On the Dutch version of Wikipedia we have the Rotterdam (IV), Rotterdam (V) and Rotterdam (VI)
Although I am convinced that we have to improve in the first place the definition of the character(sets) allowed on commons and the artificially created exonyms, I disagreed clearly with this change as it was an major change of the current guideline, very open and debatable, not precise and for new rules, we should first go through a discussion page http://installmentloansindiana.org, as usually done with all items related to policies and guidelines. Because of this non respect of the standard way of progressing such sensitive page, I had no other choice than to protect the main page as to enforce a proper proposal and discussion procedure. My action, which as been labeled as obstruction, is just my role as administrator to enforce proper procedures to ensure the necessary quality and support for policy and guideline pages. –Foroa ( talk ) , (UTC)
It’s evident that formulations enforced by you are unrealistic and out of community accord
The sentention So far, categories are in English which was presented in this policy proposal as summary from Commons:Language policy was a gross inaccuracy. I see that this distortion was very near to your own extreme preferences and practices but it was a pure mystification to parade it as based on the Commons:Language policy. Your interpretation is in fundamental discrepance toward the real practices i. e. real prevalent consensus at Commons. And you misused repeatedly your sysop rights to enforce your inconsensual excessive and unrealistic stand-point. We need collude and formulate some realistic and good-balanced policy of category names related to local terms, local themes and local names. You seem to be grudging against such real discussion, with reference to fundamentalist interpretation of the word “generally” as “allways”. Can you really mean that terms which don’t exist in English should be used in English? Can you really mean that even local proper names should be allways translated to English even if the English version is unknown and unestablished? Do you really mean that this your posture and this your interpretation is in conformity with real community consensus? I cannot believe it. You personnaly was who misused repeatedly a link to this proposal declaring it as “commons policy”. If you know that this problem is “sensitive”, you should to understand that some evidently incomplete and unaproved formulation from this proposal cannot be used as a confirmation of real policy. If you reject formulation which perhaps can be misused, you should subsume the formulations which are really misused by yourself. Evidently there are many types of category names which aren’t and shouldn’t be in English. When somebody rectify a proposed inaccurate formulation in keeping with real policy and practices, it cannot be considered as “policy change”, let alone as “vandalism”. As I mentioned above, a more exact and more unified policy regarding category names related to local terms, local themes and local names should be discussed and built. You may come up with your opinion but you should have respect to the other people’s opinions and to well-tried practices as well. You bestead hardly to consensus by calling constructive and well-founded edit’s of others as “vandalism”. –SJu ( talk ) , (UTC)
Hi, at Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects we are building a mapping between a library’s subject headings and our categories. For ships, we have used ‘
My answer was: My intention was to do so, because a lot of ships have the same name. I categorised more than 3000 ships by name on Commons myself and found out that some ships were numbered without any system. Examples on Commons: