User talk:G.dallorto

Qui Per scrivermi in privato (per email). - Here you find my private email address (just copy the address you find in the image).

  • I filed everything from 2006 through february 1st 2007 here, until march 15 2007 here, until April 23 2007 here, until July 4 2007 here, until November 1 2007 here.
  • I filed everything until September 9 2008 here.
  • I filed everything until March 26 2009 here.
  • I filed everything until May 27 2010 here.
  • I filed everything until February 3 2011 here.
  • I filed everything until April 1 2012 here.
  • I filed everything until february 1 2014 here.
  • I filed everything until february 5 2018 here.
  • I filed everything until May 28 2021 here.
  • I filed everything until MayOctober 23 2024 here.

rieccoci

Ciao Giovanni, grazie sempre per le foto che sistemi. Ti avevo già chiesto per favore di non fare nomi categorie che iniziano col nome dell'artista. Grazie Sailko (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical images of buildings in Amalfi

Just an FYI but there was a CfD Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images where the consensus was to move away from "historical images" categories, which is why Category:Historical images of buildings in Amalfi was deleted in the first place. I'm not going to revert your edit myself, but it's usually not helpful to recreate categories that were deleted due to the outcome of a CfD. You might not want to create anymore of them either. Otherwise it will just lead to extra work for whomever ends up cleaning it up in the long run. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"Catalogue of pictures" categories

Hi again. Just in case your not aware there's this thing on here called the universality principle, meaning that the naming conventions for categories and galleries usually have to follow each other, and galleries for photographers seem to either just be named after their name or as "Photographs by X photographer." Not "Catalogue of so and so photographers pictures." Naming the galleries that way is kind of obtuse anyway. So you might want to follow the normal conventions for other galleries. Like with "Catalogue of Giacomo Brogi's pictures" it would be much better to just name it "Photographs by Giacomo Brogi" or "Giacomo Brogi" to follow conventions. It's also overcategorization to put the gallery in both Category:Giacomo Brogi and Category:Carlo Brogi. It only needs to be in one category for Carlo Brogi, whichever is the most appropriate. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hallo Adamanty, the reason why I use different categories for Catalogues and Galleries, is that catalogues are catalogues, and galleries are galleries. If you spend just a few seconds examining before making remarks, you will notice that the galleries named "catalogues" are, well, catalogues in numerical order of the photographers listed under such name. My best wishes. User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Censorship

The censorship of the boy, like in this last file you uploaded, is unnecessary. Commons is not censored and this type of attitude only destroys artistic/photographic works. Danfosky (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Events by location by year categories

Hi. Can you please stop creating uber specific categories for events in Italy by year and region like Category:1735 events in Italy by region and it's subcategories? Intersectional categories that are so specific aren't helpful. No one can find images that way. Per Commons:Categories#Selectivity principle "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." To make matters worse, a lot of the files you seem to be putting in the subcategories don't have anything to do with events anyway. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Recreation of "events by year" categories

Hi. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Events in Italy by region by year and my previous comment. There's clearly a consensus that by year categories are overkill in this instance. Please don't just recreate categories that were previously deleted like that. Otherwise it creates needless extra work for other users. Especially in this case since I already left you a message about it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to answer there User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I replied. Just to throw it out there. With something like the "music in Lombardy by year" categories. It's perfectly fine to categorize the images by decade in instances there's only image per year to begin with. No one finds music in Lombardy by the exact year in the 1700s that it was created anyway. It makes a little sense for something like Category:1973 music in Milan because people are more likely know what year something was created in the 1970s and there's more then one image in the category. Although it's still a stretch in that instance, but it at least makes sense. The important thing here is to make it easier for people to organize and find files. That can be done without creating a 1/1 duplicate of every single fact having to do with the work by way of 15 different categories. Really, when your talking about music that was created in the early 1700s and categorizing it on the regional level, you could just organize things by century at that point and it wouldn't make a lick of difference on anything because it would still just be 2 or 3 files to begin with. People are here to find files though. Not endlessly browse through categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Music_in_Lombardy_by_year

Category discussion warning

Music in Lombardy by year 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"opera performances in Milan by year" categories

A couple of things here. 1. Operas aren't organized by the date to begin with. So it makes absolutely no sense to do it that way for one city. Look into Category:Opera performances. There clearly isn't the files on here to justify it even by country, let alone by city. 2. File:Olimpiade; dramma per musica, da rappresentarsi nel Teatro grande alla Scala di Milano, il carnevale dell'anno 1782.jpg isn't an image of an "opera performance" anyway. It's a cover of a book about an opera that was supposedly going to be held in 1782. At the bare minimum if your going to create categories for "opera performances" they should at least contain images of actual performances. Not book covers for scripts of operas that hadn't happened yet when the book was written. Really, the book covers should go in categories specifically for books. It's like saying that the lyrics for a song by Taylor Swift are a musical performance though. It's just nonsensical and not how things are categorized on here. Be my guest and create creates for books about operas. Just don't do it "by year by city" though or you'll just run into the same exact issues. Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like the main, if not only, way opera performances are categorized on here is by theatre. So that would probably be the best way to do it. Then you could create a category for the specific theatre in Milan and either totally forgo the whole "opera performances by date" thing to begin with or do it "by country." Although I still don't think it's worth categorizing operas "by year" at that level. But it would at least be better then "by city." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I see it is a matter of principle for you. Let us look for someone else to mediate.
I rather not. This is already being letigated in multiple CfDs and there's been a ton of Village Pump discussions about it. You need to get the point instead of wasting everyones time with the filibustering and edit waring. I'm not going to start yet another CfD just because you can't be bothered to follow the rules and work collaboratively with other users. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
OK address me to one of these "tons of discussions". Although I know who, by chance, initiated them all. User:G.dallorto (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Village Pump discussions that weren't started by me (I think I only commented on the first one)
CfDs that weren't started by me. I think I comment on two of them, but so what?
--Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Campaigning

Stop leaving notes on people's talk pages asking them to "help you" vote against the CfD because the people involved in it don't understand how chronologies or whatever work. Doing so is against the rules. It's fine to ping people who know the subject because they have been involved in previous discussions in a neutral way, which is what I did. It's not OK to leave random user's who don't have experience in the area talk page messages specifically asking them to vote against a CfD. Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was actually coming over here to say the same. Please read Commons:Canvassing. Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Colossal statue of Zeus or Baal in the Museo archeologico regionale (Palermo)

Buonasera, sig. Dall'Orto.

A marzo scorso ha creato la Category:Colossal statue of Zeus or Baal in the Museo archeologico regionale (Palermo), inserita nella categoria "Ancient Greek sculptures in the Museo archeologico regionale (Palermo)" e nella categoria "Phoenician art in the Museo archeologico regionale (Palermo)". Nella scheda illustrativa del Museo Salinas, visitato alcuni giorni fa, la statua, ritrovata a Solunto, è riferita al II-I sec. a.C., in effetti ricomposta da frammenti antichi e molto integrata da Valerio Villareale nell'Ottocento. Nella guida del museo è aggiunto che riprende un modello ellenistico.

Nella scheda e nella guida non si fa cenno a una possibile identificazione con Baal né a influenze fenicio-puniche.

Lei ha invece diverse attribuzioni all'area culturale di produzione?

Tenendo conto che Solunto fu fondata dai fenici nel VII sec. a.C., distrutta da Siracusa circa nel 396 a.C., ricostruita altrove, sul Monte Catalfano, da gruppi ellenistici a partire dal 307 a.C., infine conquistata dai Romani nel 254 a.C., se i frammenti sono databili al II-I sec. a.C., semmai questi dovrebbero essere riferiti all'ambito delle antichità romane.

Che ne pensa?

Grazie dell'attenzione. Fabrizio Garrisi (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Trovato: è nel pannello didascalico del Chiostro Maggiore: "Tra i più importanti reperti provenienti dai centri fenicio-punici di Sicilia... la statua di culto monumentale di Zaus/Baal Hammon da Solunto...". Chissà come si concilia con la realizzazione dei frammenti originali della statua con una datazione al II-I sec. a.C. Nel dubbio inserirò la statua anche tra le antichità romane, lasciando i riferimenti alle antichità greche e fenicie.

Invito

Ciao, ho notato il tuo interesse per le foto relative all'Emilia-Romagna. Ti scrivo per invitarti a visitarci all'Osteria di fuori porta del Progetto Emilia e Romagna, dove si riuniscono i Wikipediani che si occupano delle voci sull'Emilia-Romagna, la sua storia e la sua cultura. Tutti sono i benvenuti e abbiamo sempre bisogno di nuove idee o suggerimenti. Se ti interessa quest'area su Wikipedia e ti piacerebbe discuterne, unisciti a noi. Ne saremo felici. Se vuoi puoi registrare il tuo nome in progetto cliccando qui. Puoi anche iscriverti alla nostra mailing list, al gruppo Telegram non ufficiale e mettere tra i tuoi osservati speciali le discussioni in corso cliccando qui.

