User talk:Themightyquill

Archives 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Category:Books about zoology by taxon

Why {{Catcat}} instead of {{Metacat}}? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

FOP in Italy for recent buildings

Hello, I finally wrote something about the way the law on FOP is applied in Italy. The general idea is that only buildings registered and recognised by the Ministry are protected; everything else falls under the threshold of originality because even the heirs lose their rights. Can you please check what I've written? :) If it makes sense, I'll propose it to revise the way we deal with FOP in Italy and it will easy the job of many admins. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 08:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

So it IS you doing the disruptive edits. Please do not put any more inappropriate images in the unidentified aircraft categories. These catefories are for aircraft / gliders / helicopters that are NOT immediately identifiable by TYPE , NOT registration or some other attribute.

It is not I that is being disruptive by moving images that are inappropriate for the category!! STOP!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And stop adding unnecessary categories to Unidentified aircraft. By all means keep the categories in Piston engined aircraft and Jet-engined aircraft, but they are totally redundant in Unidentified aircraft (read the blurb at the head of the category!!!!!!!!!!)--Petebutt (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC).

If you do have images that are DIFFICULT to identify by type, then add away, otherwise desist.--Petebutt (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Petebutt:, the catgory description reads "This category contains unidentified, unclassified, unknown or mislabelled aircraft. We would value your expertise to identify these media and find their rightful places in the appropriate category structure." and "Look at the file name and description. Many files marked as unidentified are actually identified and just need appropriate categories." Category:Unidentified jet-powered aircraft is exactly the right place for these files. Category:Images of aircraft without type category will soon be deleted, so there will be no other option. I hope you can accept this so that I don't need to block you again. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New "Unidentified" header

Good afternoon. Concerning your newly created "Unidentified" headers I'm afraid they may not be specific enough.

If someone reads "images should probably be placed in subcategories of Category:Jet-powered aircraft." he could possibly place files simply in any of the listed categories after having clicked on the link. Thus, they may disappear in "Jet airliners", "Twin-engined jet aircraft" or similar, before someone with extended knowledge has a chance to place them into the correct type cats etc.

I'd like to suggest to make a slight change: "images should probably be placed in type subcategories ...", adding a more specific target cat description. This would have to be applied across all the 4 sub-cats of "Unidentified". Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)É

I hope my recent additions are satisfactory. Everyone should be placing images in the most specific category they are capable of. If something gets placed correctly in Category:Jet airliners, that's better than hanging out in Category:Aircraft. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt action. I might even have preferred to have that in the big blue box, which is very prominent to readers. But anyhow, it is better than the previous version. --- It feels good to have met somebody with whom an exchange of thoughts is possible in a good atmosphere and with factual arguments; as you obviously know, this is not always the case. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Route 71

Hello! I'd like to ask your help. I took a dozens of pictures along Route 71 (Hungary). I gave coords, I wrote, 71-es út in subscription, but user:Szajci removed those and let me messages (nincs rajta a 71-es út, ne tedd be ide) means cca. 'if the road is not on pics, it is not fit to there'. Here is an example.' I know differently, so I put back couple, but he just let the messages one after another nem vonom addig vissza, csak, ha a többiek is egyetértenek means cca. I will not return only if the others agree with you. Thanks for your effort. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Downspouts

I think you were mistaken to merge Category:Downspouts into Category:Drain pipes. A "downspout" is vertical and usually is part of a rainwater system, especially one leading down from the gutters on a house. A "drain pipe" is typically (though not always) underground, heavier duty, and often carries sewage (or is at least built to a standard where it could). Looking at the history of Category:Downspouts, there was a pretty accurate description there before you merged it, and you appear not to have gone through CFD for this. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Well, there was this discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Drain pipes open since 2014. Most of the images in drain pipes are vertical pipes for rainwater leading down from gutters on buildings. If you want to go the other way, that's fine. I think they're redundant, but I don't care which term we use. The description that was on Downspouts is currently on drain pipes. It listed "downpipe, drain spout, roof drain pipe" as syonyms. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I never found that CFD, because I was watching "Downspouts" but not "Drain pipes". So we don't really have a particular category for sewer-type pipes, I guess, just a bunch of categories that dance around it in various ways (Category:Sewers, Category:Concrete pipes, etc.). - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Patriotic_Revolutionary_Youth_Movement

Patriotic Revolutionary Youth Movement 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03/Category:Patriotic_Revolutionary_Youth_Movement. 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!

