User talk:An Errant Knight

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, An Errant Knight!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Affected:

File:Sparks1.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Hinkle Amshak.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hinkle Amshak.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Hinkle Amshak.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

1989 20:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License problem[edit]

If you add permission = http://trainweb.org/usarail/ "You are free to use my photos on my website. No permission is required." you would avoid these problems. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wellesley Square station from above.JPG[edit]

I'm not quite sure if this qualifies as am Amshack. Wellesley Square was an Inland Route Regional stop for a while, but the MBTA owns and presumably maintains the station. Do you know if the shelter was specifically built by Amtrak? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPG[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Rocky Mount REA Express Building[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why the removal of the two bus oriented categories from my images of the REA Express freight house at Rocky Mount (Amtrak station)? As far as I know, that part of the station is still where all the buses stop. ----DanTD (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve comments about categories[edit]

File:Middletown, CT - former Middlesex Theater 03.jpg and others: please look at the diffs of your recent edits here (and mine that follows). When there is a comment within a category link, it should be preserved. Typically, it is there so that future editors can know why that category is present (in this case, which building in a picture it refers to, often which person in a picture it refers to). Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coolidge_(Amtrak_station)[edit]

Coolidge (Amtrak station) 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!

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

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories#Over-categorization[edit]

Hi User:An Errant Knight|An Errant Knight, you are doing a lot of categorization work right now. While I applaud a lot of it, I fear you may be succumbing to the "overcat" syndrome, the need to add more categories than is necessary to various images and categories. For example, recently you created Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah (southeastern), and made it a sub cat of over a dozen other categories, including Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah, Category:Interstate 70 in Utah, Category:U.S. Route 6 in Utah (Eastern Utah), Category:U.S. Route 50 in Utah, Category:Transport in San Juan County, Utah, Category:Transport in Grand County, Utah, Category:Transport in Emery County, Utah, Category:Ashley National Forest, Category:Navajo Nation, Category:White Mesa, Utah, Category:Bluff, Utah, Category:Blanding, Utah, Category:Manti-La Sal National Forest, Category:Monticello, Utah, Category:Moab, Utah, Category:Crescent Junction, Utah, Category:Green River, Utah, and Category:Woodside, Utah. This is unnecessary and is not useful for the categorization system. While some of these categorizations are useful and follow the "tree" form of categorization, many are not. I will break down why I think this is incorrect or correct for each item:

Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah...This is the most relevant and obvious: 191 in southeastern Utah is entirely part of 191 in Utah, so it should be a sub-cat of US 191 in Utah.

Category:Interstate 70 in Utah...I-70 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of I-70.

Category:U.S. Route 6 in Utah (Eastern Utah)...US 6 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of US 6.

Category:U.S. Route 50 in Utah...US 50 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of US 50.

Category:Transport in San Juan County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.

Category:Transport in Grand County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.

Category:Transport in Emery County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.

Category:Ashley National Forest...US 191 just passes through Ashley National Forest and is otherwise unrelated to it as a forest, and large sections do not pass through the forest, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Ashley National Forest

Category:Navajo Nation...US 191 just passes through Navajo Nation and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the nation, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Navajo Nation

Category:White Mesa, Utah...US 191 just passes through White Mesa and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of White Mesa

Category:Bluff, Utah...US 191 just passes through Bluff and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Bluff

Category:Blanding, Utah...US 191 just passes through Blanding and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Blanding

Category:Manti-La Sal National Forest...US 191 just passes through Manti-La Sal National Forest and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the forest, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Manti-La Sal National Forest

Category:Monticello, Utah...US 191 just passes through Monticello and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Monticello

Category:Moab, Utah...US 191 just passes through Moab and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Moab

Category:Crescent Junction, Utah...US 191 just passes through Crescent Junction and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Crescent Junction

Category:Green River, Utah...US 191 just passes through Green River and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Green River

Category:Woodside, Utah...US 191 just passes through Woodside and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Woodside

Basically, this is what I'm trying to get at: Say you go to the Woodside, Utah category. Within it, you see "US Route 191 in southeastern Utah" as a subcat. You click on it, and then find that most of the files there have nothing to do with Woodside. Why would you then consider it a valid sub-cat? The idea of subcats is that the content is related to the cat directly above it. Famartin (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page... == Over-categorization & U.S. Route 191 ==

Several thoughts on the matter:

1) The primary focus of the over-categorization issue is listing images under general categories and then again in one or more subcategories of that general category.

2) "Category:Navajo Nation...US 191 just passes through Navajo Nation and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the nation, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Navajo Nation." However, the route is a major component of the "transport network" within the Navajo Nation (there just isn't a "Transport in the Navajo Nation" sub-category, . . . yet).

3) Look it this way: "Say you go to the '[Populated places in Utah County, Utah]' category. Within it, you see '[Draper, Utah]' as a subcat. You click on it, and then find that most of the files there have nothing to do with [Utah County]. Why would you then consider it a valid sub-cat?" Because, even though nearly all of city of Draper is not located within Utah County, part of it is and therefore constitutes a part of the category "Populated places in Utah County, Utah".

In addition, because U.S. Route 191 is the primary component of the "transport network" in White Mesa, therefore it should be included within that city. However, unlike Salt Lake City, which has multiple subcategories, over-categorization would occur if "U.S. Route 191 in Utah" were in the subcatgory "Roads in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "Transport in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "White Mesa, Utah". (It should be obvious to the intelligent, but uninformed Commons user that the entire U.S. Route 191 is not located within the community of White Mesa.)

An Errant Knight (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but it still doesn't follow the "tree" organization that is ideal for categories. To my way of thinking, any photos of US 191 in White Mesa would be tagged in both "US 191" and "White Mesa", instead of "US 191" being a subcat of "White Mesa". Example: You take a photo of US 191 in White Mesa. In your current philosophy, what category do you put this photo in? "US 191", or White Mesa? You CAN'T put it in both, because then you ARE violating the overcat rules. If you put it in either cat alone, potential of someone not finding what they might be looking for (a photo of US 191 in White Mesa) exists. So, the logical alternative is to NOT make "US 191" a subcat of "White Mesa", and instead tag the photo as being both "White Mesa" and "US 191". Photos can show multiple things and get multiple cats. If there were multiple photos of US 191 in White Mesa, then you'd be perfectly valid creating a category "US 191 in White Mesa", which would be a subcat of both "US 191" and "White Mesa". As far as US 191 obviously not being entirely within White Mesa to people... how is it obvious? They'd have to research it. There are plenty of highways which exist only in one town. Its *NOT* obvious without looking it up, which defeats the purpose. Anyway... point is, individual towns along a highway, or even wider areas, should not be cats above a highway cat which only partially travels through them. You can tag both a town and a highway in a photo, which is the ideal. Famartin (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A short history of Laramie Depots, Oct 2011.jpg[edit]

File:A short history of Laramie Depots, Oct 2011.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.

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

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of the United States by location and by state[edit]

Hello, Errant Knight. I noticed that you eliminated some US "by location" categories recently. I was wondering why you did that. Is there a problem with having the location categories?

I also noticed that you included some categories for US territories into "by state" categories. That is incorrect. The territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) are not states, they are territories. There are also a few smaller places owned by the US that are neither states nor territories. The options for this kind of thing are:

Have a category such as "Foo in the United states by state or territory" that includes both states and territories. In fact, I've been thinking of starting a discussion to suggest changing all of the "by state" categories to this kind of name. This is similar to the way that categories for Canada are "by province or territory" and categories for Australia are "by state or territory".
Have separate categories for "by state" and "by territory".
Have a "by location" category that contains a "by state" category and all the individual territory categories, along with any others that fit such as by county, by city, etc.

I have recreated some of the "by location" categories that you eliminated so they can hold categories for different types of locations (by state, by city, etc.). Please don't delete them until/unless there is a better option than putting everything into a "by state" category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeehouses / Cafés[edit]

Can you explain what you are doing in moving items from Category:Coffeehouses in Washington (state) to Category:Cafés in Washington (state)? At least in local usage here, "coffeehouse" is pretty specific: a place centered on espresso, possibly offering some other beverages (mainly, but not necessarily exclusively, non-alcoholic beverages; even if alcohol is available, serious drinking would be unwelcome), typically offering an assortment of pastries, possibly offering simple, light meals (soup, sandwich, maybe quiche, rarely anything more elaborate. "Café" is much vaguer: it can mean that, it can mean a restaurant, it can mean a bar. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Vashon Island Coffee Roasterie (one of the ones you removed from the "coffeehouses" category) is emphatically coffee-centered: they roast their own coffee, the sell roasted beans to go; if you look at the photos the character of the place is pretty clear. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- moved from User talk:Jmabel to keep conversation in one place - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Coffeehouses are probably a more common local term in the state of Washington for what is a cafés in the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries. Therefore, the standard term is more appropriate for the category. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The English-language Wikipedia makes the redirect in the opposite direction (en:Cafe redirects to en:Coffeehouse). Do you have any basis for your statement about "the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries"? - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:Coffee houses vs Category:Cafés, Category:Cafés by country, and Category:Cafés in the United States by state. Also keep in mind that categories in the "English" Wikipedia are just that, for English only. Categories on Commons apply to ALL languages as there is not an "English" Commons.An Errant Knight (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, but the category names are in English. Cognates in other languages can be somewhat relevant, but only somewhat. And Category:Coffee houses vs Category:Cafés shows what? It suggests that both are widely used terms; I don't see any demonstration there that "Coffeehouses are probably a more common local term in the state of Washington for what is a cafés in the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries." In particular, "Café" does not indicate an emphasis on espresso. It has a lot of different meanings in different places: in Connecticut, for example, it almost always means a bar. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to duck out of this and hand this off to a different administrator, since I feel you are choosing to falsely state that I did not read what you wrote instead of addressing my point. I'll post to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and request that someone else try to work with you on determining what would best be done here. - Jmabel ! talk

