories seem perfectly relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, Well, food remains food. Food is neither an eating establishment (upper category) nor a restaurant nor a vendor. Street food is not a type of restaurant, but a type of food. Isn't that right? --Bohème (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Curule categories

Why is it necessary to have three four curule categories when just one seemed to be working fine before? Why is it necessary to have a large image at the top of your user talk page? AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, thx for your message. 1.) You are right: we had one single Category:Curule chairs under upper Category:Ancient Roman furniture, filled with Ancient Roman curule 'seats' (this is the technical expression and fits for backless 'stools' and 'chairs', i.e. 'back'chairs), but also with medieval, Renaissance and other curule 'chairs' (backchairs), a 19th-century curule 'stool' (backless), and so on. Category:Curule stools is also necessary for the 18th and 19th-century upholstered curule stools in use at the court and still manufactured nowadays. I did not finish the work I began yesterday, but I just placed some examples of those upholstered curule stools in the adequate category, so you might understand the difference between the three categories; the fourth (uppest) category is necessary to keep them all together. I hope this is clearly explained; my english is unfortunately not as good as my french or german. Feel free to ask. Those categories should go one step down to Category:Ancient Roman curule seats. 2.) The image is not necessary but keeps me in good mood; sorry if it disturbs you. Have a nice day, Bohème (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Marquees

Category discussion notification

Category:Marquees 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!

--Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Works on stairs?

See my work in Rovigo palaces :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• File:Palazzo Ravenna, interior (Rovigo).jpg
• File:Palazzo Campo a San Francesco, ingresso scalinata (Rovigo).jpg
• File:Loggia dei Nodari, accesso, Rovigo.JPG

Très bien Threecharlie, et ... catégorisés. --Bohème (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. J'espère qu'ils ont été intéressants :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Tree stump seats

Good idea, thanks for this category! --:bdk: 11:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome ! Have a nice day. --Bohème (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I usually end up here on the rare occasion I think you are wrong...

... I just wanted to drop by for once to say thanks for so often doing a good job of refining categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Merci pour ta visite :-) --Bohème (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

calf fur

Hallo Bohème, die Kategorien für Pelzfelle teilen sich alle auf in fur-skins (calf fur skins) und clothing (calf (clothing)).

In clothing kommt alles hinein, was verarbeitet ist, auch wenn es keine Kleidung ist. Sonst müssten wir für verarbeitetes Fell, das keine Kleidung ist, eine extra Kategorie anlegen. Da das aber meist nur sehr wenig ist, lohnt das nicht, ich weiß auch nicht, wie das dann heißen soll. - Wenn Du unbedingt es auch in skins haben willst, dann bitte auch in clothing lassen. Clothing ist aber bereits eine Unterkategorie von skins (Kategorie calf (clothing) ist in Kategorie calf fur-skins enthalten), eigentlich soll das deshalb nicht sein. Kann man aber machen.

Der Kategorie-Name calf skin ist falsch!!! Auf Commons muss immer der Plural benutzt werden, calf skins.

Beste Grüße --Kürschner (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Kürschner, ich möchte Dir nicht in Dein Fach pfuschen. Vielleicht kannst Du mich aufklären, so dass wir auf einen Nenner kommen.

1. Die Singular-Form in Cat:Calf skin (in zwei Worten oder auch calf-skin mit Bindestrich) ist nicht unbedacht gesetzt worden. Sieh mal in Category:Animal skin. Es geht da um das von einem bestimmten Tier gewonnene Rohprodukt (auch in deutsch Kalbfell ohne s).
2. "Calf fur-skin" hat keines meiner Wörterbucher. Wäre nicht Cat:Fur calf-skin (anstatt Cat:Calf fur-skin) die richtige Benennung? Und "Calf hair" für das bearbeitete behaarte Produkt? Eingestanden: es passt dann nicht mehr so perfekt in das bestehende Pelzkategorien-System ...
3. Zu Leder verarbeitet heisst es -> cat:calfskin in einem Wort (deutsch:Kalbsleder), wobei der Zusatz leather verzichtbar wäre, ich habe ihn der Unmissverständlichkeit halber gesetzt.
   Das mag kompliziert und redundant klingen, aber langfristig ist eine Abgrenzung zwischen behaartem Kalbfell [1] und Kalbsleder [2] sicher sinnvoll.
4. Welche Bedeutung hat in der cat:calf (clothing) das Wort clothing? Irre ich in der Annahme, dass da in Leder gebundenen Bücher nicht hingehören und auch keine mit Fell überzogenen Fahrräder? Jedenfalls kommt mir das "spanisch" vor.
5. Wenn weitere Unterkategorien notwendig werden sollten, böten sich Cat:Calfskin products für Leder und eine ähnliche Kategorie für die behaarten Produkte an (Cat:Calf hair products? Cat:Calf hair (fur)? Cat:Calf hair fur products? ), mit Unterkategorie Cat:Calf hair clothing.