E4024 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (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. 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 survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). 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 through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:360° panoramas

Is it really wise to give a category a name that cannot be typed on any keyboard? I usually try to avoid that, the only exceptions being proper names, where there may be no choice. Couldn't we call this Category:360-degree panoramas? - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Jmabel. I had the same thought, and was definitely planning to at least make a redirect from Category:360-degree panoramas, but forgot. If you'd rather make that the main category, I won't fight you on it. There are, however, many examples with ° in Category:Specific angles, not to mention Category:Measurements in degrees Celsius by value. I'm not sure it matters if there is a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as there's a redirect I'm fine with it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 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 will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hari Parbat

Alright, I didn't know that acronyms should be avoided in categories. That's Ok. I got second thoughts about my first idea (category:Hari Parbat, Shounter Valley), because I thought that a mountain usually lies between two or more valleys and that an emphasis on one valley might be inapropriate. But provided I identified the location of Hari Parbat correctly, then the mountain is much closer to Shounter valley than to anything else... So I moved the cat from "...AJK" to "...Shounter valley". Best regards --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:BudapestCarlLutzMemorial001.JPG in Category:Tamás Pál

Hi. Can I ask why you tagged File:BudapestCarlLutzMemorial001.JPG with Category:Tamás Pál? I don't understand the connection, and the page describing the statue on Köztérkép doesn't mention it either. Do you have a reference, or was it just a mistake? – b_jonas 00:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@B jonas: It must have been a mistake. Thanks for correcting it! - Themightyquill (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Great Support

Hi Dear... Thanks a lot for your great and useful support for organizing my Uploaded Files' Category as I was already doing so also but you already helped me, as you noticed today there was a user that claiming that he is helping me but the way of doing so was so offensive (and as he is from Turkey and I am from Kurdistan of Iraq, later on, I understand why he's doing this), his remarks of the correction was so Demolition Criticism , such an attitude makes people give up their work in the Wikimedia Commons and also other WikiProject and it is exactly the opposite of yours as it helped me...Thanks again and have a nice Day --Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Bazaars in Erbil

Hi Dear.. it is me again.. sorry for replying late because I just noticed in my Talk History that you asked about the Bazaars in Erbil (Nishtiman & Qaysari) and actually they are not the same, they are very close to each other in location (one across the street) but not the same, both are in the same district near to Shar Park also and Erbil Citadel..Regards --Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Delete

Hi Dear ... I do not know to ask who  here but I think it is better to ask for your advice on a situation of a user who is causing me with bad words and threatening me and also when I reply to his talk he delete it immediately and the same for any other replay on his page if he does not like it , so to whom I need to talk to about this..--Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sarbast.T.Hameed: As far as I know, talk pages belong to the user, so anyone is free to delete whatever they like. It's probably best if you try to discontinue further interaction with the user in question. If the user writes abusively on your talk page, let me know. If the user alters your edits, please try to discuss the edits in question without getting personal. It would be great if you would both try to de-escalate the situation rather than threatening to make complaints. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice and I did discontinue further interaction with him believe me but I do not understand him he is causing me to something he is doing it already... and also he is the one who deletes the Comment without reading them or discusses it with me, after all, he did threatened me especially by saying (“warning you formally”) ǃ and way thanks and I will do with your advice and will alert you if he writes abusively on my talk page.--Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Crème_liqueur

Crème liqueur 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Crème_liqueur. 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!

E4024 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A user having a temper-tantrum

A certain user (Russian Rocky) really needs to take a chill pill. Accussed me of "playing a deletionist game" and imposing Engish Wiki on Commons even after I repetedly explained that I don't even agree with English category policies and aren't trying to bring them here. some quotes "Please, be more serious, I'm not playing your game, where you are a GM.", "Your obsession with category deletionism is not ok", "We don't play puzzles on Commons" all because I nominated jubilee medal recipient categories for discussion. (BTW, similar jubilee medals don't have recipient categories). Can't you please shower him with Wikilove to get him to calm down a bit, maybe send a cookie? Since you're an admin with actual power maybe he might actually listen but he clearly despises me right now.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to some of the crap he wrote here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

/* Category:Diaphragm arches */ require to close the discussion

Could you have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Diaphragm arches, Please ? Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

diaphragm arches

Thank you for your answer in the discussion about diaphragm arches. I have written a definition in the page of the category and I am working on the subject in my draft in the french wikipedia but it isn't quite ready yet. fr:Utilisatrice:Pimprenel/brouillon 2. I'm afraid someone else will have to work upon the article in the english wikipedia. I also have added a description in the Schwibbogen category. I think that the article in the german wikipedia should be checked too.Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fomatting of the definition of diaphragm arches in commons,I have changed the first sentence to make it simpler to understand. Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pimprenel: No worries. I'm fine with rewording it if my phrasing was unclear, but when you say it "bears a wall", to me that sounds like it's supporting a wall rather than itself forming a wall. Moreover, I'm not sure if it really forms a wall. The side of the arch is visible, but does that make it a wall? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Themightyquill,

I didn't know that "it bears a wall" does not mean quite the same thing as "it supports a wall". If that's so, I will change that word because eventually I think that an arch included in a diaphragm wall cannot be a diaphragm arch, and I have removed several pictures from the files which did not seem to be real diaphragm arches for that reason. The section of wall above the arch must be visible from both sides.