Riciclo l'invito su Wikipedia, soprattutto per comunicarti che ultimamente funziona soprattutto il canale Telegram per accordarci su cose da fare verso Bologna e per correzioni e domande varie, se ti va di iscriverti sei il benvenuto. :)

Ti scrivo anche per un altro motivo: vorrei invitarti per quando rientro dalle vacanze (dopo agosto) a farci un giro per fare foto a San Michele in Bosco, vedi come siamo messi per esempio per la Category:Chiostro dei Carracci e la Category:San Michele in Bosco (Bologna) - Church (interni non pervenuti). Io ho fatto due giri di ricognizione ma non sono riuscita a fotografare per bene l'interno della chiesa (avevo solo il cellulare), e mi mancano tantissime parti da fotografare nella parte monumentale dell'ex convento. Magari potremmo aggregare altri wikifotografi, che ne pensi? Una tantum (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their source is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. 75.99.166.226 14:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Titoli categorie

Mado' Giovanni, ma quante volte te lo devo chiedere di non iniziare i titoli delle categorie d'arte col nome dell'autore ma col soggetto? Sarà la quarta o quinta volta che te lo scrivo, mi rispondi sì sì va bene, e poi? ti prego 😅🙏 Sailko (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ma poi che ci vuole a mettere le categorie inglese? Se non sei sicuuro della traduzione oggi con chat gpt ti legge il contesto e ti dà la migliore. Dai su, per favore =) --Sailko (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Ho sbagliato, perché non ricordavo la sequenza giusta, sono andato a controllare e, come puoi verificare da te, ho poi adottato quella che vuoi tu. Il motivo per cui non lo ricordo è che la sequenza nome+titolo è quella standard in ogni elenco, e non trovo un motivo per invertirla, ma siccome non mi costa nulla accontentarti lo faccio comunque, però non posso ricordare ogni singola decisione di ogni wikipediano... Dopo mesi che non creo nuove categorie mi ricordo solo che devo invertire la sequenza corretta, però finisce che non ricordo più quale sia la sequenza corretta... Già che ci siamo, per quale motivo vuoi mettere prima il titolo? User:G.dallorto (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Ciao Giovanni, per standardizzare e perché quando carichi le foto è più facile trovare una categoria se ha un titolo standard. Comunque grazie. Se ricordi, sei tu che mi ha insegnato a usare dei modelli fissi per le categorie su Commons =) --Sailko (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Infatti non è che mi rifiuto di usarlo, è che fatico a ricordarlo, perché ricordo giusto, poiperò mi ricordo che devo ribaltare la logica, e finisco per farlo sbagliato. Vuol dire che mi toccherà controllare ogni volta. Comunque specifico che era da diversi mesi, tipo febbraio o marzo, che non riunivo più foto sparse altrui in una categoria, quindi che non mi ricordassi ci stava... User:G.dallorto (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Va bene, tutto chiaro, nel dubbio chiedimi pure, oppure appuntati in pagina utente "[titolo in inglese] by [autore] ([museo, città o anno...])" :) --Sailko (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Not to highjack the discussion but weren't you told at that point not to create a bunch of "by year" categories that only contain other categories? Yet you seem to still be doing it for some reason. Going by that and Sailko's first comment you clearly have a problem getting things the first or multiple times your asked not to do them. Now I'm probably going to have to waste everyone's time yet again because your still creating the categories when you were asked not to. Or I could just nominate them for deletion, leading to you restoring them, me deleting them again, Etc. Etc. Regardless, you'd think it would be easier just to not create the categories to begin with. Apparently not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
BTW, it looks like you put Category:Lunettes by Luini from the Casa degli Atellani (Milan) in a bunch of different "fresco by year" categories since of images of frescos in it that were created in different years. Usually in an instance like that the category should be in one "by decade" and the individual frescos categorized by year if necessary. Although I wouldn't bother in this case since it would just create a bunch of single file categories. A category with works created in multiple years generally shouldn't just be added to a bunch of different "by year" categories though. As there's no way to know which image has to do with which year that way. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Adamant1 I think Giovanni's target is to categorize a most of the works of art by year in the future. Most of categories have just one entry by now, but this could get more interesting later on, so maybe we should not judge it by now. We could decide to have a parallel categorization by decade as well, I would not mind that. --Sailko (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Sailko: They can create the categories in the future when there's actually images and categories to justify it then. Know one cares. I certainly don't. But there's clearly a consensus not to mass create "by year" categories until there's enough images or other categories to go in it.