Berichtige mich bitte. Beste Grüsse --Bohème (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Kannst du diesen Herrn mit seinen Pelzzipfeln gebrauchen bzw. irgendwo unterbringen?

Na, erst mal danke für die ausführliche, nette Antwort.

Ich bin leider kein "native English speaker" und bin mir immer sehr unsicher, wenn es um das Anlegen einer neuen Kategorie geht. Es ist mir nicht immer möglich, mich in die Feinheiten der Sprache einzudenken. Ich habe bis heute keinen englisch sprechenden Mitstreiter aus der Pelzbranche gefunden.

Die Klammer-Kategorie (clothing) entstand, weil jemand bereits die Kategorie "Ermine (clothing)" angelegt hatte, wohl die einzige der Pelz-Kategorien, die nicht von mir verbrochen wurde, inzwischen sind nur in der Unterkategorie "Ermine (clothing) in art" allein fast 3000 Bilder. Nach dieser Kategorie hatte ich mich dann gerichtet. Den Begriff "fur-skins" habe ich beim (deutschen) Vorsitzenden des Pelzfachverbands abgefragt, zwar intensiv, aber doch auf die Schnelle. Der Bindestrich ist von mir, weil es sonst manchmal sehr unübersichtlich wird. Da der Begriff bisher nicht beanstandet wurde, scheint er nicht ganz verkehrt zu sein.

Selbstverständlich passen kalbverkleidete Fahrräder nicht wirklich in die Kategorie Kleidung, wundere mich selber, dass ich bisher mit der Einordnung anderer Produkte als Kleidung immer durchgekommen bin. Ich habe es allerdings in jeder Kategorie vermerkt, dass alle Produkte aus Pelz mit eingeordnet werden, hoffe ich jedenfalls. Wollte man das ändern, müsste man für jeder der zahlreichen Kategorien eine, wie von Dir sehr gut angedachte, Kategorie "Fur products" vorschalten. An sich keine schlechte Idee. Wenn Du Lust hast... (man kann natürlich auch mit einer anfangen - gerade das Fahrrad hatte ich nur sehr ungern unter Kleidung eingeordnet, Fahrradmantel ;-), trotz des vorhandenen Vermerks in der Kategorie).

Ich ging bisher davon aus, dass es zwei Kategoriebäume gibt, einen für Leder (ohne Haare, leather oder/und skins?) und einen anderen für Felle (mit Haaren, fur-skins). Eigentlich würden wir uns doch da gar nicht in die Quere kommen?

Inwieweit ich jetzt mit dem Plural falsch liege, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Wenn das ein Überbegriff ist, den man in der Einzahl belassen soll - tja, mein Sprachgefühl, mein Englisch - da muss ich passen. Man kann es sehen wie ich, da sind Bilder von skins drin, oder aber als allgemeinen Begriff. Ich neige dazu, doch den Plural anzuwenden, weil Commons ihn erst einmal, bis auf Ausnahmen, verbindlich vorschreibt. Sonst könnte man ja jeden Begriff in Deinem Sinn verallgemeinern? Sehe ich das falsch?

Deinen Herren habe ich als 2937. Hermelinträger in die Superkategorie eingeordnet, herzlichen Dank. Wäre jetzt auch an der Zeit, diese Kategorie weiter aufzusplitten, zum Beispiel in Indians with ermine (clothing) in art - oder sind das dann Inder mit Hermelin anstelle Indianer? - Kaiser und Könige - Politiker und Clerics with ermine gibt es ja schon, usw. NEIN! ICH NICHT! Und auf keinen Fall heute abend.