Since your reply only compared two of the FOUR categories in the previous reply, it is reasonable to believe that you MAY not have read the entire reply. IF you ignore the 81 country categories for Cafés and more than 29 state categories for Cafés, the response doesn't make much sense. An Errant Knight (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case supports an additional reason for consistency in category titles. The navigational U.S. state template for Cafés in Foo includes a link to Category:Cafés in Washington (state) (as it does for 36 or more other states), but will not show a link to the (now deleted) category of Coffeehouses in Washington (state). An Errant Knight (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm another admin who arrived here for a similar issue (see below). I read the foregoing. Jmabel has been rather pushed aside here. I'd like to request that all the "Café" entries be returned to Coffeehouses because Café with the accent isn't even an American English word and certainly isn't in common use for Coffeehouse all across the 50 states. "Cafe" can mean food, coffee, or a bar, it's not specific to Coffeehouses. Please return the structure to how you found it, the changes are not accurate. I have found this lack of accuracy in other actions, please see below, and I'm getting concerned that you have "category-itis" and are not listening to the admin/s who are now speaking to you. I do not think that you gave Jmabel any benefit of the doubt or considered COM:AGF. We do not need chaos in the categories, please return the structure to how you found it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can decide that there is a consensus to rename the category back, the work can easily be done with the Delinker, using {{Move cat}}. But as the complainant, I don't think I should be the one to determine that such a consensus has been reached. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the US states template[edit]

Hi, AEK. You might not have known but this template has an option that will make all the states display, with the ones that don't have entries shown in red. It's common and helpful to use this parameter on the parent category (for example, Category:Log cabins in the United States by state) but not on the individual state pages. Please consider using the parameter when you create categories of the US by state.

Also, when you create any "by state" categories, or similar categories, be sure to include the {{Metacat}} template, and use a parameter that indicates what the grouping is. That would look like this: {{metacat|state}}.

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Fire Departments[edit]

Heya! I moved a couple pictures over to "Category:Volunteer fire departments in California" because their companies are not professional. Please take the 30 seconds to google the various companies before categorizing into the two sections you created. There really isn't (in my personal opinion) the need to separate professional and volunteer, but if you feel it's important, please try to accurately separate the photos. Thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories were created as sub-categories of "Volunteer fire departments in the United States" and "Fire departments in the United States". Images were moved from their parent category to their sub-category, without any attempt to verify the distinction between the two. The moves were only an effort to assign them to the correct state (which would facilitate Ellin Beltz's recommendation). Anyone is welcome to improve the existing categorization. As for the need to separate the two department types, the distinction has been in use in Commons for some time. However, it is correct that it is often difficult to categorize many departments. For example, as an all volunteer department grows and begins employing one or more part-time and/or full-time staff, at what point is the department not longer considered "volunteer"? Notwithstanding, there are likely very strong opinions regarding the distinction within the firefighting community itself. There is also some question as to whether many images to belong to "Fire departments in..." or "Fire stations in..." categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overcat?[edit]

[1]: isn't Category:National parks of the United States redundant to Category:National parks of Washington (state)? - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of... Since there is probably an insufficient number of national parks in the Unites States to warrant a "National parks of the United States by name" category, all national parks are included in "National parks of the United States" with "National parks in Washington (state)" being a sub-subcategory, which can be included in various Washington (state) categories such as "Protected areas in Washington (state)". This principle also applies to the National Forests (except that there are substantially more of them). An Errant Knight (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) It's definitely redundant. Nothing should be in both of those categories directly. We don't necessarily need a US national park by name category, but if you want one, I would think that 59 is certainly a big enough number (see the list on English Wikipedia), assuming we have categories for all of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this: Former churches are not typically former buildings. Typically they are churches that have been repurposed, but are still buildings. (In fact, both buildings that are in this category are still standing.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While many of the buildings in the multiple Former [building] in... categories still exist, there is not a consistent distinction (within the current, multiple Former [building] in... categories) between structures that still exist (and remain in use for other purposes), buildings that still exist (but are no longer in useful and/or repairable condition), and buildings that no longer exist (demolished, destroyed, etc.). Unless there is a better suggestion for grouping the multiple Former [building] in [state] categories, buildings that no longer exist should also be categorized with a category similar to "Demolished buildings in...". An Errant Knight (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the only reason any Category:Former buildings contains structures that still exist (and remain in use for other purposes) is that people make what I would consider to be erroneous category inclusions like the one you just made. Clearly Category:Former churches belongs under Category:Buildings by former function, not Category:Former buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of the United States by state[edit]

Hello, An Errant Knight. I noticed that you have added categories to this category recently. When you create these categories, please include a {{Metacat}} template. The template would usually look like this:

{{metacat|state}}

Thanks, and feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by county in Utah[edit]

Hello, An Errant Knight. You're kindly warned not to create non-topical, useless and improperly named categories. They are completely out-of-scheme courrently adopted on Commons, not to mention that the synthiax used here is completely different from the (highly questionable) one adopted on en.wiki. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10[edit]

Some time ago, I used Category:10 (number) as the testing ground for possible dissimination of media items and subcategories so far heaped onto that category without rhyme or reason. It was satisfactory to see that not only it was possible to do so, but that the relatively small number of generic categories I created, once populated with material dissiminated from above, provided interesting opportunities for futher linking to other parent categories, improving the curation of Wikimedia Commons and its meta-content value.

Sadly, that work was left only partially done and nobody, nor even me, had the stamina to widen the project to other numbers. I see that you now took upon yourself the task to dismantle what I did, and put Category:10 (number) back in its original state of disarray and unusefulness. Understandably, I’m not wishing you well in this endeavour.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuválkin, it is entirely unclear how eliminating the former Category:Number 10 on things and placing its former contents in its subcategory (Category:Number 10 on objects) had ANY direct effect on Category:10 (number). (By definition, an "object" is a "thing" with physical existence. Since any "thing" would have to have physical existence to have a number on it, ALL "things" with numbers on them are therefore, by definition, "objects". Therefore, the only possible items within the former category of Number 10 on things should actually belong in the subcategory of Number 10 on objects, thus making the category of Number 10 on things entirely unnecessary.) An Errant Knight (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some “things” are not “objects” (in which cases the number “on” them is metaphorical), as you noticed yourself when you had to move up the category tree a few items that I had tagged as Category:Number 10 on things and which were not appropriate for Category:Number 10 on objects. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers on rail vehicles[edit]

You’re doing a good job here! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tram_stops_in_the_United_States_by_state[edit]

Tram stops in the United States by state 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!

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

Steve Morgan (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs in[edit]

What do you think about a Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs in Florida and Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs in Georgia (U.S. state) since there are many in both of those states? --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for your work on correct categorization. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT in Lousiana[edit]

LGBT in Lousiana may be delete — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 104.243.164.41 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Signs_for_roads_numbered_420[edit]

Signs for roads numbered 420 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!

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

Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoodriver history large.jpg[edit]

File:Hoodriver history large.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.

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

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caliente Union Pacific Depot historical plaque.jpg[edit]

File:Caliente Union Pacific Depot historical plaque.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.

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

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement?[edit]

In what way is this edit helpful? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until about six months ago, the 1,200+ items in the various subcategories of the Ships by pennant number category were spread between the subcategories of the Integers, Numbers on vehicles, and Numbers on watercraft parent categories. (In most cases the Numbers on watercraft category did not exist, so the template caused the subcategory to be a subcategory of the respective Numbers on vehicles parent category, except in the rare cases where that category did not exist and then the default was the Integers parent category.) Now that ALL of the Ships by pennant number subcategories are a subcategory of their respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory, there is no longer a need for them to ever be assigned to either the Vehicles by number or Integers parent subcategories. (As a side note, despite how the template is/was supposed to work. In nearly all cases, the various subcategories of Ships by pennant number would indicate that they were a subcategory of the respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory and not the respective Vehicle by number parent subcategory. Despite this, they did NOT appear as a subcategory of the respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory, but DID appear in the corresponding Vehicle by number parent subcategory. The change to the template was part of the steps needed to correct this ongoing issue.) Hopefully that clarifies the issue and answers your question. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you decided to cripple the parent cat autodetect function of that template based on two misguided notions:

That numbers are a finite set («ALL of the Ships by pennant number subcategories are a subcategory of their respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory», really? And what happens when a new one is created?)
That you haven’t noticed that template transclusion has a much higher latency time than regular, hardcoded page transclusion and therefore changes will not show immediately.

I suggest you undo your edit: Most of the time the if-clause will not be necessary, thanks mostly to your effort — but when it is necessary it will link to actual categories, not to redlinked would-be categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all the existing Ships by pennant number subcategories. . . . When new ones are created (which there will be, but by the nature of the category, it is unlikely that there will be very many) then the respective parent (redlinked) category should also be created, rather than default to a much less useful link to "a" category. This would prevent the perpetuation of the problem that took many hours to clean up.