My opinion about Schwibbögen is different now because I have tried to understand some pages of :(see in de:Schwibbogen (Architektur) K. Thieme, R. Sommer, S. Wolfe: Das grosse Buch der Stile. Band 5: „Die Romanik“. Reinhard Welz Vermittler Verlag e.K., Mannheim 2005 which are visible, with my basic understanding of german and the help of google translations. P175, it says that the somewhat oldish word Schwibbogen was taken a couple of decades ago for that thing that still had no name in german: our diaphragm arch . The author says that in : Cerisy la Forêt-France-Calvados as in church La Trinité de Caen (and there they still can be seen , I have taken some pictures), the diaphragm arches were supporting ceilings which were afterwards replaced by vaults. And that author also speaks about the d.a. in churches'crossings and about the chancel arch (when it's diaphragm too) that we call " arc triomphal". So I have changed what I said about the meaning of Schwibbogen in the explanation of Diaphragm arches. I hope you will agree with that. Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say that when I tried to create a category for Diaphragm arches in Germany, it wouldn't work : as soon as I clicked upon the words in red they jumped into the category "Schwibbogen". It's certainly a problem of re-direction. Is it possible to fix that ?. Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pimprenel: Thanks for the update. I've created Category:Diaphragm arches in Germany (which was redirected, as you suspected). Could you please add a suitable category description, ideally in both English and German, so that its purpose is clear? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Themightyquill, I have inserted a description in Category:Diaphragm arches in Germany in english (the same as the one in the general category) but I am unfortunately quite unable to write in german. Sorry. Cordialement--Pimprenel (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Hallo Themightyquill, I'm very sorry, but yesterday I made some error about a link in the discussion "diadems" and "tiaras". I hope that it is correct now (what a confusion...). Greetings,--Marie Adelaide (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Lauwiner Empire users

@Srittau, Yann: Could you please take a look at my nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lauwiner Empire? While I want to assume good faith, I find the behaviour of the referenced users rather suspicious. I realize I'm an admin myself, but I've not been involved in policing user behaviour in the past, so I thought I'd call in your expertise. Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

diaphragm arches

Hello Themightyquill, my article in the french wikipedia about diaphragm arches is finished now and I have also added a description in french in the category in commons. Maybe it is time to remove the request to discuss the category, don't you think ? Cordialement, --Pimprenel (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder! - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unidentified jet-powered aircraft

Hi Themightyquill! Please don't add the unidentified aircraft category to the already categorized images: [1] -- Meisam (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was doing a massive undo of edits by a user who did a mass move of images from "unidentified aircraft" to "airliners" - you had already fixed the situation on that image, but I didn't notice. Thanks for your help. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Checking a CfD close

Could you take a second look at my CfD close here? I think my decision was reasonable given the dysfunctional state the category was in. However, Tuvalkin (who strongly dislikes me, and who I recently reported to COM:AN for unrelated issues) has accused me of acting in bad faith, and I'd appreciate an uninvolved party to look. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Firstly, whether or not I agree with the decision to close, I don't think there's anything at all to indicate that you acted in bad faith. I wouldn't worry about it.

Secondly, Tuvalkin and I have very very different ideas about proper categorization, so I'm probably not the best person to consult for a truly impartial decision on the closure itself.

Third, thanks for all your efforts to work on CfDs over the past while, including old ones. It hasn't gone unnoticed. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

I don't agree with the move and asked the opinion of the community. Commons:Village_pump#September_22. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Thanks for letting me know. I stand by my decision. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A small request

Hello, Themightyquill. Since you have been involved in it, could you talk with PlanespotterA320 in that discussion? I don't want to involve Russian-speaking admins, whom I know. It would be unfair to PlanespotterA320, and I'm not seeking revenge or a way to shut my colleague up. Yet, the tone should be changed, because it's already gone too far. Mocking in caps. Even my nickname was involved. I would rather calmly wait for the decision (even if it takes months) than assist in further escalation. Thanks in advance.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

AN/U

See here. Abuse of admin tools is unacceptable. Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I stand by my actions. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

You closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Ships by name but you didn't do anything with the old category Category:Ships by name. Probably it should be replaced with a {{Category redirect}}, right? Some new categories showed up there, which I have moved. BMacZero (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@BMacZero: No, that was intentional. Ships by name is meant to be sub-categorized by anything people want to sub-categorize by. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please restore "Ships by name" to what it was. Ships by name is not meant to be sub-categorized by anything people want to sub-categorize by, and it is a flat line cat. Broichmore (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: You're contradicting yourself. You're asking me to restore it to what it was, but it *was* sub-categorized. You didn't even participate in the discussion the first time around, and you're changing around things without discussion, much less consensus, in a way that make no logical sense, but I'm the bad guy. Feel free to start a new discussion yourself. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are gaming me Quill, You know what I mean. True, I did not take part in the first discussion as it was under the radar, not fully disseminated that it was going on, and bulldozed through in short time. There is no community consensus to make a new category ("Ships by name (flat list)"). I had already sorted out cat:Ships by name of its spurious sub cats. I'm changing nothing Quill, quite the opposite, so far. I notice that there are now, in "Categories by name (flat list)" 95 sub categories from 1 in a little over a week. Only one of these (yours) has flat list in brackets. This creation of "Category:Ships by name (flat list)" solves nothing, in fact its added a level, which I assume is the last thing we want. I don't know about you, but I'm fed up by being railroaded in this manner on like topics. Please move all the ship by name cats back to "Category:Ships by name". This is a major cat and a heavily used one, we don't need its name to be lengthened, it needs to be as short as possible. Thank you. Broichmore (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I'm gaming you and I'm railroading you? You are the one who has independently decided that some categories are "spurious" when there was no such consensus. You have made an category unecessary by removing categories that were, in my opinion, legitimately there, and then claimed that I made an unnecessary category. You are ordering me around like you own the place, but refuse to open further public discussion. I'll do it for you: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to do a lot of maintenance on your renamed category!!!! Many users still use Category:Ships by name. Renaming was not a wise idea, as could be expected. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: The first three I looked at were all added to that category by someone who is fully aware that Category:Ships by name (flat list) exists, and doesn't like it. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct, even the rest. As far as I can see. Sorry. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to be sorry, you have been gamed. Quill is going into the cat every day to clear out folders. Your point is and was perfectly valid and stands to this day, and Quill's mis-direction is not going to change that. I am not the only person who is making folders there, and it wouldn't matter even if it was the case. There is no justification for lengthening the name of important cats. Especially one that did not need fixing in the first place. Quill has failed to justify "lengthening the name of this cat". Prior to this he had almost zero input in ships, and that particular entry of three or four images was mis-named. Quill it's not your area. As an Admin you are exceeding your remit. There are more important areas away from ships, areas that are broken that require your attention. The sub cats you were whinging about in "Ships by name" should have been in "Categories by ship name" and or "Ship names". "Ships by name", if it had problems was sorted by putting instructions on how to use it, in the header. On this one issue you you have ignored consensus several times. Now please do the right thing and revert the issue. Regards -Broichmore (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: You have continuously accused me of acting in bad faith and I'm getting really tired of it. Please stop. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, afresh, at this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements (you and others sponsored) to the page "Ships by name" which made it into a so called flat list, why should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". How is that an improvement. What does it solve? Seeing as "Ship names" now holds the sub cats YOU did not want there. I'm not the only person not to see the point in this change. Stunteltje, Huntster,Rmhermen, have all agreed at some point that there is no need for the change. - Broichmore (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to admit that we (and others) don't agree on this point, and I'll add comments to the CfD when I have a minute (I waited for you to return from holidays too, if you recall), but there is nothing that justifies you of accusing me of acting in bad faith, gaming, or whatever other accusations you've thrown at me. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting but I'm still in Thailand and will be till mid January. When "Ships" was first conceived a category for names was made called "Ships names". It was felt then that a flat list was required and so "Ships by name" was created. The latters only fault was a lack of prescriptive instruction in its header which you and others finally fixed. Hence there is no need for lengthening its name into "Ships by name (flat list)". Lengthening its title only creates problems with slow internet connections. Again please reinstall its contents. - Broichmore (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Again, I understand your perspective on the issue as I have read your comments. We disagree but that doesn't excuse repeated personal attacks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Flat categories

I like the point you made in the discussion of Category:Ships by name (flat list), where you said "From my perspective, if you want a flat category to remain flat without having to fight for consensus whenever anyone wants to sub-categorize, add "(flat list)" to the category name." It seems to me that the same would work for categories that people often think are metacategories because they have "by <foo>" in their names (by serial, by registration, many but not all by-name cats, etc.). Do you think it would be reasonable to add the flat list qualifier to those, and do you think it would need discussion first? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Can you give me a more specific example? In this case, I wouldn't have made the change unless people were arguing over it. When creating new categories, it's always a possibility. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:People by name, although there would be controversy about that one, too. I just keep trying to figure out a way to distinguish between the ways that the "Foo by X" naming is used. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: In the case of "People by name" I think it would have make a good deal of sense, though they've already solved it (awkwardly, in my opinion) with Category:People categories by name. Personally, I think it makes more sense to have "(flat list)" categories when needed (rarely) than to create similar Category:X categories by name when it (frequently) isn't a flat list. I'm also not exactly sure exactly how flat a flat category should be. If you made Category:Vehicles named after people (flat list) it should obviously not contain Category:Aircraft named after people‎, but could it still contain Category:Vehicles named after Oliver Cromwell‎ or would it have to include only Category:BR Standard Class 7 70013 Oliver Cromwell‎ and Category:Oliver Cromwell (ship, 1922)‎ directly? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Posof, Ardahan

Hello Themightyquill. I admit that I have struggled on the Commons with categorizing, though I love doing it because I learn so much! My problem is that in order to find something, like a place or a lake for example, the user has to know where or what kind of lake or place it is and where it is already; even using searches don't always clarify. Maybe it is just me and my failings. I had this problem with another editor who wanted to eliminate the cat Category:Lakes of Pakistan as over categorization, and wanted to use the same format as Japan. But Japan uses only one language while Pakistan uses at least seven. So looking at the actual lake is also necessary for categorization and going through all the lake sub cats for Pakistan is not feasible. Best, Kalbbes (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Modern Russian Poetry (1921)

You moved this to Category:Russian-language literature but the book is in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Sculptures by artist

I can help later today, probably in about three or four hours from now. Are we leaving the old categories as redirects, or having them deleted? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks. I've been deleting the old ones to avoid confusion. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm making good progress, I think. I can't move Category:Paintings in the Kursk Art Gallery by painter because a redirect exists at the target name. Can you delete the redirect or do the move? I'd appreciate a ping when done. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And another one: Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art by painter. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Patron saint

