This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Category:Bowling_Ball_Beach_California 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!
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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!
I don't really know what to say about this... a school is an institution, a building is a building, and they are valid distinct categories where photos are concerned. Why did you feel the need to do this? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point. I had several reasons:
There are/were notes on "school buildings" categories saying that they are not heavily used and that most media for the buildings is in the "school" categories. See here for an example.
Most of the media under "school" categories was already pictures of buildings. Plus, the "schools" categories are mostly under "buildings" categories.
With other kinds of things that are both institutions and physical buildings, we don't distinguish. In part, I think that's because it would be hard to have media that showed the aspects that make something an institution -- those things are less concrete and hard to have media for.
Thank you for the explanation. I'd like to think that architecture is a valid category branch that probably shouldn't be casually swept away (some people are interested in that stuff, believe it or not). I probably would have seen the problem as being the fact that "schools" were under "buildings" categories myself... even if they contain mostly pictures of buildings right now, they could potentially contain nearly anything... but I can see how that would be more work to address. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that architecture is a valid category branch. Since "schools" is under "buildings", I don't think we've lost that link. Images for specific schools can always be put under subcategories of architecture, like architectural styles or architectural elements, if they're of particular architectural interest. I just think that the fact that a particular building is a school isn't usually related to its architectural interest.
I have noticed that the university and college categories are not usually under building categories. I've never been sure why that is, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a parallax thing going on here, and I'm probably not the monkey to diplomatically sort it out, but I'll try to express a thing or two... If you've never been sure why universities aren't under building categories, you may want to pursue that avenue of inquiry, just for fun, and keep in mind that for many purposes a school is not a building, and a building is not a school. I'm tired and probably not making much sense, so I'll leave it at that. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue seems very much unresolved; for example Category:Bank buildings in Connecticut is part of a fairly comprehensive pair of parallel institutional and architectural cat trees, but the parental "Banks" categories usually have little or nothing in them except buildings. On the other hand we don't generally have parallel church and church building cats, even though a congregation is clearly distinct from the building they inhabit. Thus, I have no idea where to solicit a discussion by all who may have an opinion on the topic. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You could start a discussion at Commons:Village pump, but I don't know that the categorization is really much of an opinion topic, it's pretty well explained in Commons:Categories. How to coordinate efforts to actually fix the existing situation, on the other hand, is probably worth communicating about in some central location. My thought would be to start by removing categories that aren't only containers for media related to buildings out of buildings categories... they shouldn't be there. If a topic has a strong enough association with buildings ("churches", for instance) then there should absolutely be a separate "church buildings" branch, and no reason why a given photo couldn't be a member of both as long as neither was parent of the other (which shouldn't be the case). So, for instance, "Omaha, Nebraska" could contain "Churches in Omaha, Nebraska", which might very well have many pictures of buildings, among other things. Its sibling would be "Buildings in Omaha, Nebraska", which would be the correct parent for "Church buildings in Omaha, Nebraska", which could also be in "Church buildings in the United States" or whatever other appropriate topic parents existed, with no overcat conflicts (because they're distinct branches). I realize that things aren't always so cut-and-dried, and can get downright messy in some cases, but I think that's a good general concept to have as a starting point. Sorry for ranting on your talk page, @Auntof6, but you started it. :P --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong about part of that - the "Church buildings in X" cat probably should also be in the "Churches in X" cat... there would still be no overcat conflict. It's the "Church" type cats that shouldn't be in "Building" cats, basically. I think that's the root of the problem. Lazy use of language is how we get through the day (we all know what somebody means if they say "OMG Suzy burned down the school!"), but it's better to be a little more literal and correct with things that have to fit together with some logical consistency, I reckon. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So what would be in the "banks" (or "schools" or "churches") categories that wouldn't fit in the "bank buildings" categories (or "school buildings" or "church buildings")? Logos? Meetings of their executives? It seems to me that the non-building categories would need constant checking and maintenance, maybe more than it's worth to keep them separate. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Potentially anything could end up in those categories (the mind recoils!), the point being that buildings are a specific topic, and the appropriate subcats will exist wherever someone bothers to create them. The current contents (or lack thereof) of a "banks" category isn't the the thing to base structure around; the idea is to create a robust skeleton that can be fleshed out into the future without having to constantly break the bones to fit more closely to whatever flesh happens to be there at any given time... I hope that makes sense. I'm visually oriented and not always good at verbally explaining concepts that I grasp in a non-verbal way, but there are probably other people around here who could explain it better. As for the maintenance question, no, it's no different than any other category containing more specific categories... hopefully uploaders will add the most specific category (it helps if they already exist) but if not, the files eventually get diffused, which is what a lot of the work to be done around here consists of, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, obliterating category structures does create a lot of work, so please don't do that without discussion... things that already exist may have a reason to exist, even if it's not immediately obvious to any given person, and even if they're not currently situated in the best possible way. For what it's worth, the Category:Bank buildings in Connecticut situation mentioned above was fixed with two quick hotcats, one addition and one deletion, simply by making "banks" not a subcat of "buildings" which is ultimately how things will need to shuffle into place to not keep causing logical conflicts. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know anything could end up in there. I was trying to get an idea of what would belong there. But don't worry, I see your point now. I just had seen those notes on the building categories and thought that was a consensus of how to handle things. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for bearing with me... now I'm going to go poke around and see what kind of things do end up in bank categories while I finish digesting my (holiday weekend) belly full of food and beer... just out of morbid curiosity. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, but this was far and away the most random thing I found, in answer to your question... must share, then sleep. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with this edit. I suppose that in some sense a bank branch is an office, but generally people don't think of it as such, and I think that putting it under "office buildings" rather than directly under "buildings" is likely to make it hard for anyone to find it by navigating down the hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk06:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you may be right. I did it (and quite a few others) because I saw other cases where it had been done that way. Some of the things under "bank buildings" are probably what we'd think of as office buildings (such as their headquarters buildings), but most are probably branches as you say. In any case, I will change the ones for bank buildings in the US states, even the ones I didn't change. That won't change any for other places, but I've only been working with things in US states lately. Thanks for the note. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Early 20th century banks, churches, schools and gas station were architecturally distinctive. Just by looking, you knew what they were. Recent banks, no. When they are separate buildings, they look like small office buildings. In my crowded little island, most banking floors are at street level of an office building, same as a restaurant or retail store. Many old banks near me now serve as restaurants, churches and office buildings, but they still look like banks, just as the old churches and schools that have been converted to apartment houses still look like what they were. So, yes, modern bank buildings are office buildings. Alas, my mind boggles at the philosophical question of whether all banks are necessarily offices, regardless of whether the banking house is old and looks like a bank. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
& there is nothing to stop us from using both a "bank building" category and an "office building" category on buildings where both are appropriate.- Jmabel ! talk16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenwich Village
Please note that the neighborhood of Manhattan is called "Greenwich Village" and not the "Village of Greenwich", and that there is not such things as the "Village of Greenwich Historic District", although there is a "Greenwich Village Historic District".
I suggest you stop messing around with categories you know nothing about, and leave them to people who are familiar with the areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is a Village of Greenwich Historic District. There is a Wikipedia article about it and its NRHP reference number is 95001025. (The reference number for the Greenwich Village Historic District is 79001604.) I believe that this image belongs to the district I put it in and not the one you changed it to.
So it appears that I got the two mixed up and you did some work to fix it. For that I apologize, but there was no call for you to be rude about it. People are going to make mistakes here, and it's much better to help them learn than to tell them not to edit. I would have been happy to undo my own changes if you had only asked. Along those same lines, I ask that you fix the mistakes that you created: correct the NRHP reference number in Category:Greenwich Village Historic District and take the image I linked to out of the category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ken, your comment was uncalled for. You make mistakes all the time, as do all editors. Please assume good faith and be civil. Comments like the one you left above reflect badly on you, not Auntof6. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Questionable category changes
Dear Auntof6; I have reverted your changes of location category to pictures in Humboldt County, California. There is no apparent reason for your changes which are not in line with the norms and standards of how to categorize images on Commons. Please refrain from more changes of this type. If you are seeking a Commons project, I can offer you several where dedicated contribution would be most welcome. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for educating me. It doesn't make sense to me to have the individual files in these categories, but I accept your statement that that is how it is done. I won't categorize files that way, but I won't remove any more of them, either. I would be glad to know of other projects that need to be done. Thanks again. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Cat wrangling to do