As for the latency, in this case, it was not a matter of minutes or even hours, but days and weeks (at least). As previously mentioned, the parent category would appear almost immediately, but the subcategory would not appear for a very long time (if it actually ever did). The result was that a very large number of these subcategories defaulted to a much less useful parent, parent (or parent, parent, parent, parent) category instead of the proper one. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trams, trains, and rail vehicles[edit]

Hi. I notice you have been putting a lot of Japanese train categories into "Number xxx on trams" categories, but could you perhaps have a look at the Tram article on Wikipedia, as "tram" is another name for "streetcar" and is not used for regular trains that run on regular tracks. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct, the term tram is used to refer to streetcars, as the article referenced clarifies, this use is in "North America". Further on in the article you will also notice that the term tram is a subcategory of light rail, which does included "regular trains that run on regular rails". Notwithstanding, there is not always a clear distinction between light rail and commuter rail. There is no argument that the Japanese train categories in question are not considered streetcars. According to your greater expertise, they should be categorized as "rail vehicles" instead of "trams". Thanks for this insight. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted one of your edits because,[edit]

A mailbox is not a house. Thank you for volunteering, please try to be more careful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but letter boxes often have house numbers on them. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However in this case the place is not a house, but a business, therefore it's not a "house number" and was correct the first time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partially correct, however. . .

While it would seem that "house numbers" should only apply to houses, the term house number actually refers to:

1.The single object or multiple objects attached to a building (or an object adjacent to it such as a mailbox or post) to display the street address assigned to that structure.

2. The street address numbers painted on a building (or an object such as a mailbox or post near the building), or painted on the curb of the street in front of the building. (Wiktionary)

Properly used, the term "house number" applies the number assigned to a business, residence, etc. that distinguishes it from other structures on the same street, road, etc. Though, it does not include letter box numbers that are often used in rural areas in some countries. The use of the House number category in Commons reflects this definition and, accordingly, includes many businesses and other none residential structures. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

In this edit, just like in countless hundred more in the past many months, you labeled an improvement of what I had edited previously as "Correction". Please acknowledge that what I did, when I did it, was not in any way incorrect and that, by recategorizing each of these categories to a more detailed parent category meanwhile created, you are performing an improvement, not in any way a correction. Thank you. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Begin of route signs in Taiwan[edit]

I've looked at your edits. I do not understand why you are writing "Tiawan".--Kai3952 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it is so that the "Begin route signs in. . ." will list in alphabetical order by the country instead of being all listed under "B". An Errant Knight (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know...but I was asking why you are writing "Tiawan". Do you really know what I'm asking?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With over 168,000 edits, typographical and minor spelling errors are bound to occur. Thanks for catching it! An Errant Knight (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So that's why it did not happen when you created the category(Category:Begin of route signs in Taiwan).--Kai3952 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-resolution TIFF images from the National Archives and Records Administration[edit]

Hi, please don't add categories on files which are in the Category:High-resolution TIFF images from the National Archives and Records Administration: only the JPG images should be used for categorization. Thanks. Florn (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Items numbered ##[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you recently created a number of categories named "Category:Items numbered 55" or similar. I'm failing to see the difference between the long-existing scheme of Category:Number 55 on objects and your new categories. I think though, "Items numbered ##" could be used as a parent category whereas "Number ## on objects" should then only be for images where the specific number is actually depicted. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While there will be a substantial amount of overlap, as you have mentioned, there are may items (things) that are identified by number, but don't actually have a number on them. For example, a highway is most often numbered, but only the highway signs are numbered. In some cases there may not actually be any such signs (i.e., unsigned highways). Despite the lack of signs or numbers "on" the highway, it is still a numbered item (or an item by number). Another case is bridges which are, at least in parts of Europe, often numbered. However, they may not actually have the number "on" them. Unfortunately, only including "images where the specific number is actually depicted", doesn't work in many situations. An instance of this would be "Category:Fiat 500", which should be subcategory of "Category:Items numbered 500", as well as "Category:Number 500 on automobiles", even though not every image in the "Fiat 500" category would actually depict a "500".

Some additional thoughts. . .

Although not being the creator of the multiple and already existing "Items numberd ##" categories, the generation of the "Category:Items by number" was a way to group these existing, newly generated, and yet to be created categories.

While not clearly obvious, the "Items numberd ##" categories imply that they are used for things in that are part of a series. (For example, state highways, bus routes, or rooms in a building.) The "Number ## on objects" would fit often as a subcategory under the "Items numbred ##", but there are many cases where it would not be appropriate. For instance, a sign for Motel 6 (a well-known motel chain, at least in the United States). While certainly an example of something that fits in "Number 6 on signs" (a subcategory of "Number 6 on objects"), the sign itself is not "numbered", nor there is any expectation that there would be corresponding Motel 5 or Motel 7 signs.

Early on in the initial work on this "project", an image was discovered in which the number of the image depicted did not correspond to the actual number of the subject displayed. The case was an image of a section of a numbered highway, but the sign in the image was for a different highway.

Finally, overall (but much less so for lower numbers) the largest general category of images with numbers is numbers on objects, with the largest subcategory being signs for numbered roads (including highways). Because of this, it is fairly important to keep these items from being buried too far into subcategories. Hence, "Number ### on objects" is listed at the top of the "### (number)" categories, rather included in the alphanumeric listing. This is also why "Roads numbered ###" is listed directly within the "### (number) category" (with the corresponding subcategory "Signs for roads numbered ###", being only two levels deep), as well as the "Items numbered ###" subcategory.

Category:Number_28955_on_objects[edit]

Number 28955 on objects 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!

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

Mindmatrix 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpine Loop Scenic Byway (Utah)[edit]

I removed Category:Mount Timpanogos because not all photographs taken on the Alpine Loop Scenic Byway will contain Timpanagos. For example: File:Alpine Scenic Highway, Utah - panoramio (3).jpg. You've re-added the category, may I remove it? — hike395 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All photographs taken on the Alpine Scenic Byway may not include Mount Timpanogos, but the entire Byway is on or at the base of Mount Timpanogosn (depending on whether Roberts Horn is considered a peak on Mount Timpanogos, or a separate mountain).

It is more a question of how categories for roads should be handled. In this case, Mount Timpanogos and Alpine Scenic Byway are VERY much related, but it doesn't make sense to have Mount Timpanogas as a category of the Alpine Scenic Byway, since there is a whole lot of Mount Timpanogos that has nothing to do with the Byway. Just as Salt Lake City is a category of Interstate 15 in Utah, it is clearly understood that not all of I-15 is within Salt Lake City, but that I-15 is an important part of the transportation system of Salt Lake City. Every aspect of a sub-category does not have to fit into the parent category. For example, Ronald Regan is a sub-category of Presidents of the United States (via the President of the United States by name category). However, there are large number of images of Ronald Regan that have nothing to do with him as or being President of the United States (having previously been a very famous movie star).

In this particular case, you correctly added Utah State Route 92 as a category for the Byway, however, most of the images that are and will be in the Alpine Scenic Byway (Utah) category will not show or include SR-92 itself.

So to answer the question asked, for the reasons mentioned and more, the Byway should remain a category of Mount Timpanogos, as should the other categories added to the Byway. An Errant Knight (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the king of Overcat[edit]

I'm am fixing your obsession with overcat. Stop overcatting! A road which passes through a town is not a subcat of the town. A subcat is for something which falls entirely within the designated higher cat. Meanwhile, all US highways and Interstates in Utah are under Utah DOT jurisdiction, and those main cats are now under Utah DOT. State highway cats are for STATE ROUTES, not US routes and Interstates. Famartin (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you.

Second, it would seem that any reasonable discussion regarding the matter is futile since you appear to have the entire highway network in Utah under your control and are doing your best to limit and discourage any group efforts to improve it. As you have been asked before by others, please advise what subjects you are working on, so others can avoid them. An Errant Knight (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am making massive efforts to improve the Utah highway system. Don't you understand that when you see a subcategory, you expect it to be located within that category? Think about it from a user: You go to the subcat for some podunk town and see I-80 as a subcat, so you expect "Ok, must be pictures of that town in there", but voila, not to be found. It makes no sense. Now, at least, there is some sense to your categorizing all those roads as parts of towns. By overcat rules, I was within my rights to simply remove them all and let them float free, so be glad I actually AM improving it, versus completely reversing your work. Famartin (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said that it is better to let people think that you are _______, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt they may have previously had. Thank you for confirming the previous assertion.

If a time should ever come that you wish to collaborate with other editors (listen to input from them, rather than dictate to them) in YOUR "massive efforts", please advise because you do have many good ideas and obviously a lot of passion. However, just because you have good ideas regarding categorization, does not preclude others from from having them as well. For example, while initially the thought process behind the "Locations along . . " was not readily understandable, it did improve two issues: 1) it reduces a high number of subcategories that previously existed within many of the applicable categories and 2) it creates a distinction between items directly related to the road (i.e., bridges, interchanges, etc.) and items indirectly related to the road (i.e., building along the road, populated places through which it passes, etc.). As a side note regarding this matter, it would be great if an appropriate name for a similar sub-category could be concocted that would better distinguish between "locations along" (communities, landforms, etc) and items, things, etc. "located along" (buildings, geographic features, etc.).

Please do not put forth arguements in this forum that should be addressed with the Utah State Legislature.

One more item of consideration, just because have the "right" to do something, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea to to so. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

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, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Catgorizing photos of traffic signs[edit]

Do you think that these two are well categorized at Category:D12-5 - Travel Info Call 511 or it’s better to keep in this kind of category only diagrammatic illustrations and keep photos elsewhere up or down the tree? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question Tuválkin.