I don't buy that it will get more interesting in the future with ones created by G.dallorto since it's never been their plan to add anything to the categories. There's plenty of categories that were created by them at the beginning of last year where it's still just a nesting doll of single subcat categories on more single subcat categories with one image 5 categories down. So I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever judging it now and telling them not to do it anymore. Seriously, how many years have to pass and conversations about this does there have to be before your cool with saying they shouldn't create the categories anymore unless their actually going to put something in them? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Sailko, can you help me please help in explaining Adamant, in words calmer than I can produce, what's the point in categorising by year paintings and works of art?
I'll try again, hoping that it can help. First, every art historian needs this kind of information, second, there can be no more than one category by year for each type of art, so the "overcategorising" has a physiological limit, and it's not illogical. Listing paintings by year already is a common practice, in art history. I call the attention on the fact that, in case of more recent works, even the copyright status is determined by the year of production. So, this is not only a useful, bit even a necessary information.
As for creating only categories that are already populated: how can we know, before creating them? The problem is, that since I am adding categories to the UNCATEGORIZED "other media" section, I need to create the categories without knowing in advance how many files they will contain. For instance, if I type "1798 in Florence", I get this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=1798+in+Florence&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image but also this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=1798+in+Florence&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=other where most files do not have even one category already. There are literally thousands of uncategorized files that I am categorizing in that section (and some help in doing, rather than in undoing, would be appreciated, thanks).
Adamant told me in March that categorising Italian operas by year and by town is ridiculous, and he did not care when I explained him how Opera evolved in Italy (several towns competing with several operas every year, with opera companies moving from town to town).
But when I noticed that his aim was he keeping the category "events" empty from operas, which is fine to me, I stopped adding any cultural events to "events". I mean, if on "Commons" "events" only means popstar events, so be it. So, it is not true I don't listen. Is Adamant listening?
As for the consent Adamant claims, it was only reached among a small group he canvassed, but I could find no general discussion and no implementation of any guidelines on WikiCommons about such a decision (yes, I asked for it). So, if we can find an agreement, I shall be happy to comply. And if there is a general rule, valid for all categories, not only for mine, I shall abide by it. I am ready to have a general discussion about the issue, only, not with the small group of people who agree with Adamant he gathered.
Incidentally, I have been on WikiCommons for more than 15 years, and cataloguing by year has gone on without anyone ever objecting until Adamant and friends introduced their brand-new rules. Of course people can change rules on WikiCommons. We could even decide to delete all files from WikiCommons and make it about videogames, of course. But the point is: why? This is an Encyclopedia, it is not Instagram. You are not supposed to flip through it looking for nice pix. It is supposed to be a repository. Of information. Of organised information. This is what encyclopedias are. So, can we find an agreement, please? User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
No offense, but it's a lot of words that don't address the issue or have anything to do with Commons. As for creating only categories that are already populated: how can we know, before creating them? There's an extremely simple answer to that, find two or more files with the same year, create the category, and then put the images in it. Otherwise do it by decade like people have repeatedly said. I really don't see what's so hard about that. There's 20 different ways that art historians can get the year of publication without creating a bunch of categories that don't contain anything. Know one is forcing you to just use the category or not have the information on here. They just aren't the best or only way to go about it. Otherwise you could make the same argument for ever other minor detail. The year isn't of creation isn't that important at the end of the day anyway. Know one is looking for books that were published exactly in 1432. Otherwise they would just use the search bar.
This is an Encyclopedia No, as I've said plenty of times now it's a media repository not an encyclopedia. The point in categories is to "organize files" not be stores of encyclopedic information. Things like that are exactly why we keep having issues. It's pretty simple, stop treating this like it's Wikipedia and don't use categories just to store information without putting images in them. That's it. It's not that complicated. Like I said, find a couple of images and then create a category to put them in. Don't create a category, leave it empty for years and then treat other people like they just don't get the point in the project when they have an issue with it. There isn't really anything else to say about it beyond that. Just use basic standards when creating categories and you won't hear jack from me about this or anything else. Otherwise we're going to keep having issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Year and decade categories