[2]: could you explain what is going on here? Is it just that there is more than one Saint Isabel/Elizabeth? I still think that even if technically arguably false, it is more likely that someone looking for this would look under "patron saint". - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for your question. I'm not sure if my edit was the best, but here's my explanation: You'll note that there is no wikipedia article attached to Category:Saint Isabel. At English wikipedia, en:Saint Isabel redirects to en:Santa Isabel which is just a disambiguation page linked to en:Elizabeth of Portugal and en:Isabelle of France (saint) so as far as I can see, here isn't much of a "Saint Isabel" in English. Meanwhile Category:Saint Isabel is just a sub-category of Category:Saint Elizabeth, (essentially "Saints named elizabeth" rather than one specific Saint Elizabeth out of several). All of which is to say that the subcategories of Category:Saint Isabel churches don't seem to be linked to any one particular person - it's a collection of churches with the same name. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So shouldn't Category:Saint Elizabeth churches be a parent category of Category:Saint Isabel churches? - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, the former doesn't exist. It probably should (also as a churches by name). One or another way, it should be more obvious to get to Category:Saint Isabel churches from anything about "Saint Elizabeth". Let me give it some thought... - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Assuming all the churches were properly categorized by patron saint as Category:Saint Elisabeth of Hungary churches or Category:Saint Elizabeth of Aragon churches, would Category:Saint Isabel churches be empty and deleted? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Could be. I think there are a couple of other Catholic saints by this name, but not being Catholic I only so much keep track. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I see several others listed... - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think these categories specify that the saints be Catholic. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked at this a bit with hopes of sorting it out, but for the few things in here, it's very hard to work out which Elizabeth/Isabel is their patron saint. Not something I care enough about to investigate the necessary effort of research. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Red links

Hi! I've seen the (not) created category Category:Interiors of monasteries in Germany. It's very fast, yes, just a hour ago, but I don't like red links. May be you've forgotten to create the category. --XRay ^talk 10:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@XRay: Well, I guess your dislike of red links is the most important thing we should worry about, and removing it was the best possible way for you to fix that problem. I've created the category, ok? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert the categorization of my image. It's overcat with your category. I've added the whole category of the interior of the monastery to your new category. So your category is not necessary for a single image. So I did not remove your category, I created a new one for the monastery and added the new one instead. So please have a look to your category instead of reverting. --XRay ^talk 11:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

An addendum: Sorry, my answer looks a little bit unfriendly. My English is not best and I'm still trying to improve it. So hopefully you didn't misunderstood my answer. --XRay ^talk 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Himalaya/Himalayas

Hello! I see that you're moving many categories to use "Himalayas" instead of "Himalaya". I didn't see the notice for the discussion. I just want to point out that, while Himalayas is somewhat more common in English (see [3]), in multiple other languages there is no word for "Himalayas", only "Himalaya". This is because "Himalaya" itself means "abode of snow" in Sanskit (see [4]), and refers to the entire mountain range. The plural of "Himalaya" in Sanskrit is "Himalaya".

You can see this in the article titles of Wikipedia in different languages. In English, it's titled Himalayas, while in German it's Himalaya, French: Himalaya, Spanish: Himalaya. I suspect that "Himalaya" would be the most familiar to non-English readers.

I fear that the discussion for moving only attracted comments from two other people, and hence did not reflect a true multi-language consensus at Commons. Would you consider pausing the move and re-opening the discussion at more prominent location, such as the Village Pump?

Thanks for your consideration — hike395 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks for your kind message. Sorry you didn't see the CfD. I did tag several additional categories to help visibility, but I honestly didn't notice how big the category tree was until I started the moves. The move is already done so I can't postpone, but if you'd like to open discussion at Village Pump, that's fine with me. That said, Himalayas will always show up if you search for Himalaya, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I didn't know that Himalaya was so common in other languages, but at the same time, Commons Language Policy isn't multilingual when it comes to category names. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your point that the category naming policy requires English titles is a good one. I guess between "Himalayas" being more prevalent, and Commons suggesting plural titles for groups points towards "Himalayas". Too bad -- I don't think it's the best usage in general. — hike395 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded photo that may violate copyright - please help with deleting

Hi!

I just uploaded a photo at File:Dye Niebrzydowski Crans Sazdanovic Jacobsson Asaeda Sikora King Mroczkowski Manturov Chmutov 2008 MFO10676.jpg from the Oberwolfach Collection (cf. Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection). However, in the first attempt, I accidentally uploaded the wrong photo, from https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=10669 , which may violate copyright. I uploaded the correct photo from https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=10676 immediately as a new version (it has a 'Copyright MFO' annotation, and https://opc.mfo.de says 'Those images labelled with "Copyright: MFO" can be used on the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany.', so this image doesn't violate copyright).

Could you please help me to delete the first version?

