User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2022

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Sorry[edit]

I admit I did it wrong, so I decided to stop uploading photos from now on.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tinplate_toys[edit]

Category discussion warning

Tinplate toys 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boet van Dulmen[edit]

Why make things complicated by deduplicating using a deprecated template, and at the same time effectively remove this photo of Queen Juliana from Commons? I will rollback these edits, and search for the right description of the Juliana photograph. Vysotsky (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a total screw-up, so no.
Also the photo of Queen Juliana needs to be deleted (or its source found, which is likely a duplicate anyway) because at present it's on the wrong file description page, linked to the wrong source record at the National Archive. Which, to make it absolutely clear to you, means we can't have it (even if we wanted), because there's no valid source or licensing on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you track down the Juliana photo, then we can (as usual) use it. Except that if we find it, that's probably going to be by finding it already existing here, so it would just be a duplicate. It looks like it might be in Arnhem, but there's no certainty that it's the right author (many of them are wrong). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the Juliana photo; and no: the photo was not in Commons. Restored original, corrected metadata and title. Don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Vysotsky (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radiator[edit]

Hello, as you removed the radiator category, I was wondering what category it should go in. There is engine radiator or heat radiator. Sahaib (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any sort of radiator. This is just the plastic grille in front of it. The most detailed category would just be "car parts" or "car bodywork".
This problem is called "fly tipping" in the UK. A radiator contains metal, so has scrap metal value. It wouldn't be thrown away. Cars use a lot of plastic though and as this has no resale value, it's regularly dumped in the country.
This category tree really needs to keep focus on radiators as the technical component of the engine cooling system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Archive / Anefo images[edit]

Hi Andy, I know you are familiar with this treasure trove of images. I came across this: File:Albeda, W. - SFA008007045.jpg and noticed the resolution was way below normal and wanted to see if I could obtain the full high resolution image. The source link was broken but I was able to find the original at this link: sfa008007045 at SpaarnestadPhoto. However, it requires a login to download. What do you advise? Are there certain Commons users who have been entrusted with the password as part of the partnership program? P.S. The image license template seems to be a little off, too, as the photographer is not unknown. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at https://beeldbank.spaarnestadphoto.com/search.pp?showpicture=39677&page=1&pos=1 and had similar trouble. I've not used this archive before – it's a source that was being used before I got involved with the Anefo stuff.
You could ask @Multichill: , as they're the operator of the 'bot that did the original upload.
But I think what I'd do is to switch the image for this one, https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/fotocollectie/acdd5b76-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84?searchKey=13215257eb76081adb380878b8fa3c85 from the Nationaal Archief site we usually use. It looks like it's the original, and less heavily cropped. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I will contemplate that pending response from Multichill. Came across another non-conforming file: File:Bomans romanfiguur Erik onthuld in Thijsse's Hof in Bloemendaal, Bestanddeelnr 929-1878.jpg. Our info matches that of the link to Nationaal Archief but I think they've got wires crossed on their end. (It looks like the image ought to be the next one following File:Bomans romanfiguur Erik onthuld in Thijsse's Hof in Bloemendaal mevrouw Boman, Bestanddeelnr 929-1877.jpg, but instead it is from Johan Ferrier's state visit. Do we change our description and file name to what matches the image and what we think it should be or what? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few of these. But what's the problem? Is the Nationaal Archief version correct or is the mistake there too?
If it's our mistake, then fix the image to match the filename – that gives a much clearer history. Otherwise (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Edit-warring_and_time-wasting_from_Vysotsky) it ends up with a bad redirect. We might need to create a new page to hold the 'spare' image that has been removed, so long as we can find its source record at the archive, and we don't already have it.
But in this case, the Nationaal Archief page seems to be incorrect too. We can't really fix that (this isn't the first I've seen). In that case I'd use the {{Fact}} template to tag that the page filename and metadata are wrong (even the photographer might be wrong), but I'd leave the incorrect image there and try to categorize the page on the basis of the image, as best I could. It would probably be worth creating a category for these as Category:Images from Nationaal Archief with metadata errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ferrier photo was made on 21 May 1977, at Schiphol Airport, on Ferrier's first state visit to the Netherlands as prime minister of Suriname, as announced here. The man on the left is Freek Bischoff van Heemskerck. The photographer was most likely Koen Suyk, but I have sent a request to the Dutch National Archives to be sure about that (and about the license). It makes sense to change the metadata (description etc.) and the file name. Let's wait till I have a response from Nationaal Archief. More information about the Anefo collection and its road to Commons can be found here and here. Vysotsky (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 929-1878, I've updated the categories, but neither changed the text meta-data nor requested a file move. I did so not only because of Vysotsky's information, but also because I found 929-1885 which by way of background, same people, and same outfits confirms the date, location, and names. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we keep the Anefo archive intact when some people freely replace it as in this edit? Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert that bit, and tell them you're reverting it. It's usually an accident. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. This is over two years old, but I thought I'd show it to you as a courtesy. Diff. Cheers,

Category:Crimp connectors[edit]

Category:Crimp connectors 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 category, 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.