Hi. Not to just dog pile but with Category:Monument to Camillo Golgi (University of Pavia) you added it to 19th-century statues in Pavia along with several categories for art in the 1930s. The 19th century is the 1800s though, not the 1900s. I've made the mistake myself a few times. But there seems to be a couple of categories where you did the same thing. So please, make sure to do it properly. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. I apologize but it was a slip. I was mass-categorizing the whole of the statues in Pavia. And as you know, it is an incredibly boring, repetitive task. So slips happen. Thank you for correcting it, though. User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
No worries. Things happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you waste your time with all those city categories? Nobody will ever need them. Also your edits are extremely superficial and contain many errors. Just some examples:

  • Opera categories describe works, not events. They don't get categories for the year or town of one specific performance.
  • Your sort keys are completely wrong. Files and categorys are sorted by lemma, not by some hidden metadata like a year. That is not comprehensible and will never work.

Please think about it and stop this. --07:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC) Rodomonte (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Rodomonte, as you pointed out, it is my time. I am not taking anything from you, I am not preventing you from doing other things, I am not forbidding you to add different categories. I totally don't understand why you and your canvas group seem obsessed with this issue. My task is quite simple: to allow anyone to see the chronology of the history of Opera in Italy. Italy was divided into several states, with different capitals, each capital having a major influence on the development of opera. The Venetian school was different from the Neapolitan school, which was different from the Bolognese and the Milanese. Thus, you need to follow their developments separately. By city, and by year. And, of course, by title, which is a point we both agree on. If you love opera, as I hope you do, this point should be clear to you.
I don't understand what do you mean when you write that "Opera categories describe works, not events". Opera categories can describe both, so that you can check how many times, when and where an opera was performed in time. I still don't understand how a description page for a libretto containing categories for both name and year, can harm anyone. What's your point?
However, if I am interfering with any naming convention, I am more than willing to change the way I use category names, so that they do not contain the word "opera" or whatever else you need me to do. Just let me know which words you prefer me to use. I may go for "music events" or "performances" or whatever you suggest me. Suggest me a different nomenclature, and I'll stick to it. Alas, though, when I tried this solution, your canvas group made it clear you don't want me to organize MUSIC, all music, any music, in any chronological order. This is totally, completely irrational and senseless. Do you have a rational explanation to why paintings or sculptures may be organized in chronological order, whereas music may not?
Furthermore, when you say "Your sort keys are completely wrong", you mean "wrong", compared to whose decision? Is there any naming convention I am unaware of? Is there a group debating the categorization of the thousands and thousands of uncategorized Opera files? If so, I'd like to be addressed to it, and to join it, and discuss with you all about these criteria. Please give me the link, and I'll move the debate there.
Can we discuss in order to find an agreement, rather than bickering? I understand we may have different views, but in 10+ years and half a million edits on Wikimedia, the rule I learned and followed has always been: anyone ought to respect other people's work. Which I am doing. I am not, contrary to what your group are doing, deleting anyone's categorization. We may have different scopes in mind, so I just add mine, respecting other people's ones.
Also, categories by year have always existed on Commons (at least, since I joined), I can't see why you are obsessed with not allowing them just for operas? I really, really, really can't see your point. Could you please, please, please explain to me in what way am I interfering with anything you are personally undertaking? Understanding it would be a progress to find a solution.
Last but not least, please notice that the files I am categorizing are, mostly, totally uncategorized. I am not undoing anyone's work. I am actually creating from scratch the category. Just as a hint, wouldn't be better if, rather than vandalizing my work, you gave a contribution to categorize the thousands of uncategorized files of librettos and scores that were dumped in WikiCommons? User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
None of this is true. It is not the purpose of Commons „to allow anyone to see the chronology of the history of Opera in Italy“. It is just a repository of media files with some categories to locate the files. You are currently flooding my watchlist with needless and often faulty edits. This is not only a waste of your time, but also of mine because have to review all these files and correct the errors.
It makes absolutely no sense to order files within a category by a date which isn't even always part of the file name. Nobody would understand it or be able to verify it. Nobody can keep care of this ordering when new files are added. --Rodomonte (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Please don't create new categories for totally forgotten operas which only have one file.
  • If you create opera categories at least check corago for the correct title.
  • Always create and link aproppriate wikidata items for new opera categories.
  • Don't create normal categories for objects, which only have the same name but don't really belong together. You may use disambiguation categories instead (example: Category:Abbaye_de_Marmoutier).
  • Don't use the year as sort key for theatre categories. That will never work.

