User talk:Allforrous/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
Voting rights in Singapore 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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! |
— SGconlaw (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have reverted my edition (Category:Human eating <-> Category:Eating). I do not agree with that. Jmarchn (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Videos_of_5_December has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Nature beauty 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! |
—LX (talk, contribs) 08:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Inclusion_map 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! |
Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The category is about verb. Drying laundry, hanging plant parts, pendulums etc. are not suicide methods. SpiderMum (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Celtic gods, and their categorization
Hi. I reverted your revert on Category:Celtic gods per COM:OVERCAT. The exceptions for OVERCAT clearly do not apply here. Enterprisey (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Corrected.--Allforrous (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
COM:AN/U
Enterprisey (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reviewed.--Allforrous (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Mythological rapists 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! |
2A00:F41:48CF:180B:66A:D5E3:6B16:2D8F 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw you change the rank of Category:Collembola on few taxons.
I really don't mind, except:
1) for the choice of subclassis.
As you can this on Category:Collembola, there is no agreement on the rank. But clearly wikispecies is alone with the rank subclassis.
Perhaps you could give your sources on the page.
2) For the subtaxa list. On hundreds of taxon category the ranks will not be good. Simply on Category:Collembola there is a problem
In all cases, I corrected Category:Genera of Collembola however you set Collemba as order or subclassis
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybee we should wait before changing Collembola: look at species:Entognatha: Collembola is considered an order.
- I really think that wikispecies is a very very bad source.
- Compared to wikicommons, they never give their sources (we have source on taxon list, on synonyms, on type species...). And when they give some, they give too much without telling which info comes from which source.
- Liné1 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- Lol. You did exactly what wikispecies does: provide a lot of references without saying what they are source for.
- One book is not accessible by me.
- Another book says that Collemba is an order!
- The last book says subclassis or order!
- Only the 2 website say subclassis but I am not sure that they aer good sources for taxonomy.
- Regards Liné1 (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Programming language classification 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! |
Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Substring has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Categories_that_should_not_contain_files 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! |
— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Animations of physical phenomena 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! |
Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrong redirect
Hi Allforrous, you have redirected the general category SVG Kepler-Poinsot solids to the image set Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG. This can not be right. Let's talk later about what went wrong. Whatever you do, please don't just do something suggested by Arthur Baelde. Compare my hint to Sarang in this discussion. Watchduck (quack) 12:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Brisbane ??
it might be my fault but I don't understand this categorization. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Classification of clouds
I have specially put there under the same section of the Category:Clouds as they are all related. Please do not change these sub-category grouping as they are all part of the classification of clouds according to the Cloud Atlas and WMO.
- Cloud species (7 C, 2 P)
- Cloud types (15 C)
- Cloud varieties (9 C, 3 P)
- Supplementary feature clouds (10 C)
Pierre cb (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Orage-goutte-froide.png
This image applies to ALL thunderstorms and not only to supercells.
Pierre cb (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
File:CAPE vs SHEAR.png/File:Diagramme tve.png
These diagrams are not limited to supercells but to multicellular, squall lines etc... Read them. So they have to stay in category:thunderstorm diagrams on top of been in Supercell diagrams.
Pierre cb (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Computer science suffixes 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! |
Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Mass adding of redundant categories
Hello. If photo of some biological object already have category for species/genus, category for class (1, 2, 3 and so on) is redundant. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Clip art 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! |
Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the warning of a proposed delete of this and same for Venezuela, Uruguay and Bolivia. My original edits were to create trees consistent with the rest of the world. I've reinstated the links without reference to the deleter and hope if he/she disagrees this time they pay me the compliment of telling me. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
|
File:1724blandengue01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
E4024 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
many GIF files wrongly categorized as animations
Hi, could you please check all GIF files you moved in the last hours, if they really are animated – before you go on with further categorization? There are many files now wrongly classified as animations. I only checked a few and found too many. --Te750iv (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You are making redundant categories with Category:Atmospheric science.
Pierre cb (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Doubling of categories
Hi:
You just created Category:Meteorology research and field projects which is a redundant with Category:Meteorological experiment. Please merge.
Pierre cb (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Turkish_people_of_Asian_descent 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! |
E4024 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Turkish people of Asian descent
Hi. I know you don't like to talk but make arbitrary categorization. At least do that in areas that you know better. "Descent" is used for people who have mixed blood, at least in the case of "Turkish people" cats. (You did not even notice that we have "people of Laz descent" and "Laz people" in Turkey.) In other words, if someone, like Adile Naşit has Turkish and Armenian ancestors, she is a Turk of Armenian descent. This is not about emigrants/immigrants. Melek Hu is a naturalized Turkish citizen. She is "Chinese" and not of "Chinese descent". Also you are inventing new categorization especially in a place where we are discussing the current situation of categories. I mean you are staying away from the discussion but imposing your choices which are not even backed by any formation about the issues. If you continue to act like this (arbitrarily and without respecting consultation) I will have to report you. Your talk page is full of my intents to communicate which have been futile. So you have been informed. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Particulate pollution
Hi:
Category:Particulate pollution seems to me the same thing as Category:Particulate matter. Don't you think the former should be merge into the latter?
Pierre cb (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Warning: you break templates
As I already learned that you do not ever reply, but react by making "revenge edits" (including nonsense ones) when your creations of categories or categorizations of files are questioned, I don't expect any constructive reaction. I only ask you to check and correct this edit yourself (I'll leave evaluation to others).
For the record and to other editors: please see this request referring to wrong edits like [1] (putting dozens of non-animated files into Category:Animations of…) supplemented by this hint and afterwards the indirect confirmation of ignorance (fixed myself hours later), while in the meantime Allforrous made several edits and created even more animations categories. --Te750iv (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Acceleration_due_to_garavity_3.gif&diff=339939781&oldid=214629112){kind=link}
|
|
Photos of religious buildings has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oxalic anhydrides
It looks like you're making a mess of pre-existing categorization and I don't see where this is all leading. We had:
- Category:Oxalic anhydride dimer for C4O6
- Category:Oxalic anhydride for C2O3
and no other cat for mixed/other anhydrides of oxalic acid. What are your plans here? DMacks (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(not) Cais do Sodré
Concerning this rollback of your edits, please see the file’s talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
|
|
File:ParroquiaNtraSradeLuján.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
E4024 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Maritime culture 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! |
E4024 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Flugelhornists
Please stop adding the aforementioned category to photos just because they contain the word "flugelhorn" somewhere in their description. Categories should be meaningful, that is, when someone goes to Category:Flugelhornists they want to see pictures of flugelhorns or someone playing them, not unrelated pictures as, for instance, File:Dave Holland1.jpg. Thank you, —capmo (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