Erst mal einen schönen Abend heute Abend und noch mal danke vom --Kürschner (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Carved"

There is no point setting up a plethora of categories for "carved" ivory book-covers etc. All ivory book covers, and ivory objects, are by definition carved. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bookcases / bookshelves

Not sure I get this change. Isn't a bookcase more specific than bookshelves? There are a lot of arrangements of bookshelves (e.g. typical libarary stacks) that would not involve bookcases. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thanks for your message. There is/was a great deal of bad categorized files in the Category:books (and subcategories). I do my best to find a correct way to give each of them the appropriate category. Bookshelves (boards) are open shelves [3], sometimes with a closed back, but distinct from bookcases or book cabinets (case furniture) which have doors [4]. Library stacks are in Category:Stacks (library interiors). Do you think it would be a good idea to create a upper Category:Book storage to keep them all together? --Bohème (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Could you please have a look at Category:Interier furniture: misspelled, not really usefull and imho deletable. The files may go to Category:Wooden furniture, Category:Cupboards, Category:Bookshelves, Category:Bookcases or others. Thx. --Bohème (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC) P.S.S. Oups, sorry, that seems to be the name of a furniture manufacturer. --Bohème (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say as a native speaker, the definition of a "bookcase" implying having doors strikes me as very archaic: I don't think that's been the dominant meaning since the 18th century, or maybe some time in th 19th century. It does imply to me a piece of furniture (or a built-in) as against (for example) a shelving system based on cantilevered brackets attached to a wall. Probably not a big deal, though: all of the arrangements qualify as bookshelves. - Jmabel ! talk 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I admit that I am not a native and not a good English speaker but I trust the Getty Research Institute’s Art & Architecture Thesaurus and it’s definitions. I am afraid this question is a typical inter-lingual conflict. In French there is a quite clear and in German a very clear distinction between open bookshelves (singular fr = étagère (à livres) ; de = Bücherregal) and bookcases (singular fr = (armoire-)bibliothèque ; de = Bücherschrank), which may not exist in colloquial contemporary BE/AE. [5], [6]. I do believe that BE/AE speaking applied arts and furniture experts / conservators / restorators / collectors and even retailers still differentiate between them. Most of the professional translators do as well. See → [7] [8] It seems strange to categorize case furniture → Category:Bookcases including works alike the Robert Adam bookcase (1776) or the William Burges bookcase (1867) under the category tree Category:Shelves/Bookshelves, but if in your opinion that’s the right thing to do, please feel free to change it. Your choice :-) --Bohème (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful edits to Category:Freedom of speech

Thank you for your helpful edits to Category:Freedom of speech. You may be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Category:Freedom_of_speech_-_Crosswiki_Sister_Link_project_coordination. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower and fountain, Exposition Universal, 1900, Paris, France.jpg

Hello Bohème, you claim, against the source information, that this image was taken during the en:Exposition Universelle (1889), not the en:Exposition Universelle (1900). Yet, you don't give any source for this claim. How do you know that? If you change information, give a reliable source, please. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Jan, well, I visited the 1900 exposition :-) More seriously: the non-substitutable power of observation (!) and good judgement do miracles. I added some comparative pictures and sources in the File talk and linked it in the file page. I hope that's the right way to do. There are some other files with inaccurate years of production (search: 1889 not 1900). --Bohème (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Place de l'Opéra - fichier mal nommé

Bonjour Claude villetaneuse, Merci de partager ta belle collection de cartes postales. En essayant d'identifier un immeuble des Grands Boulevards, je tombe par hasard sur le File:ELD 4262 - PARIS - Place et avenue de l'Opéra.JPG. C'est bien la Place de l'Opéra qui est représentée, mais non pas l'Avenue de l'Opéra. Les deux immeubles forment l'angle de la Place de l'Opéra et du Boulevard des Capucines, voir File:INCONNU 4065 - PARIS - Boulevard des Capucines.JPG. Je me permets de corriger le texte et les catégories. Je pense qu'il serait opportun de renommer l'image. Qu'en penses-tu? --Bohème (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour et merci de ce signalement.
Il arrive que les légendes de cartes postales anciennes soient erronées ... . J'ai supprimé l'image de l'article Avenue de l'Opéra, qui n'est effectivement pas concernée.
Par contre, je ne souhaite pas qu'on modifie le titre du fichier, qui est celui de la carte postale. Ton message d'alerte devrait suffire à éviter des erreurs d'utilisation de la carte. Cordialement --Claude villetaneuse (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB N5 Debating Society.jpg

I've noticed you modifying the categories on this - I'm happy for that to happen (I don't know the category structure for that very well), but please bear in mind it was a debate, not a lecture. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oil lamps & Arabian Nights