--Rodomonte (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Palazzo Medici Riccardi

Ciao Giovanni, ho visto che stai passando le immagini di questo palazzo, io ne ho diverse nuove con la datazione più accurata (ho consultato un catalogo cartaceo), se vuoi te le posso caricare la prossima settimana. Potrebbe essere utile? Fammi sapere 💪 --Sailko (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Certo, fai pure con calma; tanto non c'è nessuno che ci corre dietro. Avvisami quando lo hai fatto. Grazie! User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Ciao Giovanni, la categorie è questa Category:Courtyard of Michelozzo in Palazzo Medici-Riccardi - Riccardi collections of antiquities e altre zone del palazzo (piano nobile e Museo dei Marmi). Grazie! PS: nel museo dei marmi sono cambiate le date e attribuzioni per diversi busti... troverai confusione, sigh!--Sailko (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

G.dallorto

Really! Why do you expose to censorship some of the published photos?That you expose to censorship is not child's pornography! It high исскуство! If there is such possibility, please will propose photos without censorship!like thise photo Antitabu (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It was a difficult decision, but I realised the issue is growing more controversial and offending every year, and I decided to avoid the risk to offend anyone. For my purpose (which is reconstructing a catalogue raisonné in a philological way), it is sufficient to give an idea of what a photo was about. Thank you for your understanding. User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Concerning those who can offend such photos : for one "Venus" or "Маха nude" is the not surpassed work of great master and high art, for other it is a simply "naked heifer". If excites someone or offends the type of bare body on a picture, it is his problem especially! It is consequences of wrong education and base instincts of such personality! Do you agree?
These people even such (Redacted) innocent picture it is tried to include in the list of child's pornography! How on your? Is there something abusive in this photo? Antitabu (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I would never upload a picture like the one you linked too either. I think the issue is too delicated and should be addessed with a minimum of prudence. I am not talking about the Maja desnuda, I am talking about small children. User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Frontespizi

Ciao! Qui hai messo "Frontispieces from Italy" ma attenzione che "frontispiece" è un false friend: in inglese significa "antiporta" (fonte; vedi anche elemento Wikidata) mentre la traduzione inglese di "frontespizio" è "title page". Per il resto, con l'occasione ti ringrazio per il tuo assiduo e ottimo lavoro nelle categorizzazioni! A presto. Spinoziano (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ti ringrazio per la correzione. In effetti avevo già notato l'errore ed ora uso "Title page", per esempio: Category:Title pages of books published in Milan. Ma se trovi delle mie precedenti categorizzazioni errate, farai cosa doverosa correggendole senz'altro. Da parte mia, se ne ricapito su un file che ho già caterizzato in modo errato, lo sistemerò. Già che ci sono ne approfitto: tu ti stai occupando di libri, su Commons? C'è qualcun altro con cui potrei interagire? Gallica ha scaricato migliaia di libri, moltissimi dei quali davvero interessanti e rari, ma tutti rigorosamente senza categorie. E curiosamente, finché non vengono categorizzati, il motore di ricerca non li "vede". Quindi vorrei sapere se qualcun altro ci sta lavorando. Grazie. User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Avevo notato le categorie su frontespizi per città di pubblicazione e anche per questo ti facevo i complimenti; a tal riguardo ti segnalo che proprio nella categoria che citi, prima della tua risposta, avevo fatto questa correzione, vedendo che un altro utente l'aveva fatta qui, e penso andrebbe estesa a tutte le categorie di frontespizi di libri pubblicati in Italia, così da non dover più mettere "Title pages from Italy" nei frontespizi già categorizzati per città, in quanto la città è inclusa nella nazione. Per quanto riguarda i libri, io ho un incarico con BEIC (dall'estate 2021) quindi seguo e revisiono i file caricati da loro, ma a parte ciò non mi occupo molto di libri; per Gallica ti consiglio di segnalare la cosa a chi li ha caricati. Un caro saluto.--Spinoziano (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary G.dallorto 🎉

Hey @G.dallorto. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to Wikimedia Commons. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 07:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Francesca da Rimini et Paolo Malatesta (90)