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 ∙ +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locations Anefo[edit]

Dear User:Andy Dingley, Many of the so-called "locations" in the descriptions of Anefo (Nationaal Archief) don't tell the complete story. Constructing categories on the basis of the metadata is quite daring. See this category, in which the location is not Zürich but Schiphol. One needs to understand the Dutch text to construct useful categories. I have seen dozens of these misinterpretations. Vysotsky (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I agree! I have seen scores of examples of Anefo not using their "Locatie" field correctly. Photos from Schiphol Airport often has the destination or origin country of the travelers as the location. I've seen photos in the Tweede Kamer being labelled as being South America, because that is what the politicians were debating that day. Photos at Soestdijk Palace being tagged as the country of the foreign dignitary who is visiting Queen Juliana. I could go on and on. --SVTCobra 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking in incomplete and incorrect metadata is partly the price we have to pay for automatic uploading of a very useful collection of press photographs from an interesting and not well-covered period (re images in Wiki), but we should be careful in building complete sets of categories in Commons based on that information. All I ask is to be careful in constructing categories of that sort. Vysotsky (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? You're not pulling that "You're not Dutch, so you shouldn't be editing Dutch content." bobbins again?
The metadata on these is far from perfect. Over the last couple of days I had to change thousands of them to get the name accreditation for Jack de Nijs correct. Worse, many of those weren't even by Jack de Nijs, or they were and were mis-attributed. This one (and others) had the subject name creeping into the photographer namespace.
Yes, the "Location" field for airports is as commonly used for destinations and sources as it has been for the location of the airport. Most of these I've spotted, this one I must have missed. But I am really tired of you forever trying to turn this into a personalised pissing contest about how you're the only editor fit to be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I look at your accusations with amazement. I like sharing my expertise, and have always encouraged other people to improve and make use of the Anefo collection. That's the reason why I wrote several articles about the Anefo collection. Regarding the example you gave (publisher Geert van Oorschot vs photographer van Oorschot): Mr.Nostalgic had to find a way to get the names of the Anefo photographers into Commons categories, uploading well over 300.000 photographs. He found a good way to work on that, and in the months afterwards he corrected the inevitable mistakes that are caused by automatic uploads. I assisted him in that work, as you can see in the file you gave as an example: uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic in Jan. 2018; categories corrected by me in March 2018, to show the actual depicted person and the actual photographer. Let's please work together, instead of wasting time on discussions. Vysotsky (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this, where you "fixed" it, but still left the Author field as van Oorschot. Yet you're the one who feels entitled to talk down to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anefo, bad meta[edit]

I removed Hans van Dijk from these. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe we need to scan the whole corpus and search for any that are still in two photographer cats. Pain to check for, but we can (just about) do it with some SPARQL Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GWR[edit]

Great Western Railway currently serves stations out to Didcot Parkway, including West Drayton, Hayes & Harlington, Southall and Ealing Broadway. Hence the categorisation. Best regards, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that's doubly wrong then. "GWR" is a train operating company which operates trains today. Category:Great Western Railway is about a whole different company, which built and operated this railway from the 1840s to 1940s. You haven't even found the right category, which would be Category:Great Western Railway (First Group).
These are stations, not trains. If there is a GWR train in shot on any of them, then that's possibly a case for Trains of Great Western Railway. But the company (as a TOC) is more about trains than stations.
But the real point is still my original one (and why have you moved discussion to a different page?): there could be a case for transitive categorisation of these images under something to do with the railway, which would be done because they're all already in a category for that station. That's where that categorisation would belong, not repeated on every image. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in edit-warring over this, see you at COM:ANU Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great Western Railway (First Group)? Of course, of course! Must be the booze! "But you don't drink, Sunil!" Oh, yeah! Best regards, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by Gerard Dukker in Leidschendam (1981)[edit]