Hi there! It seems you removed the Arabian Nights category from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oil_lamps. Arabian Nights and oil lamps (especially Aladdin's lamp) are connected. If you disagree with a certain categorization, please replace it by a better one, not just remove it. You may be undoing a lot of work by someone else. --Judithcomm (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Judithcomm, yes I did. The subcategories of Category:Oil lamps should contain files related to oil lamps. Arabian nights are no lamps and the Category:Arabian nights is filled with everything but lamps. Hundreds of files of amusement rides, translators, flying carpets, horses, camels (a great deal from all over the world), but only very few files with Alladins wonderful lamp (only 7 or 8 files available in Category:Oil lamps in art)

The other point is, that it seems difficult to find an accurate name for an arabian nights oil lamp category because Aladdin lamp is the registered trade mark of a kerosene mantle lamp patented in 1909 and manufactured by the Aladdin Industries company. --Bohème (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Infrastructure of Moscow Metro

[9], [10] ...

I'm not sure if that was the right way to categorize it. Inclusion of interior lighting in infrastructure is debatable, but inclusion of all images with any lighting in frame is unmanageable. There are many thousands of interior photographs from Moscow metro alone. Perhaps "lighting fixtures of Moscow metro" subcategory, but then for lighting fixture closeups only, not any interior shots - ? Kaluga.2012 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• p.s. almost all photographs of Moscow metro fail COM:FOP test. Is it worth the time, at all? Resistance is futile, they say... Kaluga.2012 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Kaluga, I agree: this was not the best and not the most elegant but the shortest way to kleen up the Category:Lamps (light bulbs) and the Category:Lighting fixtures (several hundreds of files without "lighting fixture type" and/or "lighting fixture location" categories). There is currently no accurate "by city" cattree for lighting/lighting fixtures. I just built the "lighting by country" cattree and was not really disposed to treat the "by city" tree at the same time. There is not yet a clear distinction between natural, artificial, chemical and other light sources and there is a great confusion between light, lights, lamps, lanterns, (electric) lighting fixtures, and (candle, oil and other) lighting devices.
  • And yes, I agree that the categories should only contain files where the lighting fixture is the main purpose or historically significant.
  • Concerning the Moscow metro I suggest to wait and see if the NoFOP guideline sweeps the files away. I would deplore the disappearance of some of the wonderful chandeliers and suspended lanterns. If they are still there in january I'll return to Moscow to find another solution. If you have any good idea, feel free to go ahead. Have a good time, --Bohème (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Hi Bohème, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

---

Thank you for helping to Wikimedia Commons! Just please keep accuracy your priority while using this right, if you aren't very sure about correct title of the image that or per Commons:File renaming the move doesn't add much value and is just a bit better, leaving it would be better idea :). Cheers −ebraminio^talk 08:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Monets Haus

Du hast die Category:House of Claude Monet (Giverny) in File:Jardin de Claude Monet- Giverny-Bassin aux nymphéas.jpg gelöscht. Richtig ist: es ist nicht das Wohnhaus Monets, das man links im Hintergrund sieht. Richtig ist aber auch: es ist ein westlich stehendes Haus auf Monets Grundstück(!), das früher zur Bewirtschaftung des Grundstückes erforderlich war. Man müsste diese beiden Hauser noch unterscheiden und dem zweiten Haus eine gesonderte Category zuweisen. Das wäre besser gewesen als die obige Category einfach zu löschen. Schöne Grüße, H.Albatros (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Lighting_product_design

Category:Lighting_product_design 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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tienen urinals

I would like to do this myself but I am limited on a mobile. Station Tienen is in Belgium not the Netherlands, so this is wrong country Category. Could you?Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)  Done--Bohème (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"keys"

Hallo! Schön, dass ich auf deutsch schreiben kann. Fällt mir doch deutlich leichter. Ich habe deine Änderung mit den zusätzlichen Keys bei meinem Bild File:Paris, Hôtel de Ville -- 2014 -- 1714.jpg gesehen. Tolle Idee. Durch Zufall hatte ich vor ein paar Tagen einen ähnlichen Gedanken. Ich habe allerdings den frei stehenden Text mit dem Key wieder entfernt und als zusätzliches Information field bei Information untergebracht. Da passt es meiner Meinung nach besser. Zudem stört sich mein Bot, der die Seiten meiner Bilder kontrolliert und anpasst, dann nicht mehr daran. Auch das Layout läuft dann nicht mehr auseinander, weil das Template Location dec direkt nach dem Template Information stehen soll - laut Beschreibung des Templates. --XRay ^talk 06:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Danke für die Nachricht und die vielen gelungenen Fotos. In der Tat ist es so noch besser. --Bohème (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Louvre

Salut Bohème! J'ai crée quelques plans du palais du Louvre. Est-que tu peux les réviser? Merci!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Chapeaux, j'apprécie à sa juste valeur l'étendu du chantier. Si tu veux bien numéroter les différentes versions la discussion serait plus aisée. J'irai sur la page de discussion de la 'sandbox'. As-tu vu que nous avons déjà les très récents plans des cours et des pavillons? Qui sont parfaits.