Ciao, scusa, non ho capito questa modifica, è un errore? Micione (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Perdonami, non riesco a capire cosa mi stai chiedendo. faccio prima a spiegarti cosa stavo cercando di fare: Esistono tre categorie di cose che si chiamano "Paolo and Francesca": Dante, il dramma e l'opera con quel titolo, e il balletto con quel titolo. Stavo cercando di disambiguare senza dover rifare tutte le categorie; se non ci sono riuscito, agisci pure come tu ritieni più opportuno e modifica il mio intervento nel modo che ritieni più opportuno. User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Vedo ora che è spuntato un (90) dopo il titolo. Se è a questo che ti riferisci, e se sono stato io a farlo, sì ho commesso un errore e va corretto, ovviamente User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Scusami, colpa mia che sono stato troppo sintetico e poco chiaro. Sì, mi riferivo all'aggiunta di quella categoria col «(90)» perché è la categoria di un dipinto di Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres quindi non dovrebbe stare lì, ma non ho capito quale fosse la categoria che tu intendevi aggiungere, essendoci già Category:Paolo and Francesca in art. --Micione (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, allora è stato l'auto-completamento a metterla. Sistema pure tu come ritieni più giusto, il mio obiettivo era unicamente disambiguare. User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Ehm, ora sono io a non capire. Abbiamo Category:Paolo e Francesca che è quella generale (che credo dovremmo spostare all'inglese Paolo and Francesca), il dramma-opera di cui parli credo sia Category:Paolo e Francesca (Mancinelli), mentre quella sul balletto non esiste. Forse volevi creare quella? Non mi sembra ci andasse nulla là dove hai messo quella col «(90)». --Micione (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
OK, ho capito: era un mio errore; ho cancellato e risistemato. Grazie per la tua segnalazione. :-) User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Perfetto, grazie a te :) --Micione (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

tue immagini della Borsa di Milano

Ciao, ti contatto in merito ad alcune immagini della Borsa di Milano che ho visto che avevi caricato tu per poi chiederne la cancellazione: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Ora, in base a Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo della Borsa di Milano, è stato riconosciuto che, essendo le Camere di Commercio un ente pubblico, si ricade sotto il Template:PD-ItalyGov. Dato che il Palazzo della Borsa è stato completato nel 1932, ciò significa che il copyright è scaduto nel 1953.
Ora, io normalmente avrei già richiesto la scancellazione, ottenendola praticamente sempre. Vedendo però che tu stesso hai chiesto la cancellazione, prima di muovermi ti chiedo se tu sia d'accordo. Nel caso in cui per motivi di tua tranquillità personale tu preferisca attendere la scadenza automatica al 2040, io lascio perdere la cosa e rispetto il tuo desiderio. Friniate (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Per me va bene, avevo chiesto la cancellazione in un periodo in cui c'era stata un'ondata di rigidità sulle date. Se mi dici che si può ripristinare, non ho obiezioni, il massimo che possa succedermi è che dovrò al limite cancellarlo di nuovo. Grazie. User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Ottimo allora procedo, grazie a te! Friniate (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Sort

Ciao Giova', ricordati di ordinare le categorie quando le crei però, altrimenti sono ordinate per nome, non per cognome. Blackcat [write me] 10:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

All'interno del cognome di un casato, mi pare giusto che gli individui appaiano per nome, o mi sbaglio io? User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

These 21 coins not show a sun

Hello G.dallorto,

This file File:Monnaie - Italie, Ville de Pavie, Francesco I Sforza, Sol, 1447-1466, Pavie - btv1b113118046 (2 of 2).jpg and 20 others in Category:Sun are coins are described as "Sol"- however these coins not show a sun. Could you please fix these when you have time. Thank you and best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't me but a RussBot who, for a reason unknown to me, moved a whole pack of Soldo (a coin) to Sun. I moved them back, in case the Bot repated this wrong move, you now know which was the correct category to restore. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldo User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
It was you that added the category "Sol" here: before, User:RussBot automatically moved the your files to the redirected category "Sun." Thank you for moving those files to the correct category. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, sol was the correct name. The BOT decided it was not. Whatever. User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:0003 - Zamudio, Ivan con l'Agedo al Bologna Pride 2012 - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 9 giugno 2012 a.jpg

File:0003 - Zamudio, Ivan con l'Agedo al Bologna Pride 2012 - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 9 giugno 2012 a.jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0003 - Zamudio, Ivan con l'Agedo al Bologna P…

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

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

Dronebogus (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Vajont disaster people

Please, can you edit this missing category to Category:Giuseppe Volpi and Category:Pietro Frosini (engineer)? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10713-95 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. But in the future, you may do it yourself. This is how Wiki works. User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and sorry. ~2026-10743-65 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I've forgotten, can you do the same edit also for Category:Achille Gaggia? Thank you very much. ~2026-18949-94 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
OK, I did it, but you are authorized to do it yourself, in the future. This is how Wiki works. Anyone may edit, because the checking is made afterwards. So feel free to do it yourself in the future! User:G.dallorto (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and sorry. ~2026-19224-73 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Orfeo