Can you take a look at this category, please. I don't know if something went wrong with Template:ANEFO photographer location or if other users set it up incorrectly higher in the tree. But this particular category seems to have inserted itself into several categories in a redundant manner. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I am just wrong and that's how they all work. --SVTCobra 23:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'd expect it to do. If it's not optimal, then we can think about what would be better. But so far I can't!
It wants to go for 1981 in Leidschendam. It would settle for Leidschendam by year. But as neither of those exist, it can't. So rather than leave iself unlinked, it goes for the "next bests" that are Leidschendam and 1981 in South Holland. It also uses 1981 in Leidschendam as a deliberate redlink, to indicate the choice if anyone wants to create a new category.
I can't see a better behaviour (or else I'd make it do that). I don't hold with the "excess categorisation" argument, although there's a guy who keeps breaking stuff deliberately because he's so wound up about that. I see that "excess" as very minor, and much less important than not tying them into the location categorisations at all.
It could (quite easily) use a parameter to switch behaviours. But I really hate that as a fix, because it would involve hundreds of edits to each use of the template, and that makes things unchangeable in the future. Stuff like this needs to stay fully automatic, even when that becomes a lot of work in one place. This is why I've been adding the |intermediate= param already, even though the template doesn't use that yet.
For a small category like this, I'd probably go with creating Leidschendam by year, if I really wanted to remove redlinks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wouldn't create Category:Photographs by Hans van Dijk in Leidschendam. It only has one child (1981), and the child is deliberately designed to not need the parent, if there isn't one. One of the original points of all this was to avoid those additional near-empty levels of navigation. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I have deliberately created the tree when I make new branches. I may even have created a province category which had only one city category with only one year being applicable. Usually, it works itself out as more years and more cities show up as I work my way through these massive collections. If I don't create them as I go, it feels impossible to remember which I need to go back to. I create them when there are 4 or more photos in a city in a year, and then I connect them by creating the parents, even if it is an only child. Maybe this is wrong, but usually it gets filled in later. Thanks for your input. Cheers, SVTCobra 16:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail transport in Great Britain[edit]

Hi, Andy. Just to let you know, this category is not a metacat. However, I removed the metacat template and replaced it with a different one that says things should be moved to subcategories. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look into?[edit]

Hello, I just wondered if you could review [[1]]. This is my own work, a portion of a miles long levee. I'm not sure what is wrong with the image, I don't understand the rules here too much. The nominator may have a history with bad noms, this could very well be good but I don't understand. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link in categories about Photographs by Herbert Behrens[edit]

I have seen that in for example Category:Photographs by Herbert Behrens in the Netherlands there is a link to the German politician Category:Herbert Behrens which should be Category:Herbert Behrens (photographer). Wouter (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I'll have to find some way to fix that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Midland Compound 1000.jpg[edit]

Hi Andy, sorry but I don't follow your argument on deleting the category 1975 in County Durham, the photo was taken in 1975 in County Durham so what is the problem? The category 1975 Stockton & Darlington cavalcade isn't a subcat of that. regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cavalcade is clearly an event in Durham in 1975. It belongs in that category.
Photos of the locos are much less strongly linked to time and place. They're obviously "in preservation", but it would be hard to tell them apart from the 1980 cavalcade at Rainhill. Now we would still add the time and place categorisation to them, except that they're going into the specific cavalcade category. Now COM:OVERCAT starts to apply: being at the cavalcade completely implies also being in Durham in '75, so we don't need both. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, apologies for the confusion, I somehow managed to miss the Cavalcade being a sub-cat of 1975 in Durham, despite checking it twice. The question arises as to whether photos taken at Shildon in the days preceding to the cavalcade, should appear in the cavalcade section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cavalcade to Durham when I was doing the locos. Seemed like an obvious "event in 1975" to have it.
I would certainly put them in the cavalcade, or at least under it. If there's a handful, put them in it. If we find a whole gallery of "preparations before the cavalcade", then make a sub-cat for that (but it's then a sub-cat, still under it). That happened for Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll of preparations for the Inauguration of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains it, I'm not quite as senile as I thought I was! To the best of my knowledge there are about half a dozen images not actually taken during the cavalcade itself, including two of mine. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chepstow Drill Hall photo[edit]

Following your reversion of my change, File:Apple Day singing, Chepstow Dril Hall 2014.jpg is now in Category:Apple Day, Chepstow and Category:Chepstow Drill Hall, and the former is a subcategory of the latter. Surely a file shouldn't be in a category and its parent, according to the modularity principle as described at COM:CAT? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very broad and loose guideline, often best ignored.
This photo is inside the Drill Hall. It belongs in the cat, as illustration of inside the Drill Hall (I presume you're local and familiar with it?) and showing the decor.
Apple Day is not limited to the Drill Hall. It's justified to include it within the Drill Hall, because that's where most of the events take place (I just wish we had more photos) – but it's far from exclusive. This would be clearer if we had more photos.
So although these are both inclusions in the same category, they're for different reasons. One does not fully imply the other, so OVERCAT isn't strongly relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK – I'm not entirely convinced that Apple Day should be a subcat of the Drill Hall, or that the guideline should be so casually ignored, but I'll leave it be. I'm not familiar with the event or the building. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Life of Brunel[edit]

I cannot see any attribution in the Gutenberg text for most of the images; only for the Frontispice, and a few of other signed by H Adlard. If you have further information, I am happy to leave the clearing up of the attributions to you. -- Verbarson  talkedits 20:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tatjana Doma.jpeg[edit]

Please continue the discussion at that DR, where you seem to have made serious but baseless accusations against another user. Brianjd (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffers / Buffer stops[edit]

I was wondering the difference of Category:Buffers in England and Category:Buffer stops in England.