The opinion of this editor is that, while including the photographs in this category is not ideal, given the likely number of actual items that are, or ever will be in question, it is probably the best category for such photographs. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats in Category:Numbers on spacecraft[edit]

Hello, An Errant Knight. It looks like you created most or all of the subcats here, such as Category:Number 1 on spacecraft. I think these may be misnamed. For example, if you look at Category:Number 1 on spacecraft, the subcats there seem to be for missions, not spacecraft. (The one file there is a spacecraft.) In most cases, I don't think the mission number is painted on the spacecraft. In the case of the Space Shuttle missions, where each vehicle was reused for multiple missions, the ID of the vehicle was its name, not the mission number.

I'm thinking the subcategories here should be renamed, maybe to something that would go under Category:Space missions by number. What do you think?

@Joshbaumgartner: pinging you because I just left you a related message. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks, I am not particularly involved in spacecraft categories, but I did apply Template:Number cat to Category:Space missions numbered 3 as a trial. I agree that almost all of the "Number # on spacecraft" categories should actually be "Space missions numbered #" as they rarely actually have the number depicted on the craft itself. Using Template:Number cat should make it easy to convert the existing "Number # on spacecraft" categories to a more correct name. I would recommend that the categories be renamed if they are to be retained. Josh (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The categories referenced were an expansion of existing categories that were (at the time) the closest existing category (as opposed to creating entirely new categories). This editor has no objection to the suggested improvements.

@Joshbaumgartner: @Auntof6: An Errant Knight (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated communities in Marion County, Florida[edit]

I already added the "Unincorporated communities in Marion County, Florida" category to Salt Springs, Florida, and others in Marion County. There's no need for the "Unincorporated communities in Florida" category. ----DanTD (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, ALL communities within a state (city, town, census-designated places, etc.) are listed in the applicable state level category, as well as the appropriate county level, so yes there is a reason. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty redundant to me. At the same time, I'm glad you created a category for Holder, Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One tip about Holder; there are no routes numbered "6900" there, or anywhere in Citrus County. ----DanTD (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "local perspective" clarification! An Errant Knight (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, New York[edit]

I just added categories to your red-cat for Walton, New York, although admittedly, I wanted to have separate categories for the Town of Walton and Village of Walton. ----DanTD (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanborn maps of Seattle[edit]

I'm not sure what you are intending with categories related to the various Sanborn maps of Seattle, but your recent edits don't make sense to me. If Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Seattle, King County, Washington is, going by its parent categories, a specific 1893 of map (or, really, judging by the content, book of maps) then Category:Sanborn insurance maps of Seattle can hardly be a subcat of that: it contains some maps from 1893, but mostly 1904, and at least one as late as 1909. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: You are correct. . . The changed was an erroneous attempt to consolidate the Sanborn maps for Seattle, but as you have pointed out, it didn't really work as done. The current re-categorization should work a little better. Thank you for addressing this issue. An Errant Knight (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz cat[edit]

Thank you for moving all those images! SarahSV ^(talk) 23:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number_17_on_dice[edit]

Number 17 on dice 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!

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

E4024 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Window[edit]

It’s singular. Not sure where in the world you got plural from. https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/maps.htm Famartin (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The singularity is a common misconception with which the United States Geological Survey (USGS) disagrees. Nothwithstanding, the USGS identifies the singular as a "variant name". An Errant Knight (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how there being one window is a misconception, except in the part of USGS, which is obviously wrong. NPS identification should take precedent regardless.Famartin (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the "NPS identification should take precedent regardless" may sound valid, but it is, nevertheless, still mistaken. Furthermore, it directly contradicts the official National Park Service position on the matter. "Geographic feature names derive from USGS maps and conform to Board on Geographic Names standards, although discrepancies may exist. Check with the Board to confirm all spellings." (Sources & Accuracy for NPS Maps as published by the National Park Service. Note: The link within the quote is part of the original and refers back to the very webpage previously indicated.)

Does this mean that both the USGS and the NPS are "obviously wrong"? An Errant Knight (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously going to argue semantics on this? Fine, I'll go to a higher authority. Famartin (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly enough, that is almost exactly the type of response that was anticipated.

An assertion was made that appealed to an authority, but when that same authority disagrees with the original assertion, the matter will be taken to a "higher authority" (than the highest authority on the matter). Would that higher authority be the United States Congress?

Perhaps less time should be spent on arguing what the natural arch in question should be called, and more time on why the United States Board on Geographic Names has chosen what, very arguably, appears to be a counterintuitive name. 15:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In case you haven’t noticed, mistakes happen. I’m sure this is one of them. It would be far from their first. And by higher authority, I mean commons admins.Famartin (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Famartin and An Errant Knight: The GNIS database is known to contain errors. I'd like to point out the USGS 7.5' topo map where both North Window and South Window are singular. I would trust the USGS topo map names more than the database entries. — hike395 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not disputing that the database does contain errors, nor that the plural appears to be counterintuitive. Nonetheless, as mentioned before, the likelihood of the plural being an error (typo) would be much greater if the USGS did not specifically indicate the singular is a variant name.

What is the date of the referenced map? The 2017 USGS map specific to The Windows Section, UT, which appears to be more current than the one referenced, shows "South Windows" (in addition to several other features in the immediate area that not included in referenced map [i.e., the Nose Bridge, Jacks Mummy, Duck-on-the-Rock, etc.]).

As this editor is not specifically familiar with the natural feature in question, is there a possibility of an unknown factor being involved? In the case of the Turret Arch (singular), many of the images clearly show that feature with two openings (arches). Also, keep in mind that an opening is not required for a feature to be an "arch", as exemplified by The Great Arch in Arches sister national park, Zion. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To turn your phrase right back at you, sadly enough, that is almost exactly the type of response that was anticipated regarding your unfamiliarity with the feature. Perhaps you should stick to messing around with categories of items you have familiarity with... Famartin (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!. . ., but a fully expected comeback.

A valid question was asked, "Not sure where in the world you got plural from?". A reasonable, but obviously un-liked, reply (with substantial supporting evidence [not necessarily "proof"]) was given. When the evidence supporting the opposing assertion weakened, the personal attacks come out.

Nevertheless, Famartin's spirit is admirable (no sarcasm implied or intended), even though the expression of his passion is sometimes fanatical, dictatorial, impedes reasonable discussion, and (as so eloquently stated by him) discourages others from adding to this joyous cyber world of Wikimedia. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an unreasonable request. You have OCD with categories, that much is obvious, since you spend so much time doing it. That's fine, but when someone tells you "hey, you're wrong" and then you throw some bueuracratic website full of errors back at them as your evidence, then don't be surprised if they get annoyed, especially since some of us have actually been there. Anyway, I'm done with you. Enjoy your errors, and glad I don't live anywhere near your turf anymore. Famartin (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recency is not authoritative: the 2017 map you linked to looks digital, and very well may have been generated from GNIS. Instead, look at the history of the name in the QNIS query itself: the name was part of the Phase I of data compilation in 1979-1981, mostly taken from 1:24000 scale USGS maps. Let's look back at the old topo maps:

1:24000 USGS map from 1959 --- combined feature is labeled as "North-South Window"
1:62500 USGS map from 1959 --- combined feature is labeled as "North-South Window"
1:24000 USGS map from 1985 (Cal Topo version) --- feature is labeled as "South Window"

Neither the map edition before or just after the data compilation support the plural "South Windows". What I suspect happened is that the combined feature was converted from "North-South Window" to the more grammatical "North and South Windows", and then when the combined feature was split in GNIS, it got incorrectly converted to "North Window" and "South Windows".

For what it's worth, I've been there and there's only one "South Window". You can see from a photograph that there is one "North Window" and one "South Window". — hike395 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hike395, thanks for the additional insight regarding the actual feature and your reasonable discourse on the matter (and for adding your information to the actual discussion page as well). Had this editor anticipated the (now obvious) resulting controversy brought on by the change (which was based upon what is generally accepted as a dependable reference), it would not have been made.

Your supposition regarding the transition of the name is most likely correct and the opinion is largely (but not entirely) shared by this editor as well. However, since solid references always take precedence over speculations, the verifiable and generally trustworthy source was relied upon. This line of thought was not previously suggested in this discussion, due to prior experience with the other editor involved. The appeal to images was also not included in the conversation in an attempt to prove a negative, because one cannot see what one cannot see and images do not show what they do not show.

Additional note, both of the previously referenced 2014 and 2017 maps (according to maps themselves) were generated from GNIS, 2013 & 2016, respectively. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations_along_roads_in_Colorado[edit]

Locations along roads in Colorado 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!

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

Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

I don't think every state highway in Michigan needs a category on Commons at this time. Most of them last images, and those that do probably already have all of their images on Wikipedia articles.

At best, even if you create all of them, please don't add them to the articles unless there's actually extra media for readers to see. If there's only the marker and the old map, that's not helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add a Wikidata Infobox (and all the information that it contains) to a Commons category that does not exist. Furthermore, the best way to see that a category has little media, is to show what it does have. A non-existent category is an unknown, rather than a known lack of media. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I see that some of the categories are empty. Empty categories are subject to deletion. If there is no media in the category, then the Wikidata entry doesn't need a Commons category specified, and there's no need to create an empty category just to have a place to put the Wikidata infobox. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere, the categories are only empty because items that belong in them have been removed. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful please[edit]

While you are doing some nice work with road cats, please watch out as far as erroneously removing categories. One got deleted because you removed the item within it. That shouldn't happen again to that particular category (I found more stuff to put in it), but still... please keep an eye out for these. Famartin (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the category deletion in question is in reference to Virginia State Route 329 (SR 329), then the category was not "erroneously" removed.