I don't know which template to use for that. Maybe, you have the right to delete it immediately. Many thank in advance for your help. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that you uploaded it, that it might violate copyright, and that you wanted it deleted, I just deleted it. Hopefully that's okay. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is ok. Many thanks! - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Meta-Kategorie anlegen

Guten Morgen User:Themightyquill, ich benötige etwas Unterstützung. Es geht um die Anlage einer Meta-Kategorie. Wir haben diverse Kats in Category:Brick roads by country. Inzwischen gibt es zahlreich Bilder von Brick roads auch in Deutschland und auch eine Category:Die Steege (Schmergow, brick road) die einzuordnen wäre in der Category:Brick roads by country und Category:Brick roads in Germany. Diese Kategorie müsste neu angelegt werden. Danke und ein Frohes Weihnachtsfest -- Biberbaer (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

THX, done -- Biberbaer (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed

Hey Themightyquill,

Shall the category above be deleted as well? -- 1989 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Problematic summary

This is going to be a very problematic summary. Would you please be the one to warn him that is not exacly a good thing for him to do so? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: No, I agree it's not appropriate but I'm not interested in joining the conflict. Sorry. Make a complaint at AN. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I would like to ignore all this attempt to ignite a conflict. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"by subject"

You put File:If you can use tools.jpg and File:Emergency Peace Federation 1917.jpg (and probably others not on my watchlist) in Category:World War I by subject, but that's a meta-category and should not directly contain photos. Any plan here for a next step? - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I didn't consciously put them there, I just renamed Category:Life during World War I to Category:World War I by subject, and moved all the hundreds of contained files across. I already removed some of the files, but there are a lot more to be sorted. I can do a mass move of all the contained files to Category:World War I if you think that's better than working through them slowly. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as you are working on it, that's fine with me. Nothing in the edit summary let me know that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Just because you master English and its nuances better than me... I have not understood at all this comment. I went to the decision to have the less possible to do with that user, still I don't understand why sorting a cat is 'disruptive'... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: I guess if none of the categories have sort keys, they will all fall under L, but under L, they'll be sorted in order by number. (Option A) If they all have numbers as sort keys (like the one you added), each would be sorted to the appropriate number (instead of L), EG. 011 under 0. (Option B). Option B is better than option A. But if you add a sort key to just one category, then you effectively create option C, where some are sorted under L and others are sorted by numbers. So the suggestion was "all" (option b) or "nothing" (option a) because a mix (option c) is disruptive. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I concede "unappropriate" but, hey, "disruptive"! -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Maybe disruptive to the sorting order, rather than "disruptive behaviour" in the sense of vandalism. Assume good faith? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, my doubts were only related to the use of such term -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Suffragettes

Hi, the category "suffragette" is reasonably well-defined. They're a sub-set of suffragists. I think it will have to be recreated at some point; otherwise the distinction is lost. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that word (and "suffragist") can each be defined in at least a couple different ways, as mentioned in the CFD. Category:Women's suffrage activists is less ambiguous. Category:Women's suffrage activists from the United Kingdom and Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union‎ take care of narrower possible definitions. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Gagosh Pics

Hello @Themightyquill, I am writing in regards of the deletion request that I received at Commons page. Excuse me for the late response. Well, honestly saying some of these pics can be downloaded from my Facebook page cause I don't keep photos of my works. However this works are mine. I have web, facebook page and instagram where you can find the same pictures. Here are the links: http://gagosh.org/ https://www.facebook.com/gagosha.art/ https://www.instagram.com/gagoshstreetart/ Also, as it was suggested, I wrote to permissions-wikipedia commons hope it will work.

Giogagoshidze (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As you are active in the aviation files sector, I kindly ask you to read my complaint on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Extremely rude personal attacks by User:Snowdawg. Maybe we have another "Pbutt" here. Thank you very much. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WantedCategories

Hello.The categories you deleted are still in use so they became in Special:WantedCategories (10 members) so please empty them.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Could you please be more specific? Which categories are you talking about? I'll do my best. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have resolved itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the problem has been solved ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Move of Category:Northern Alaska

While looking for a particular category, I found that it was moved earlier this year, with the history noting "Themightyquill moved page Category:Northern Alaska to Category:Arctic Alaska: Match en:Artcic Alaska". I remained unconvinced that having a category name structure which blindly copies what Wikipedia and Wikidata does is the best approach. The division of Alaska into major regions was done many years ago based on this file, which in turn was based on a source from the state government. There is a discussion no one wanted to have somewhere on Wikipedia, pointing out that sources vary wildly as to whether there are five or six major regions of Alaska and exactly how they're delineated. Anyway, based on the boundaries depicted in that file, "Arctic Alaska" and "Northern Alaska" are not quite the same. That is, unless the ultimate objective is to arbitrarily define "Arctic", which is generally understood to mean places above the Arctic Circle. I've seen others expressing a belief elsewhere that anywhere in Alaska falls within the definition of "Arctic", which includes places at 55 degrees N. As for the difference between "Arctic" and "Northern", "Northern" extends as far south as 63 degrees N, or well below the Arctic Circle, while Interior Alaska extends as far north as 68 degrees N, or above the Arctic Circle. So, even if Wikipedia may feel that there is no overlap, there most certainly is, and care should be given to that considering that we deal with a great amount of content depicting fixed locations which shouldn't be viewed or categorized arbitrarily (even if such is rampant anyway). Pinging @Dankarl: and @Nyttend: as they were mostly involved with this matter in prior years.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Little or nothing on Commons should depend on that map. It was created exclusively for the purpose of sorting Alaska geography stubs on en:wp, and because I specifically said that that was the purpose, I didn't envision it being used for any other purpose. If by accident it reflects some other useful division, the map needs to give the details, and if it doesn't, we shouldn't rely on it except for stub-sorting. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Picture-sorting has a lot in common with stub-sorting, so a map drawn on established boundaries is useful and avoids judgement calls.