Sinon, j'ai abandonné le classement des images du Louvre. Je m'y était fortement investi pour faire le ménage entre 1.) le musée (espaces visiteurs et collections), le château-fort et 2.) le palais (architecture y compris intérieure quand il s'agit par exemple de l'ancien appartement d'Anne d'Autriche) avec ses cours et jardins. Ce sont les catégories principales et le choix du nom des sous-catégories lors de leur création ne s'est pas fait sans réflexion. Je le trouvais judicieux pour ne pas tourner en boucle et plus clair pour les téléchargeurs. Anyway, comme il a été décidé autrement ma motivation s'est envolée et je vous laisse vous dépatouiller. Sans rancune. --Bohème (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jardin Clemenceau

Jardins des Champs-Élysées

Salut Bohème! Je voir sur l'OpenStreetMap, il y a un jardin nommé Clemenceau dans le jardin des Champs-Élysées, à côté de la place Clemenceau. Mais je pense c'est seulement une partie du jardin des abords du Petit-Palais. Qu'est-ce que tu penses? Merci!--Paris 16 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour @Paris 16: "Jardins des Champs-Élysées" et "Jardins des abords du Petit-Palais" prennent tous deux le pluriel. Il faudrait rediriger Category:Jardin des abords du Petit-Palais. Sur gooogle street view les plaques de rue posées à proximité de la statue de Clemenceau (il ne peut s'agir que de ce bout de verdure là) sont illisibles. Idem pour le panneau vert des parcs et jardins visible de loin. D'un jardin ou d'un square Clemenceau Hillairet (1963) n'en souffle mot. Il situe la place en bordure des Champs, mais encore au débouché de l'Avenue Alexandre III (renommée Avenue Winston Churchill en 1966 ce qui figure dans le supplément Hillairet, p. 145.) et entre cette dernière et l'Avenue de Selves (Hillairet tome 1, p 355). Au passage: WP:fr est un peu brouillon à propos de l'avenue Winston-Churchill. Les différentes dénominations (Avenue Nicolas II (expo 1900), puis Alexandre III (quand? dès la fermeture de l'expo?), puis Winston-Churchill (1966, à vérifier) devraient à mon humble avis apparaître tout en haut de la page et non pas noyé dans le texte. A propos des Jardins des Champs-Elysées, le Guide des parcs et jardins de Pairs et de la région parisienne (Horay) et Anne Soprani Paris Jardins (tous deux de 1980 plutôt anecdotiques, insuffisamment sourcés) ne détaillent même pas les carrés, Kjellberg Le nouveau guide des statues de Paris (1988) se contente d'écrire, à propos de la statue "à l'angle des Champs-Elysées et de l'avenue Winston-Churchill". Je ne trouve pas non plus d'indice pour un "jardin" ou "square" Clemenceau en rapport avec la campagne de réaménagement des jardins des abords du Petit Palais (2005). Aucune source fiable parmi les resultats sur internet. Il faudrait aller voir le panneau sur place, d'ici là je plaide (peut-être à tort) pour une invention pure et simple. Bonne journée --Bohème (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Merci Bohème!--Paris 16 (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Île de la Cité

File:Paris 16 sandbox 36.svg

Île de la Cité

Salut Bohème. C'est ma carte de l'Île de la Cité. Est-ce que le bâtiment de la préfecture de police est correct. Merci beaucoup!--Paris 16 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Les deux hôtels particuliers sur le boulevard du Palais (no 7 et 9, noircis sur le plan) constituent une entité bien à part. Une ruelle divise d'ailleurs l’îlot en deux parties distinctes, séparant ainsi dès les débuts et jusqu'à aujourd'hui la "caserne" (actuelle préfecture) de l'hiérarchie supérieure. A l'origine (années 1860), des deux bâtiments jumelles du boulevard du Palais celui situé côté nord était occupé par l'état major de la garde républicaine, celui du côté sud par l'état major des sapeurs-pompiers. Le premier a été investi par le cabinet et l'appartement de fonction du préfet de police depuis belle lurette. Le second reste fortement associé, dans la mémoire collective, au "siège" des sapeurs-pompiers. Ils y sont toujours présents [11], bien que leur état major soit depuis au moins les années 70 établi place Jules Renard (Radio Wikipédia raconte donc des salades), mais j'ignore si les pompiers sont encore nombreux et maîtres des lieux: on trouve à la même adresse le département patrimonial des archives de la préfecture de police. Les immeubles du même îlot non noircis sur le plan (3 et 5 du boulevard, ceux du quai) sont des immeubles de rapport et des immeubles en copropriété (commerces, appartements, bureaux). --Bohème (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: L'église Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre ne devrait-elle pas avoir son nom inscrit?