SR 329 is located within the Virginia Correctional Center for Women. Although the facility is situated very close to the unincorporated community of Maidens (which has a ZIP Code of 23102), according to the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), the facility is located in the census-designated place (CFP) of Goochland (or at least uses Goochland and its ZIP Code of 23063 for its mailing address). The United States Postal Service affirms that the VDOC uses the correct address for the facility. Since areas outside of communities with defined boundaries often utilize the ZIP Code of the nearest (or a nearby) community, the fact that Goochland and its ZIP Code are used by the VDOC does not necessarily establish that the facility is actually located within the boundaries of the CDP. However, since the separate ZIP Code of Maidens is not used by the VDOVC, that does preclude the facility from being located within that community. Therefore, the Maidens category was intentionally removed, but, since the facility could not be confirmed to be within the boundaries of the CDP, SR 329 was left as a state highway in Virginia, numbered 329, and a road in Goochland County.

Glad that you were able to "rescue" the Maidens category through other means. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi An Errant Knight,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on 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.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi An Errant Knight,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi An Errant Knight,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PR-10[edit]

Please do not remove roads from the Ponce, PR cat as you did here. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florida I10wb Ochesee Landing Rd.jpg[edit]

Why are you moving a lot of photos from Category:Views from Interstate 10 to Category:Interstate 10 in Florida? These photos already have a Category:Interstate 10 in Florida sub-category. This photo has the category Category:Interstate 10 in Jackson County, Florida. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Views from X categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old thread, but perhaps the two categories should be combined. The same goes for many of the ones for "Views from Interstate 95 in XXXXX and other roads. -----DanTD (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)--DanTD (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)--DanTD (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detail[edit]

Hello.If the page is connected to wikidata, there is no need to add details to the local category page as the details can be shown by "Wikidata Infobox" automatically ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that all the details are not shown in Wikidata! An Errant Knight (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019_Sundance_Film_Festival[edit]

2019 Sundance Film Festival 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!

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

2001:1C03:5A02:6900:41E:CC31:9EAD:887B 13:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019_film_festivals_by_continent[edit]

2019 film festivals by continent 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!

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

2001:1C03:5A02:6900:CC9A:2DE5:1BCC:762 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Aloha! The official name for the stone arch in Utah is South Window <- singular. There's only one arch called South Window. I'm moving the category back. ~~Before you revert the next time, please check first.~~ See The Windows / NPS. Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: , when was it "reverted" the first time? See South Windows, Sources & Accuracy for NPS Maps, The Windows Section, UT, and, finally, Category talk:South Window (Arches National Park). Happy holidays! An Errant Knight (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USGS is wrong (again), since it is an NPS park, the NPS name prevails. Again: one arch only -> singular. ~~Anyway, don't revert moves, that screws the whole thing up, and wheelwars bring only anger, blocks, and a lot of yadayada.~~ Didn't mean to be snotty, my apologies. Happy holidays

as well. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: , Did you actually read what the NPS had to say, because it disagrees with you. However, still asking the question, when did this editor revert anything with regards to this category? An Errant Knight (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted your own move, it missed that; I screwed that up. I'm sorry. And yes; I read the NPS publication. Look at the 2017 map. You see that the only plural use of window is the road / trail. I assume it's as simple as a copy and paste error/typo. @ https://www.nps.gov/carto/hfc/carto/media/ARCHParkMap.jpg both names are singular. The USGS link you found has both, but plural as the more prominent one. Strange, strange. I'll send NPS and USGS an email, let's wait what they have to say. Now I really want to know. Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: having a knowledge of the history of mapping that you presumably do, you are very much aware of the historical problem with maps; that is, even if it is a mistake (which the evidence in this case strongly supports, but doesn't prove), a mistake, if perpetuated long enough, becomes fact.

Good luck "getting to the bottom" of this issue. A final, official determination by USGS could finally put an end to this reoccurring discussion. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the apology! An Errant Knight (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you deserved one. I can be a pretty snobby knowitall. So, this happened: I got a reply form the USGS, pretty generic. GNIS also replied: Thank you for letting us know of the error. I have updated the Geographic Names Information System and the change should be displayed at the website in about an hour. The map now shows South Window; USGS hasn't changed tho. What do we do know?

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME and THANK YOU Hedwig in Washington (it appears USGS is now updated). Can't even imagine a better resolution to this issue than you have been able to accomplish. Thanks for you efforts and for your knowledge of how to get this resolved. (Perhaps at another time this editor will inquire as to the process you followed to get this correction, so as to correct a few other errors in the database.) An Errant Knight (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: , "Another time" has arrived... Working another issue regarding a discrepancy in the USGS database. Without going into details (unless you want them), what process did you use to successfully resolve the issue previously discussed (point of contact, etc.)? An Errant Knight (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late reply, I took a long wikibreak.

I checked my emails but couldn't find the reply. As far as I remember, I started at the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, got a generic reply. After digging up the USGS website I gave up and contacted the NP directly. I think they just forwarded my question to Gnis or somewhere, can't remember who corrected the name in the end. Lots of dead ends, that I remember. Pretty frustrating experience. I'm sorry that I can't help you better. Stay safe! -Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks anyway (and for responding to the request). An Errant Knight (talk)

Category:Caledonia_Township,_Michigan_(disambiguation)[edit]

Category:Caledonia_Township,_Michigan_(disambiguation) 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!

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

Hello! Please give me a hint, why isn't File:San Francisco (California, USA), Cable Car -- 2012 -- 4245.jpg in the category Category:Views from roads in the United States. I'd a look to the category and there are very similar photographs. The image is taken from a road, so IMO it's a view from a road. --XRay ^talk 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: , while you are correct that image is taken from a road is indeed a "view from a road", the problem is not with the image but with the entire category itself (or at least the misuse thereof).

First, any category that is likely to have hundreds of thousands of images (NOT including subcategories) becomes useless as it becomes impossible to find a specific image within the category. If all images that are taken from "roads in the United States" were included in that category, the number would be well in excess of hundreds of thousands. The purpose of categories is not just to have tag that applies to the media, but a means of locating the specific media to which the category applies. A user looking for what the image in question depicts would not start by looking in Category:Views from roads in the United States, but most likely in Category:Streets in San Francisco, Category:Cable cars in San Francisco, or Category:Buildings in San Francisco. Each of these would quickly narrow down the search (usually within a few subcategory links) to a reasonable number of images to peruse.

Second, a category entitled "Views from X", obviously implies that the media (images, videos, etc) included in the category will be objects, features, views, vistas, etc. that can be seen from X. However, the name also intrinsically implies that X itself is nearly always not included in the media, or at least only incidentally (ancillary, secondarily, etc.). Just of few of the many, many examples of such categories in Commons include the following:

However, in the case of roads, highways, etc., these categories are being utilized in an opposite manner; meaning that the categories include the road itself as the primary focus of the media. Therefore, this editor would strongly suggest the following:

Limit the use of the "Views from X" categories to vistas from X, just as they are for the Views from X categories that don't include roads
Images of the road itself should remain in the main category, or subcategory, if applicable. To avoid overcrowding the categories should be sub-divided by state (which they usually are already) and further by county (also often the case, but an issue still being worked).

An example of this utilization is California State Route 1 and Views from California State Route 1. (Notwithstanding, California State Route 1 should still be subdivided by county.)

(See also discussion at Views from X) An Errant Knight (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think I'll remove my photographs from this kind of categories. --XRay ^talk 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native_Americans_of_Alaska[edit]

Native Americans of Alaska 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!

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

RadioKAOS (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elko County bodies of water[edit]

You failed to notice these... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lakes_of_Elko_County,_Nevada I have corrected the oversight. Famartin (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Famartin: , hadn't got that far just yet, THANKS! An Errant Knight (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Views by roads categories[edit]

Would you just get over the Views from roads categories? No one else is bothered by the category. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castle_Rock,_Edinburgh[edit]

Castle Rock, Edinburgh 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!