Are you the photographer of Orfeo circondato dagli animali (housed in the Museo archeologico regionale "Antonino-Salinas", Palermo)? <File:DSC00355 - Orfeo (epoca romana) - Foto G. Dall'Orto.jpg> If so, was it really taken in 26 Sept. 2006? The information you provide will be used for reference in an academic video I'm preparing. Please, respond via e-mail to <clovis.deandre@gmail.com>. Thanks. Clovis de Andre (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Outstanding art

Thank you for your many contributions over many years.

In particular Nudo_maschile_/_Male_nude shows your brilliant creativity. Your men look like men should look, complete with body and facial hair. The lighting is perfect. You make good use of mirrors. Your photos have artistic titles. I viewed all 351 of them.

Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_(Rome)_-_Facade

Category discussion warning

San Giovanni in Laterano (Rome) - Facade 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_(Rome)_-_Side_facade

Category discussion warning

San Giovanni in Laterano (Rome) - Side facade 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Categorie

Ciao! Ho visto che ogni tanto passi a inserire categorie più specifiche, che va benissimo, però ad esempio qui e qui la nuova categoria non esiste, se fai questo lavoro dovresti anche crearle... Syrio posso aiutare? 09:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

In realtà mi è stato chiesto di non creare le categorie fino a che non abbiano almeno due o tre presenze. Puoi leggere la polemica più sopra. A me non costa nulla farlo, però su Commons ognuno si inventa un po' le regole che vuole... Quindi ogni tanto ripasso e vedo a quante presenze siamo e creo le categorie che hanno già raggiunto il minimo. A me va bene sia un metodo che l'altro, l'importante è non subire più cancellazioni di massa di categorie perché erano "troppo vuote", come è già successo due volte. Ciao.
(PS Già che ci sono ne approfitto: sei tu che si sta prendendo cura del Trentino? Se no, mi sai indirizzare a qualcuno che lo fa? Grazie.User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Uhmmm non trovo la discussione, però mi verrebbe da dire che se ti hanno detto di non creare la categoria è sottinteso anche di non inserirci dei file finché non viene creata; perché adesso questo non è più inserito nella categoria dei dipinti del 1862 (e comunque sì, Commons è il far west).
Dipende da cosa intendi con "prendendo cura"; ci abito, quindi ho fatto un sacco di foto, quindi ho messo mano alle categorie e le ho un po' organizzate, sì. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 15:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Trovi un assaggio delle loro argomentazioni qui: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2025/03/Category:Music_in_Lombardy_by_year specificamente contro creare categorie per anno per regione se non ci sono molti files, perché ciò crea una "granularità" eccessiva. Io preferisco il tuo metodo, ed è quello che seguivo, se troviamo una soluzione che contenta tutti adotterò quella. nota benbe: io non smembro categorie già esistenti, le creo dal basso. Cioè, vado in un museo, e categorizzo tutti i quadri per anno. Quindi non posso sapere in partenza quanti quadri conterrà ogni anno. Oppure vado in un anno, e aggiungo la località a tutti i files. Quindi non posso sapere in antcipo quanti files avrà ogni località. Per questo la soluzione che avevo trovato era lasciare i files rossi e fare un controllo a tappeto di tanto in tanto, creando solo le categorie che hanno almeno due o tre files, come da richiesta dei vandali. Dimmi tu cosa ne pensi.
Per il Trentino: non lo sto seguendo, però se trovo opere peregrine mentre catalogo posso sempre aggiungerle. Se mi dici come stai organizzando, mi adeguo. Per il momento non sto aggiungendo categorie ai files del Trentino proprio perché non so come comportarmi. Grazie. User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Io non ho particolari preferenze sulla categorizzazione (eviterei anch'io sottocategorizzazioni eccessive, ma in linea di massima va bene); basta che le categorie esistano, altrimenti i file non si trovano...
Non puoi usare petscan? Ad esempio, ho appena provato incrociando le categorie 1860 paintings e Paintings in Veneto e ho visto che ce ne sono tre.
Per il Trentino, fai pure come ritieni più opportuno. Ti confesserò che sono abbastanza sciatto e incostante nella categorizzazione dei dipinti; a volte ci metto la provincia, ma a volte no. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 13:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)