2.If you look at Category:Regions of Alaska you will see a variety of approaches to delineating the regions. Many of these differ in detail but a several group the Seward Peninsula and Kotzebue Sound with the North Slope. Perhaps the best justification for this is that these three regions constitute the pre-contact range of Inuit people. It also is a good approximation of the region north of the 12 C summer temperature line. So I have no strong objection to calling it Arctic Alaska and have seen it used similarly elswhere (no idea where now). However I suspect there are some literalists around who will want that term to describe an area delimited by the Arctic Circle, which would not be useful; that was the original region for keeping the Northern Alaska name.Dankarl (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dankarl, a major issue is that this doesn't necessarily rely on established boundaries. It consists of boroughs and census areas, all of which have established boundaries, but the color-based grouping doesn't necessarily have its own boundaries. Part of the issue is the stub-sorting standards at en:wp — we wouldn't want to have stub categories that were too big (too many articles) or too small (too few), so the groupings were chosen partly because they would result in proper-sized stub categories. In particular, if there had been fewer stubs in Yukon-Koyukuk, Fairbanks North Star, Denali, and Southeast Fairbanks (yellow), they might have been combined with Nome, Northwest Arctic, and North Slope (purple) instead of forming their own grouping. Apparently these reflected a state agency's regions map (can't tell much about it, since the link has rotten), but when I was helping to form stub categories, the procedure was to find a group of relevant counties/boroughs-and-census-areas/parishes and then find a state website or other major website that used regional boundaries comparable to what we had already picked. It's not really encyclopedic, but when you're just doing stuff for internal project purposes, the standards are a lot lower. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

PS, I found the original map archived. You see that the boundaries don't closely match the boroughs and census areas. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, User:RadioKAOS. I believe I was trying to identify how to connect Category:Alaska with Category:Arctic. Since en:Arctic Alaska existed (and doesn't mention "Northern Alaska" but only "Far North Alaska") I thought it best to replicate that title to fit within Category:Arctic. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening a closed CfD

Regarding Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses: I pinged you on this as someone who has commented on the CfD in the past, but also as an experienced CfD participant. I would appreciate if you could take at least a quick look over what I wrote there and let me know if I am missing the point when it comes to either the process or the purpose of CfDs. As you know I try and attack the backlog a bit, but I haven't yet had one where someone wanted to pry one back open after not responding while it was active. At any rate, I would value your input. Josh (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits

Hi dear friend.
It is my duty to appreciate you.
There is the least I can do for you.
But in the future I will do less.
Because your focus does not interfere.
Many thanks
This text has been translated by Google Translator. (Mostafameraji (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC))

new page

Hi Quill, just FYI: I made up User:Achim55/Cfd requests requiring review and will update it about once a month. It started with 250+ entries, Auntof6 has been so kind to work on that. Best, --Achim (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Post-World_War_II_weapons

Post-World War II weapons 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World_War_II_weapons. 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!

Josh (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creator template for a photographer

Hi, after our discussion on the Photographs by Nadar page, I was hoping you could you help me with another photographer I came across (rather randomly): There are about 2000 photographs by "H. Allison & Co. Photographers" (or "Allison Photographic Studio") from Armagh - info from here. (I think they are all part of Category:Photographs by Public Record Office of Northern Ireland). A new creator template might be helpful here, with related category, but I'm not sure how to go about it as most my edits don't need that type of processing power. Thank you in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deadstar, that seems like a worthy effort, but I've never made a creator template myself either, so I don't think I'd be much help, I'm afraid. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the reply :) -- Deadstar (msg) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hearses

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Horse-drawn_hearses&diff=364697392&oldid=276724684 : the term hearse dates back roughly to the 17th century, so for hundreds of years it specifically meant horse-drawn hearses, so I think this is wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Category:Hearses was redirected Category:Funeral vehicles. I didn't just remove it from Category:Hearses. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Funeral carriages - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine then. I just saw the edit & the summary & didn't have context. - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Temp

Category:Temp 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Temp. 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!

Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Marinas in Ireland

I just saw your deletion of this category to move it to Category:Marinas in the Republic of Ireland. Shouldn't this category continue existing, with subcategories of Category:Marinas in the Republic of Ireland plus Category:Marinas in Northern Ireland, to match en:Category:Marinas in Ireland? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but no, I don't think there's a need for Category:Marinas in Ireland. There's no reason to categorize everything by the island before sub-categorizing by country. Maybe with some natural geographic features, but marinas are clearly in one country or another. I'm not sure why English wikipedia has categorized everything by the island rather than the country. We have no Category:Marinas by island so there's no natural home for it either. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I've modified the commons category links on enwp accordingly, and will do the same for other cases like this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thnaks. Please note that it won't always be possible to match things properly. English wikipedia has Category:Fishing in Ireland and Category:Fishing in Northern Ireland but no Category:Fishing in the Republic of Ireland. Category:Fishing in Ireland is in Category:Fishing by country, so its precise reach is unclear. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Lighthouses in Ireland