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

Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Highway Templates[edit]

Hi! I'm currently creating categories for highways in Puerto Rico, but I've noticed that templates don't allow me to add suffixes to some routes. I'd like you to help me because there're routes like 1P and 2R that show errors in the code. I'll appreciate any suggestion. Yarfpr (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarfpr: Unfortunately, the templates in question were slight modifications of other templates that were not created to accommodate suffixes. While this editor would also like to see them modified to accommodate highway suffixes, the ability to do so it beyond the current expertise of this editor. Therefore, regrettably, this editor is unable to provide further assistance at this time. Good luck! An Errant Knight (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I assumed it would be somewhat more complex than expected. For now what I did was follow a similar format, adding [[Category:Highways in Puerto Rico by number|Ramal 123]] and [[Category:Highways in Puerto Rico by number|Paralela 123]] so that routes with suffixes appear in the main category. Thanks for answering me. Yarfpr (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footbridges over railway lines in Virginia[edit]

Aww, you beat me to the Category:Footbridges over railway lines in Virginia. I was going to create that one, and a few others, although not as many as you. ----DanTD (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs[edit]

Following Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs, I think it's best if we removed all the categories from the TIFF images like File:RANCH - NARA - 544865.tif since they just follow the JPGs at File:RANCH - NARA - 544865.jpg. It complicates the work but I think it'll declutter the categories. Thoughts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Gorge and Capitol Wash are not the same[edit]

I think you are confused. Saying they are the same is like saying the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are the same thing. The Capitol Wash flows THROUGH Capitol Gorge, as the Colorado River flows THROUGH the Grand Canyon. Famartin (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) disagrees. (A "wash" [or "arroyo"] is both an intermittent stream and a canyon like landform, a hybrid of sorts.) In this case, Capitol Gorge is an alternate name for the geological feature officially known as Capital Wash. (Geonames.org incorrectly defines the wash as a "valley", rather than an arroyo.) Once again, this editor will side with the USGS. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you go against the Park Service. Fortunately for you, I don't have the energy to fight this one. I'll just hope that if I ever care enough to return and take more pictures, you'll have quit Wikimedia by then. Famartin (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Affected:

File:Art or Language? sign, Oct 16.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Prosfilaes (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this editor believes that the signs are by the US government (Bureau of Land Management), the assertion that "separately credited photos and works that may not be from US government sources" is not disputed. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trams in Florida[edit]

Unfortunately, there are no trams in Florida at the present time. It is not a term that is used there, nor in Maryland at present. I believe the term you are looking for is "streetcar" or "trolley". Best, --Krok6kola (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: As addressed by other editors on your talk page, while not commonly known locally as "trams", the term is used internationally and in the United States to include both of what is usually referred to locally as "light rail" and "streetcar". Therefore, the term is used for the categories within Commons. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard "trams" in Florida for any current transportation system. (Maybe Disney uses it, but it is a fantasy land.) But then, when I look up something on the Commons where I currently live, Tampa, it is never called anything anyone around here recognizes. For example, there is a well known building in Tampa with its name plastered across it, but it is called something else on the Commons. Even the UK doesn't use "trams" nowadays. Krok6kola (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thank you so much for helping to identify and categorize so many SLC photographs lately. I've been updating User:Another Believer/Salt Lake City based on some of your work. Much appreciated! -18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: No, the appreciation goes to you for taking and posting so may great pictures! An Errant Knight (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. Not sure if you live in SLC or not, but I had a wonderful time during my recent visit and hope to visit again one day when more of the Temple Square facilities are open to the public. I've made many new Wikipedia articles about SLC since my visit. Thanks again for your work here! -Another Believer (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09558_(number)[edit]

09558 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:109B:1259:E253:EC6C 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09549_(number)[edit]

09549 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:109B:1259:E253:EC6C 00:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09577_(number)[edit]

09577 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:109B:1259:E253:EC6C 00:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09544_(number)[edit]

09544 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 03:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09532_(number)[edit]

09532 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 03:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09599_(number)[edit]

09599 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09594_(number)[edit]

09594 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09593_(number)[edit]

09593 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09582_(number)[edit]

09582 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09545_(number)[edit]

09545 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9510_(number)[edit]

9510 (number) 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!

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

2601:644:4401:4DE0:87:C88E:E9E8:813D 04:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations_along_highways_in_Canada_by_province_or_territory[edit]

Locations along highways in Canada by province or territory 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!

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

Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

Hi! I've seen all your modifications. Most of the are understandable, but there are some which are not. For example this one: Revision of 645245256. "Number... on objects" is OK, but it's not a sign. May be "Number... on plaques" is a solution or "Number... on artworks" or still "Number... on objects". --XRay 💬 05:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, plaques is a subcategory of signs. So it seems to be OK. But here it's an artwork and not a sign: Revision of 645245199. --XRay 💬 05:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is confused, the follow up note concurs that plaques are a subset of signs. Then an example of "an artwork" mis-categorized as a sign is asserted, but the actual example linked is a plaque. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork isn't the main subject. It's the small golden square at the right. ;-) --XRay 💬 16:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, and correcting the oversight. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sign[edit]

You removed "English language signs" at Revision of 680324888. Why? "Look" is English, isn't it? And it's a sign (on the ground). --XRay 💬 16:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While correct, the sign is in English and is in the United States, there are two reasons why every sign that is in English in the United States should not be included in this category:

First, for most of the United States, signs are fully expected to be in English (only). For those that are not or are in one or more additional languages, they should be included in the appropriate (but similar) category.
Second, the category would become entirely meaningless with the millions and millions of items that could be included in this category. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need the category? Sorry, I can't follow your argumentation except that the most signs in United States, United Kingdom etc. are in English. Is there any rule or guide line or a manual how to use these kind of categories? IMO all signs in English should be included in the category. --XRay 💬 17:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rule, guideline, or manual, no. However, are you really suggesting that all of the millions and millions of signs in the United States should be included in this category?

This category likely exists for something other than what it would seem is its primary purpose, namely for its subcategories (English plus other language[s]) or for signs in English in the United States that may not be expected to be in English (such as in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.). An Errant Knight (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand what you're trying to tell me. But that's not easy to keep up. If I understand you correctly, you don't want to take pictures of signs that are expected to be in English anyway. However, as far as I remember, English is not the official language in the USA - but it is the colloquial language - and it is understandable only to a limited extent. As a subcategory one could imagine "Road signs in the United States" or something like that. --XRay 💬 17:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is not suggesting not "to take pictures of signs that are expected to be in English". Please take and add them to Commons, just recommending that adding the category in question may not be appropriate. There should be multiple other category that apply to such pictures.

You are indeed correct, English is not the official language of the United States, but it is de-facto for most of it.

Also, while English may not be your primary language, your English contributions are still very much appreciated--thank you. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'll taking still photographs. ;-) Don't worry. And from my last stay in the United States I'm still uploading photographs. Hopefully this will be finished within the next 2 or 3 weeks. --XRay 💬 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about an edit of yours[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:U.S._Route_95_in_Washington_(state)&diff=687721695&oldid=624817752 : given that the former U.S. Route 95 in Washington is now U.S. Route 195, I would have thought that category makes sense. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the connection between this two (somewhat otherwise unrelated) highways that his editor missed--edit has been reverted. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Harleyville County, South Carolina?[edit]

Is Harleville County, South Carolina, some newly formed county I haven'r heard about yet? ----DanTD (talk) DanTD (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the town of Harleyville recently followed the precedent set by multiple municipalities in Virginia and became independent from its county (succeeding from Dorchester County). However, due to budget cuts necessitated by recent inflation, the entity had to shorten its name from "Harleyville County" to "Harleville County".

Seriously, this was a category created in error. About the time of its errouneous creation, this editor intended to have request its deletion, but obviously missed having done so. Thanks for bringing this matter to this editor's attention, as well as all the other great work you do! An Errant Knight (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09720 (number)[edit]

Category:09720 (number) is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09208 (number)[edit]

Category:09208 (number) is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:09852 (number)[edit]

Category:09852 (number) is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Mountains, Colorado[edit]

Hi An Errant Knight, how did you come up with this edit? Don't you know that there are three distinct red mountains? We have Red Mountain #1, #2, and #3 with the respective heights 12,592 ft, 12,219 ft, and 12,890 ft. Please do not convert three mountains into one. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax of "Red Mountains, Colorado" indicates that it (not they) is either a locale or a populated place in Colorado, not a geographic feature within the state. Changing the category to "Red Mountains (Colorado)" would indicate a singular geographic feature (with a plural name). According to the United States Geological Survey, there are actually 19 summits named "Red Mountain" in Colorado. Accordingly, the Red Mountain (Colorado) category needs further distinction, with the appropriate media placed in those categories. Moving/creating this category did not complete this process, but is a step in that direction. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced categories for highways in counties[edit]

I noticed you have placed some US highways in a state into subcategories of counties. The problem here as that Wikimedia Commons doesn't function like Wikipedia article's. You shouldn't place an image category of a US highway in a state across multiple counties since images of the highway from one county would be present in another. Example: "Category:U.S. Route 24 in Colorado" shouldn't be listed under "Category:Transport in El Paso County, Colorado" since many of the photos are not taken in that county. Individual photos of the highway in that county should remain in the 'transport of that county' category. Thanks Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see the need for adding the "See also categories" for every major highway crossing of the particular highway. If there are images of the the highway crossing another than it should be placed in the category, so there should be no need to mention others.

Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there is no need to include any highway crossed as a "See also categories". However, there seems to be a confusion between a crossing highway and a concurrent highway. Each of the highways included in the "See also categories" are run concurrent with the subject of the category--meaning at least part of the other highway is part of the subject highway. Since the concurrent sections are part of both highways, and neither highway should be a subcategory of each other, the "See also categories" indicates a connection between the two highways, without having one be a subcategory of the other. If a better way to show this connection can be suggested, please do so. Until then, this method had been used in hundreds of highways, with more being regularly added. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the categorization in question has little to do with Wikipedia's categorization.

Ideally (for the example given) there would be a subcategory "U.S. Route 24 in El Paso County, Colorado" within the U.S. Route 24 in Colorado category, which in turn would clearly belong in the Transport in El Paso County, Colorado category. However, until that happens, the current method is utilized. (Yes, this means that not all the media contained in U.S. Route 24 in Colorado would be from El Paso County, Colorado.)