Merci Bohème! C'est parfait maintenant?--Paris 16 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonsoir Paris 16, c'est magnifique et ce serait parfait avec la mention de Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre. --Bohème (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Salut! Il y a déjà "Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre" dans la dernière version. Si tu ne le vois pas, c'est la faute du Commons.--Paris 16 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bravissimo! --Bohème (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Merci

Thank for your amazing work over Alexander Baranov files. Best wishes from Brazil, Sturm (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cordialmente para Paris, --Bohème (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Black_and_white_photographs_by_Félix_Nadar

Category:Black_and_white_photographs_by_Félix_Nadar 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!

Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Quackery

Hiya, I came across the Quackery - Charlatans & quacks/Quacks/Quack doctors categories, and was trying to make sense of the way it was organised as they all seemed to overlap in my opinion. Asked around a little and decided to be BOLD & changed it around somewhat. Only then I realised you had been working on this category.

So what way do you think it is best organised: I now have Category:Quacks redirect to Category:Quack doctors (rather than charlatans and quacks) and for that to be inside Category:Charlatans and quacks seeing there seems to be a distinction. I don't think we'll be able to tell from the images what's what unless you go into serious research mode. I was going to move all portraits of persons from Quackery to Charlatans and quacks, but that again is a little tricky. I'll stop for now. Let me now if you have any thoughts. Thanks and kind regards -- Deadstar (msg) 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done, thank you, --Bohème (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Paris - Le Pont Alexandre III - 205.JPG

Hallo Bohème, c'est par hasard que je suis tombé sur ce fichier. La cartouche n'est pas la même qu' au File:Paris - Le Pont Alexandre III - 235.JPG mais la description y est largement la même. Je devine l'inscription de la cartouche (sur quel pilier?) comme suit:

• Le Pont / Alexandre III / a été construit / de MDCCCXCVII à MCM / sous la direction / d' Alfred Picard / commissaire général / de l'Exposition Universelle de 1900 / assisté de / Bouvard / directeur de l'architecture / par / Jean Résal et Amédée Alby / ingénieurs / Cassien Bernard et Gaston Cousin / architectes / Schneider et Cie ...et?... Cie de Fives Lille / constructeurs principaux / Letellier et Bou... - ...ess / entrepreneurs principaux.

Je ne peux pas lire les lacunes indiquées, mais peut-être tu peux faire mieux. Cordialement --AHert (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bienvenu AHert, je peux. C'est corrigé dans le ficher, complété, muni de liens y compris vers une autre version de La France de la Renaissance, pylône sud-est (rive gauche, aval). Au plaisir, --Bohème (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Parfait. Merci. --AHert (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Stair_railings

Category:Stair_railings 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!

Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Decapitation

Category:Decapitation 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris, Quai des Orfèvres riverside -- 2014 -- 1427.jpg

Hello! Please, if you rename a file, respect the user schema. I've renamed the file again with my schema - and your description. Otherwise it is not easy for me the find the file. And my bot respects the schema too. --XRay ^talk 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi XRay, you are welcome; I will do my best. Thx for your beautiful photographs. --Bohème (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris Passerelle Léopold-Sédar-Senghor and Grand Palais in autumn.jpg

In File:Paris Passerelle Léopold-Sédar-Senghor and Grand Palais in autumn.jpg, when you put the description, you forgot to enclose it in {{fr}}. I fixed it for you. PokestarFan (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well done, thank you + kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mounting block

Hello Bohème,

I'm the author of these photographs :

• File:Pagny sur Meuse escalier sans porte 1.jpg
• File:Pagny sur Meuse escalier sans porte 2.jpg

and i live in this street, in the next house. So i can affirm you without a doubt that it is NOT a mounting block! you are wrong. It is only a staircase to enter the house, whose door has been walled up since.

Djampa (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Djampa, désolé pour cette méprise; j'ai apporté la correction qui s'impose. Merci pour tes belles photos et bonne continuation. --Bohème (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)