I also noticed that you've put buffer stops into the main category railway station buffer stops, but buffers don't necessarily have to locate at railway stations, do they? Not entirely sure where to categorize buffer photos at the moment so any advice is welcome. Thanks :) - Coen (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole thing's a mess and there's a bunch of duplication. Mostly this was some cleanup to get past "rail pyramids" recently.
"Buffers" is wrong. It should be "buffer stops" at least, otherwise we get into all the photos of buffers on rolling stock. It should also incorporate fixed bent-rail stops, stop blocks, terminus station huge hydraulic things and collapsible scissors. Otherwise we could easily "go Commons" on it and sub-categorise into an empty list of pointless tiny categories.
Overall, I'm not a fan of "buffer stops in stations". It's definining and a pretty clear distinction from buffer stops elsewhere, but I don't see it as adding much value. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cees de Boer[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley, All categories re Dutch photographer Cees de Boer seem to have a category structure formed by {{ANEFO photographer location|Cees de Boer|Boer, Cees, de etc., see Category:Photographs by Cees de Boer in IJmuiden (1982). There seem to be dozens of these categories, all starting with the word ANEFO. Cees de Boer wasn't an ANEFO photographer though, as he was the founder of Photo Press Agency De Boer, see Category:Fotopersbureau C. de Boer. Is it possible to remove the word ANEFO from all these categories? Vysotsky (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these categories? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase ANEFO is at the start of all (several hundreds) templates re Cees de Boer, for example {{ANEFO photographer location|Cees de Boer|Boer, Cees, de|IJmuiden|North Holland|198|2|intermediate=Velsen}}. I saw that after I found the phrase back in a category of a photo by De Boer and looked at the origin of the phrase, but I can't retrace the photo. Vysotsky (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these categories?
The {{ANEFO photographer location}} template was written to handle the problem of describing the vast amount of content from the prolific ANEFO photographers. It is (by default) targeted at Dutch photographers, with the implicit assumption that the content is in the Netherlands (easily overridden) and it has some embedded behaviour around the Dutch provinces. There is nothing in this template, other than its name, which limits it to ANEFO. It's already in use for a lot of RCE content (which often overlaps with ANEFO, but isn't the same thing) and likewise it works for the De Boer agency content too.
What is the problem here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In short: the template suggests ANEFO includes RCE and De Boer, which is not the case. Is it possible to either rename the template to something like "Dutch photographers location" or make a distinction between templates of these three photo press agencies? Vysotsky (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these generated categories?
That's the sort of thing that in hindsight one might have done. However it conveys absolutely no advantage and would be a massive amount of work to do it. So no, I'm not going to waste time on such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better category[edit]

Hi, Andy Dingley/Archive 2022. "Fuck nazis (text)" is not a better category because "Category:Fuck Nazis (text) is a textual category. You can see here how these "(text)" categories work. For example Category:Christmas (text) does not contain images depicting words such as "Nöel" (French), "Natal" (Portuguese) or "Navidad" (Spanish) neither Category:And (text) includes depictions of words such as "et" (French), "und" (German) or "y" (Spanish). Those categories are intended to contain specific words, not meanings. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A literal translation of this places it within that category. As Commons categories are English language (You can question whether we should do this, but the fact is that we do.) then this image belongs in there.
Also I know what your maiden aunt's French dictionary gives as a translation here, but this does not say "Kiss Nazis". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My "maiden aunt's French dictionary"? isn't that a bit jerk-ish, Andy? By the way, I didn't even translate that, I took for granted that it meant what the description said. With regard to your "Commons categories are English language", you can see here that "not all Commons categories are English language" [sic], but you are certainly entitled to your opinions. Take care. Strakhov (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I was planning to send you a message as a result of the discussion we had with you this week. You are an important and valuable user for me. I felt sad for what you wrote when we are arguing in the discussion, I didn't want to be understood like that. I took action to protect the Commons, but the consensus in our community was slightly different. We talked and understood each other. The community gave me these rights, so the community is above everything for me. So, I want to send this kitten to you :) Best regards,


Kadı Message 16:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2022&oldid=739450961"