A clearer example of how this works can be seen by elevating the category in question. There is no highway named "U.S. Route 24 in Colorado", as the highway is simply "U.S. Route 24". For categorization purposes in Commons (and coincidentally Wikipedia), the highway has been divided by state. Therefore, only the "U.S. Route 24 in Colorado" subcategory of U.S. Route 24 is included the category Category:U.S. Highways in Colorado. However, suppose the state subcategories had not yet been created for U.S. Route 24, as is the current case for U.S. Route 76. (As a side note, this editor has been aggressively working to create such state categories.) Since there are no state subcategories for U.S. Route 76, does that mean that U.S. Route 76 should not be included in the U.S. Route in _______ category for states of Georgia, North Carolia, South Carolina, and Tennessee? Of course it should, as it is a U.S. Highway within those states. However, that means there are a lot of media (images) that are included in the various U.S. Route in _______ categories, that are not within that state (at least for now). An Errant Knight (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur completely with Xnatedawgx. I think I figured out what you were doing, which was perhaps noble, but could've been done much better... you were looking at something to easily place in various county categories you were creating, and long-distance highways which crossed many counties made that easy. But as Xnatedawgx points out, your method is highly flawed in this format. I've undone those I see, but I'm not the police, so I'm just undoing them when I come across them. Pennsylvania is fixed... I just fixed a few in Colorado... but I'm sure there are thousands more across the US that need fixing and I'm just not going to do that. Famartin (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna ignore the two of us, eh? Well I can keep reverting the ones I fixed, at least...Famartin (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are gonna apparently ignore us (multi-county categories cannot be fit into single county categories, etc), I guess I'll wander Wikimedia and undo all these bad edits. If you want to fit these into single-county categories, you're just gonna have to subdivide some categories. Til them, I'm cleaning house. Famartin (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Rogerson, Twin Falls County, Idaho edit[edit]

For this edit, aren't both categories appropriate? Yes, it falls under Category:Rogerson, Idaho but Category:Maps of Twin Falls County, Idaho is a separate subcategory of the county. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the newly created category of Rogerson, Idaho does not have a "maps" subsection, you are correct. Thanks for catching the oversight. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are two volumes with different dates. The first is 1922, the second is 1928 so 1920s maps covers both while each volume is under the respective year maps. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit to Prairie City, Kansas[edit]

Ghost towns don't have populations. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not true by most definitions of a ghost town. However, since you concede that Prairie City is a "ghost town", you need to advise those living there (population) that they dont't. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State highways in Nebraska by number[edit]

Before you add this category again, you might want to look at the category. Its been adjusted to self sort. So stop adding it again. Your efforts here are now counter-productive. Famartin (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct that the navigation template "self sorts" within this category, but you obviously failed to notice that it sorts all highways under the subheading of "=", rather than actual numbers. Many states have sufficient number of highways (nearly always just three digits) that sorting by the first digit is very helpful; adding the category overrides the template and allows appropriate and helpful sorting. Therefore, is it not this editor's efforts that are "counter-productive". In addition, it helps identify pages for highways that still need work. Once the navigation template is corrected to allow for appropriate sorting, the categories will be deleted.

Furthermore, in your hast to correct perceived errors, you are undoing corrections of actual, undisputed errors. Please stop.

Finally, it completely baffles this editor as to why you are so stuck on issues regarding what you refer to as violations of "over cat rules", when your solution (and a really good one at that) for things (cities, buildings, landforms, etc.) along highways, roads, etc. (referring to the very frequently used "Locations along, . ." categories} violates the same "over cat rules" you are attempting to vigorously enforce. This has been explained to you previously, but it appears that you either do not read responses, or just do not care for the opinion of any editor that does not agree with you. Either way, attempting to explain this matter to you once again would be futile. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 - Its unnecessary to be sorted any further. They're in numerical order. Its good enough. Keep doing it and I'll keep reverting it. Item 2: You're causing more errors than you are fixing, so too bad so sad. Third: My solution doesn't overcat. OVERCAT means putting things in mutiple levels of categorization. Locations along highways does no such thing. Famartin (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does adding items to a sub-sub category of a category that has nothing to do with the main category not constitute "OVERCAT"? ("The idea of subcats is that the content is related to the cat[egories] directly above [them]." --Famartin} Again, you refuse to acknowledge any possibility that you do not get what you do not get because there is no possibly that you can be anything less than absolutely correct.

One more time, as you have been asked multiple times before (by this editor and others), please advise what part of Wikimedia is "yours", so other editors can focus editing efforts on the remainder. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand OVERCAT. Its a very simple concept related to category hierarchy: Putting a road sign in "Road signs in Oregon" and also its sub-cat "Road sign gantries in Oregon" constitutes OVERCAT. There's a specific hierarchy, and items should only be in the lowest-level subcategory, not any ones directly higher in the chain. They CAN be in side categories - for example, a sign CAN be in "Exit directional road signs in Oregon" and "Road sign gantries in Oregon", even though they are both subcategories of "Road signs in Oregon". Thus, using "Locations along Route XX" isn't overcat because it neatly folds things people might be tempted to place in the main category... say, a hamlet along a road... into the subcategory, out of the way. Also, there can be instances where a photo shows both things, and in those rare cases, OVERCAT is acceptable... such as a photo of the route in one of those hamlets. OVERCAT rules do allow that. Famartin (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is no longer surprised that you do not read the comments of other editors, since you have demonstrated that you do not even read your own comments. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, but you don't read them either, as evidenced by the thread above about Misplaced categories for highways in counties. So, whatever, I guess we'll just edit war until eternity. Famartin (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinclair bull in Cedar City, UT, Oct 16.jpg[edit]

File:Sinclair bull in Cedar City, UT, Oct 16.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.

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

A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Office_supply_stores[edit]

Office supply stores 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!

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

JopkeB (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exit 6 miles Advance Guide Signs[edit]

Where do you find these? --DanTD (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rare, but do exist.

Thanks for helping discover the included file had been previously miscategorized by this editor. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why your methods are inappropriate[edit]

1) Enforcing number subheadings is unnecessary in categories where all the categories have the same name format and there's already a default number sorting scheme implemented, such as the state highway cats. They only need to be in order, they don't need sub-headings for "0", "1", etc, which don't even mean the same thing because of route numbers. In Virginia, for example, that method would result in a "0" which consists of 99.9% of all routes, and then "1" would have those handful above 10,000. Ridiculous and unnecessary since the category already has a self-sort method.

2) Putting roads in multiple regional sub-cats defeats the purpose of those sub-cats: To show roads in those regions. In you're method, you may click on a subcat in that region and you might only see content from ANOTHER REGION! If, for example, you have a highway with content in two counties, then they need to be sub-catted to each county - Route 5 in A County, Route 5 in B County, etc. You CAN'T just put the main category in both county cats UNLESS the road only exists in one county.

3) Finally, the truth about your "locations along" categories - I came up that solution as a compromise since you were so insistent (OCD much?) on doing those sorts of categorizations. You're right, they don't follow overcat protocol, but it was the only way I could get you to make a little more sense. I'd just as soon delete them all, but I tried to placate you, very Errant Knight. In case you haven't noticed, I'm done with that. Famartin (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Putting [towns] in multiple regional sub-cats defeats the purpose of those sub-cats: To show [towns] in those regions. In you're [sic] method, you may click on a subcat in that region and you might only see content from ANOTHER REGION! If, for example, you have a [town] in two counties, then they need to be sub-catted to each county - [Farmville] in [Prince Edward] County, [Farmville] in [Cumberland]] County, etc. You CAN'T just put the main category in both county cats UNLESS the [town] only exists in one county."

Do you really believe that this argument makes much sense? An Errant Knight (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Useless request[edit]

Again, you don't understand how this is supposed to work. A highway cat can only go in a single county cat if it actually only exists in that county. So, plenty of highways I've allowed to stay (I have all the Utah roads on my watch list so I've seen all the alterations you've done lately). But, those highways which cross county lines can't be included because their content is multi-county. Its like including "US Route 40" in "US Highways in Utah"... much content would be outside Utah. The category has to be subdivided into "US Route 40 in Utah" to be included in "US Highways in Utah". Same thing with the state highways. Can't put multi-county state highways in single county categories unless you subdivide them. If you have ever paid any attention to the gargantuan amount of content I've added to Wikimedia regarding highways, you'd notice that I've strictly followed this rule. Famartin (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken (having proved again the point made, which is why YOU have deleted the county category from multiple highways that are only located in a SINGLE county, just to show who is in charge of WkikiMedia. You are so bent on controlling others' edits that you are unable to comply with your own rules. Thanks again for proving the point made. An Errant Knight (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall no such instances. I DARE you to point to occasions where I deleted a County cat from a single county road. Famartin (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, you continue to ignore facts, providing them are a waste of time! An Errant Knight (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't cite an instance, then there isn't actually one, so I'll go back to ignoring you. Famartin (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have with all everything else. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more items:

1) If you can follow your own rules, why should this editor?

2) If you scrutinized your own work one tenth as much as you stalk this editor's, you would not have to make such your dare, you would already have the answer.