I see you deleted this category and moved it to Category:Lighthouses in the Republic of Ireland under the claim it was incorrectly named. You are maybe not familiar with the fact this is a false claim because the lighthouses are not statewide but are islandwide marine navigation aids under the control of the w:Commissioners of Irish Lights. Also see the w:List of lighthouses in Ireland that contains more than 13 non-Republic of Ireland lighthouses listed and note there is no such list as lighthouses in the Republic of Ireland. Please revert to the correct and proper category. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I'm not sure if I understand. Just because they are under the control of a jointly run organization, the Commissioners of the Irish Lights, doesn't mean the individual light houses are not physically located in either one country or the other country. Just because the United Nations is a jointly run international organization doesn't mean its headquarter building isn't in New York. Category:Lighthouses in Northern Ireland has existed since August 2008. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The implication of having two separate categories is that they are state specific when that is not the case. Ww2censor (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, their location is state specific. And as I mentioned, there have been two separate categories since 2008. Category:Lighthouses in Ireland was also in Category:Lighthouses by country not Category:Lighthouses by authority or Category:Lighthouses by island which also implies that it's related to particular states. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

Should we speedy delete it: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Videos of information technology. At the moment it is here: category:Cfd requests with missing discussion page--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I just forgot to remove the template after closing. Thanks for letting me know. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User: GeoDude123

Request flag for User: GeoDude123 --Allforrous (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The general question

@Auntof6: What should be done with discussions not in English, like Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Art Nouveau reliefs in Bydgoszcz. For example, here ({{缺字/biang2/1}}) I used Category:Needing transcription (zh)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I use google translate, and it tends to be good enough to understand the broader points, if not the finer details. Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I'm not sure what you're asking. These should be handled the same as discussions in English. As far as I know, there is no restriction on what language can be used in these discussions. I also sometimes use Google Translate, and I have occasionally added a courtesy translation for the benefit of others, if I felt I could accurately represent what was said. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with EN wikipedia biography sources?

Hi!

You don't happen to be somewhat familiar with English wikipedia source policies for biographies of living persons?

I recently started the biography stub en:E. Mark Gold, about the computer scientist who wrote the famous article en:Language identification in the limit. I could find only very few information, mainly from headings of his published articles (like "Current address: XXX"). This week, presumably his son left a message on the talk page en:Talk:E. Mark Gold, asking for some corrections and offering some new bits of information.

My problem is how to verify the son's authenticity, and how to include his information in accordance with English wikipedia's source policy. I found en:WP:BLPRS, but it wasn't helpful.

Do you have an idea how to proceed? Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: I've responded there. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that you'll be able to include information from his son. =( -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate category

Hello, can you help me with Category:Budapesti Ferences Mária Missziós nővérek temploma and Category:Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, Budapest categories. I think these are duplicate cats. I think one is good, but Hungarian, other name is not really pass to the article. Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never heard of it before, but judging from en:Franciscan Missionaries of Mary is the proper name of the order. What about Category:Franciscan Missionaries of Mary church, Budapest ? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

OK for me. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Images_by_file_format

Images by file format 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images_by_file_format. 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!

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Brudern_House

Brudern House 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Brudern_House. 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!

Globetrotter19 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Signs of motorways in Hungary and Category:Motorway signs in Hungary

Hello, can You help me. Duplicate (or Not?) - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, surely duplicate. The only other "country" category in Category:Signs of motorways is Category:Motorway signs in New Zealand (which is also in Category:Motorway signs by country. I'll move it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing CFD

If you close CFD and mention it in corresponding talk page, then the policy (Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Closing_a_discussion) says that proper is to use construction "{{Archive box|*[[Commons:Categories for discussion...". If done so, less info pollution in talk pages. One example: Category talk:Mísia (Portuguese singer)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Firstly, that page is not marked as official policy. Second, I did that for many years, but I noticed that others weren't. I don't see "pollution" in talk pages as a problem, since they are almost entirely unused. By contrast, linking to an archive makes the discussion less visible. But maybe I should propose a change on that page. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: also. The caption of CFD says "This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." In Wikimedia projects, archived texts are usually not visible, but are moved to the archive box ({{Archive box}})--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I don't use the {{Archive box}} since it seems kind of an extra step that is not needed. Category talk pages are almost always empty or minimally used at most, so having and archive of them seems a step too much to me. I simply directly link the discussion on the talk page so it is immediately there to see for anyone clicking on the discussion tab. I figure the spirit of step 5 at Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Closing_a_discussion is really just to make sure any visitor to that category can quickly see that there was once a CfD held on it and have a way to find that CfD to avoid having to repeat old discussions over and over, and that is satisfied by simply adding the discussion to the talk page itself. If that is a problem, then I'm happy to discuss a better process. Josh (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you arguing for wikimedia-wide consistency over local functionality? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

no, every Wikimedia project has its features. But see, eg this one Category talk:2 groups. I think better is with {{Archive box}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I think that one is a good example, but exactly why I do not use the archive box process, because doing so would mean you would only have an archive box and would have to click there on two separate links to read the two relevant discussions, versus just including them directly as I did in order that the user can see both immediately without having to dig any further. Josh (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)