Thanks again from proving the point you are attempting to refute. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't cite an example. Because you know there isn't one. Suck it up, buttercup. Famartin (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, you proven that you WILL ignore any evidence provided, so it is a waste of time to provide any. An Errant Knight (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... speaking of controlling other's edits... aren't you the one who spends endless time categorizing other people's work? I generally try to stick to my own stuff, messing with other stuff (like yours) when they affect mine in some way. The only reason I ever noticed any of your edits is because of your many instances of recategorizing my work (by work, I mean actual material, not other categories). I don't recall any instances of recategorizing your work, but then again, you haven't actually contributed much material. You mostly do categorization. Famartin (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that you have nothing left to stand on, you resort to personal insults. Saw that coming like a freight train. Thanks for showing your true colors! An Errant Knight (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also another request that will be ignored, please stop stalking this editor, it's quite creepy. An Errant Knight (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your displayed blatant discriminatory attitude toward others who you do not deem to be the "right kind" of editor is appalling and has no place in WikiMedia. An Errant Knight (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking? Last I checked, you started this conversation today. I was ignoring you directly and just fixing your erroneous categorizations. You're the one started chatting on my talk page. Famartin (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm not surprised, but definitely am amused, that you consider that comment an insult. Famartin (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory people rarely recognized themselves for what they are. An Errant Knight (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. Famartin (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering US and Interstate highways in categories[edit]

Ever heard of KISS? Keep It Simple, Stupid. Numbering by trunk route is confusing if you aren't pretty familiar with how US and Interstate highway numbering works, and even if you do, its still far simpler to just number numerically. Your edits in this regard have been reverted across all state categories, and I'll continue to do so. Think of other users, not your ridiculous roadgeek fetish needs. Famartin (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to violate your own "regulations", and as of late you are making rampant changes to categories without any discussion. Other editors may give in to your bullying, but not this one! An Errant Knight (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again you fail to point out any instance of violating so called "regulations". So I'll continue to ignore your so-called accusations with no basis in fact. KISS. Famartin (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group consensus includes more than you, but that is unimportant to you! An Errant Knight (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What group concensus? I see none. Famartin (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, In case you haven't noticed, you're really the only one I "bully", but then again you're the only maniac I know spending inordinate amounts of time making ridiculous categories with minimal content... honestly, this is what you like doing with your time? Dear lord...

03:19, 19 September 2023 diff hist +28‎ N Category:Number 06816 on objects ‎ New category current thank

03:19, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 06816 on signs ‎ New categoyr current thank

03:18, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 03749 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:18, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 02291 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:17, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 00575 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:16, 19 September 2023 diff hist +368‎ User talk:An Errant Knight ‎ →‎Ordering US and Interstate highways in categories: Reply thank Tag: Reply

03:13, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 00094 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:13, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 00036 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:12, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 00001 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:12, 19 September 2023 diff hist +90‎ N Category:Number 00000 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:10, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9735 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:10, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9736 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:09, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9740 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:09, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9741 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:08, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9742 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:08, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9752 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:08, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9753 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:06, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9754 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:06, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9757 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:05, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9769 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:05, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9770 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:05, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9777 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:04, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9778 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:04, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9785 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:04, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9786 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:03, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9790 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:02, 19 September 2023 diff hist +46‎ N Category:9791 (number) ‎ New category current thank

03:02, 19 September 2023 diff hist +27‎ N Category:Number 9791 on objects ‎ New category current thank

03:01, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9791 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:01, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9792 on signs ‎ New category current thank

03:00, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9793 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:59, 19 September 2023 diff hist +46‎ N Category:9794 (number) ‎ New category current thank

02:59, 19 September 2023 diff hist +27‎ N Category:Number 9794 on objects ‎ New category current thank

02:58, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9794 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:58, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9798 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:58, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9799 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:57, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9800 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:57, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9801 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:57, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9803 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:56, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9806 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:56, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9811 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:55, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9812 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:55, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9813 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:55, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9815 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:54, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9850 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:53, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9924 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:52, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9930 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:49, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9992 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:48, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9994 on signs ‎ New category current thank

02:48, 19 September 2023 diff hist +89‎ N Category:Number 9996 on signs ‎ New category current thank Famartin (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving the point of this editor! An Errant Knight (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point that you're endlessly making ridiculous categories for no good reason? Or the point that you have nothing better to do with your time? If its the point that I'm "stalking you", again, its because you seem to like editing or reverting my work so much, so yeah, you got my attention. Famartin (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When your "work" includes reverting the work of others (meaning not just this editor), then where does the problem lie? An Errant Knight (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mostly revert your work. If you actually do as I did (review my contributions page) you'll see that's rarely the case that I revert other's work, and even with you, its a very small percentage of my activities. Bottom line is this: You need a new hobby. You seem to spend inordinate amounts of time making endless categories here. Its an OCD obsession, if ever I saw one. Honestly, you probably need some psychological help. Do you really have nothing better to do than endlessly make categories? Famartin (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deny, deflect, but above all else, do NOT heal thyself physician. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is amusing.. I keep pointing out specific things you are doing, but you fail to do likewise. OK, whatever... I've told you what I'll be doing, and why. Have a good night. Famartin (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate XX shield categories[edit]

I made master interstate route categories for all routes partly to get your damn shield categories out of every single route, since that's wrong... Having "Interstate 215 shields" as a subcat of "Interstate 215 (Cali)", "Interstate 215 (Utah)" etc is incorrect since there are a bunch which are totally not relevant to the individual routes. Now, don't do it again, because I'll revert it again. If you want a category specifically for each road's shields, make them as subcats (I.e. "Interstate 215 (Utah) shields" as a subcat of "Interstate 215 shields" and "Interstate 215 (Utah)"). But don't put the main shield cats into individual route cats... I'll revert it again if you do. Famartin (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reid International Airport[edit]

Its's a pity that there was no discussion initiated about this in advance of you making changes, as it would have saved you a load of nugatory work. In my view all images should have remained classified as McCarran International Airport until 2021 when the name changed. This would have been simpler, easier and make much more sense as now we have loads of images referencing McCarran, or having McCarran in their title, in the Harry Reid cat, which is at the very least confusing and clearly inaccurate. It should have been treated the same as when an airline changes its name ie the old name becomes defunct and a new cat is set up. Ardfern (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do raise a valid issue. However, this editor does disagree that having two categories reduces confusion. This editors opinion is that having categories for both named gives the impression that they are two separate airports. Notwithstanding, you should notice two thingsː

1) Redirects still remain

2) The "by year" categories are still listed as McCarran International Airport prior to 2021. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you seem to lament another editor taking action without discussion, but yet are doing the same.

Is your intent to create two entire categories and thereby indicating that they are two separate airports, rather than just a name change for the same airport? An Errant Knight (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales[edit]

Hey, in regards to Category:Cast iron postbox, Liverpool, New South Wales, this is in Australia and not in Wales :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locales in Washington (state)[edit]

I think this is a mostly good idea, but I wouldn't think windmills are "locales" and have mixed feelings about "ruins": the ones that most obviously are "locales" (e.g. Category:Northern State Hospital (Sedro-Woolley) dairy farm) aren't currently even in Category:Ruins in Washington (state). - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) definition: "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill).". However, there does seem to be inconsistency regarding ghost towns. Depending on how defined, a ghost town can range from the site of a former community, with little or no visible signs left, to a formerly larger community that has only a few permanent residents left. The first example would clearly qualify as a "locale" or place of former human activity, while the second example may will still qualify as a populated place.

Either way, the category seemed necessary for places of human activity, but that do not qualify as populated places (including many that the USGS still defines as unincorporated communities). In addition, this editor finds it interesting that the USGS specifically excludes mines and dams (even though they otherwise seem to fit perfectly within the given definition). An Errant Knight (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Affected:

File:Elf on the Shelf poses 01.JPG

And also:

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category naming[edit]

Hi! Is it OK if I read the discussion in where the category naming came to be? I think "(state)" is unnecessary in the case of Mississippi since it, without the "River", almost always means a state (on the other hand, "Georgia (state)", "New York (state)", and "Washington (state)" are disambiguations that are needed)

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - do we need to explain that they are not restaurants in the Mississippi River? When there is no reasonable chance of confusion, I don't see the need. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the issue of (but not necessarily to the same degree as) Washington, D.C. vs. Washington (state), for many who do not live in or are not fairly familiar with the United States the name "Mississippi" refers to the river, not the state. It is also common to treat the Mississippi drainage basin as a region (even though not commonly done within the United States), similar to the Amazon in South America. Therefore, certain categories such as Geography of Mississippi or Rivers of Mississippi are likely to be confusing. This opinion is shared by many editors, hence the reason it appears as "Mississippi (state)" in the States of the United States (US states) navigation template.

Rather than attempt to distinguish which categories might be confusing (as previously mentioned) and those that that likely would not (such as Restaurants in Mississippi), all Mississippi (state) categories are being (or transitioning to be) treated the same as Washington (state), New York (state), and Georgia (U.S. state). An Errant Knight (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fat Mama's Tamales[edit]

Re Category:Fat Mama's Tamales (Natchez, Mississippi), why did you think it important to move the category name from US address style with comma to parenthetical expression qualifier? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to name categories that are subdivisions of administrative territorial entities as 'item', "division", "larger entity", etc., while items located within {such as the example given) are named "item" ("territorial entity", "larger entity"). This is primarily, but not exclusively, to distinguish between such categories as Blue River, Colorado, an incorporated community, and Blue River (Colorado), a river). An Errant Knight (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1532_in_the_United_States[edit]

1532 in the United States 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!

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto_Rico_in_the_1530s[edit]

Puerto Rico in the 1530s 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!

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United_States_in_the_1530s[edit]

United States in the 1530s 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!

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1540_in_the_United_States[edit]

1540 in the United States 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!

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1605_in_the_United_States_by_state[edit]

1605 in the United States by state 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!

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain[edit]

Ghost towns (e.g. Rexville, Texas) are not populated. (I know you know that!) Krok6kola (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost towns may or may not have a small population (definition). If Rexville is no longer populated, you will need to convince those residents that live in what is left of the community that they do not actually live there. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think people live there now? Krok6kola (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the half dozen or so homes in the area could be maintained without anyone actually living there, since they are nearly all associated with active farms in the area it is unlikely (based upon the income of most farmers) that they are "extra' homes. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]