I'm writing out some ideas for projects, complete with links etc. and will be back to you in a day or so; I'm having dental surgury and my brains are mash, so this is taking longer than it should, so sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Jim. I did some work there. A lot of it was just removing the category from images that were already in subcategories! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of sloppy work in the past like that is waiting, mostly in large categories, for someone to inspect and clean up. On the other hand many thousands of files are uploaded every month (day?) by automatic processes and are categorized only by source. For example Category:NYPL maps is huge and many of the maps may prove valuable once sorted by continent, city, century, theme, maker, etc. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that working closest to home is probably best for diffusion and/or sorting into categories. I did all the dot maps on cities in California, found a pile of NARA images of the local counties and etc. about 1.5 years ago. It was a great experience, I spent a lot of time on Google maps and Wikipedia getting the towns/cities in their correct counties and the NARA images better identified. Also something the project can always use help with is deletion nominations. There are thousands of images that arrive every day and far too few eyes looking at them. I should be back to normal by about next week Tuesday and am still thinking about you! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you ought to know I just created a new category for Bergen Beach, Brooklyn. I even attached the Flatlands, Brooklyn category to it, just in case something from Bergen Beach is incorrectly categorized as being in Flatlands, and if I'm not mistaken, there might be some Belt Parkway images we could add to it. ----DanTD (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Dan. I'd seen the files for Bergen Beach, but didn't know if it was a neighborhood or what. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Alternately, if you want an excuse to venture down bewildering and unfamiliar rabbit holes that can't reasonably be left to "locals", you could seek out the generic cat names that need disambiguating rather than diffusing (how to deliberately find them might be an interesting problem in itself). As an example, a bunch of these were "tagged" with Category:Riverside by the uploader. Upon diving into that category for what I thought would be some routine diffusion, I was struck with the epiphany that anyone in the world with a local thing known as "Riverside" probably thinks of their Riverside as the Riverside... the weirdest things were the many classic car photos (a museum in Glasgow, in that case), and pictures where it was used simply as a descriptive tag, with no placename involved. It occurred to me at the time that there were probably more of these categories out there, in need of a more dedicated soul than myself, so I'm just adding it to the discussion. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas, everyone! @Jmabel: , for the media needing categories, do you think it's worth adding categories if the only ones I can determine are things like "blue cars", or should I leave those for someone who could determine something more specific (like what country or city the car was in, or what specific model of car it is)? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Add what you can; only remove the tag about needing categories if you think you've added enough relevant ones that it no longer needs attention. Also, you will find that the subcats of Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention are a bit heavy with copyvios, etc.: it's useful to go through these and nominate the problematic ones for deletion, add appropriate templates about missing information, etc. - Jmabel ! talk22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I did it after I saw it done that way in some places and it made a sort of sense. Of course, it makes sense the way you describe, too. I do try to follow the way the higher-level categories are organized, so I wouldn't mind changing them back. I think the only area where I was working when I did that was in United States categories, so I can probably find all those easily enough. Did you happen to notice it anywhere else? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked beyond the US categories, but I did encounter your work at both state-level and city-level categories. Are there other places we should examine? - Eureka Lott
Not that I can think of. Maybe I'll just use AWB to find all the categories under satellite photography that have an aerial photography category on them. That should find them all, even ones I didn't change. Does that sound good? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You can do this without AWB using this search string, making use of the shiny new "insource:" syntax:
should tell you what you want to know, maybe more than you wanted to know... EDIT:that might pick up cats where "Category:Aerial" appears anywhere in the source (such as "see also", etc.); apparently the phrase matching ignores "[["... sorry, still figuring out the new search features ;) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
In any search input field, it's part of the normal search syntax now (unless you've disabled "new search" in your preferences). See here for more info. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did have that disabled, but I enabled it and it looks like it worked. Thanks! I'll take care of everything that search found. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As an update, it looks like just making it a regex search (by enclosing the phrase in '/' characters) is enough to weed out the few false positives, like so:
The new search has some great features, and it will eventually be the only search, so I'm evangelizing it a little bit amongst people who I suspect may put it to good use. It's particularly nice for rounding things up on commons, where you want more control over exactly what shows up in the results. Happy searching! --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I definitely like to learn about stuff like that! While we're talking about the aerial and satellite photographs, maybe I can get your opinion (either of you or anyone else) on something else. I see these categories under "Geography" categories. I know that these pictures, especially the satellite ones, often show geographical features, but not all of them. The high-level categories aren't under geography categories. I think individual images could belong under geography, depending on what they show, but not the satellite/aerial categories themselves. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The exact intent behind the "Geography of..." cats isn't clear to me, so I don't mess with 'em myself, but I'm interested to see what others have to say. It sounds like you're relating it to natural features of land, which may be the intended purpose, but to my mind any image displaying a large enough area of land from a high enough angle of view is geographical in nature... exactly how large or how high, I couldn't say. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think most show geographical things, but not all. There are satellite pictures of airports, mines, schools, stadiums, and other things that aren't strictly geographical (see Category:Satellite pictures by topic). To me, a satellite image is not inherently geographical, it's just a picture taken from space. The field can be broad or narrow, focused on something small or something large. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of Geography of X cats with extremely miscellaneous contents. IMO it should be a high-level container including: all maps, geographers & geographical organizations, geographical methods & instruments, landforms (containing rivers, mountains, &c.), and climatology. Most media to do with human geography, other than maps, would probably go better under such other cats as People, Culture, or Architecture of X. Satellite photos would mostly fit, insofar as they’re used for mapping, land-use assessment, &c., but aerial photos not so much. That said I don’t know the history of the decision-making process involved, or how much of the present state of affairs is by design, so have mostly tried to work with the categories that do make sense to me, ignoring some others.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Then, every place that has many images from above would be in Birds Eye View of that place. Its subcats would include Pictorial Maps and might include Aerial Photographs. A big category for such photos, however, would be contrary to current practice that gives us Category:Eiffel Tower from above which has several views that are paintings and other non-photo images yet is a subcat of an aerial photo category. I am failing to understand why aerial views are handled contrary to the way of all other views. For just about any place in the world seen from any other angle, the category name is just the subject name, such as Category:Eiffel Tower which is mostly photos without saying so. Why do we single out photography, only when we're up in the sky? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now, Category:Bird's-eye view is under Category:Aerial photographs. I think that should be the other way around. Aerial photographs are one way of getting a bird's-eye view. Bird's-eye views are not necessarily photographs.
There's another issue you can see on Category:Satellite pictures of Tamil Nadu. It is in Category:Science and technology in Tamil Nadu. I've seen quite a few other satellite pictures categories under science and tech categories for the place depicted in the images. I don't think that's right, because the fact that a satellite photo was taken of a given place doesn't have anything to do with whatever science or technology the place might have. It certainly requires the technology of a satellite to get the satellite photos, but that technology doesn't necessarily belong to the place that was photographed.
Well, it isn't really a walk. I guess people can walk on it, but to me a walk of fame is something you walk along, like a sidewalk. I guess I don't feel strongly about it, though, so go ahead and put it back if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose, but I don't really see much of a difference between stars on a sidewalk and handprints on a sidewalk. Anyway, I'll add it back and we'll see if anyone else has an opinion. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop defaultsorting of ship categories. I will ask a moderator to stop this activity. Please have a look at what you are doing with this tugboat as example. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Great job, thank you so much. Have you ever considered working on the project of Category:Images without source? Many of them were transferred from en:Wiki and really do have sources, but their templates are broken, or the source info is buried in the description. You can pick and choose which ones to work on, most of the old paintings can be sourced to "mechanical reproduction of 2D art", especially if they're in museum collections. Along the way, take a moment or two to look up the subject and wiki link it - perhaps expand the description... leaving a much higher quality file than was there before. Please let me know if this is something that appeals to you, we have nearly 60,000 of these images and more arriving daily and would certainly appreciate the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I haven't done anything with sources before. Can you point me to some that were fixed, so I can look at what was done? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing! Check this list for starters and of course you can look at my "contributions" for more. Go back about 150 or 200, I did a lot of deletion nominations lately.
Sometimes it is as simple as a misplaced { or the close bracket or doubles of either start or close (usually on the description line) which causes the source to disappear. When I fix those, I mark them in the edit summary as "fix template to show source" or some such. If the edit summary says "Source!" that means it was there all along and all I did was rearrange things.
File:Anna Renzi.jpg The information was all there, but I made minor adjustments to the arrangement and I think I wikilinked the subject's name. This one still needs a category (oops, I usually do that too in passing.)
File:121 SIG BN DUI.png Fortunately I finished all these. I had to use the TIOH website search to find the sources of a whole pile of these insignia because the old links had all died and they were bot moved to commons, so source must be provided.
File:Arctic circle.svg User:Fae pointed out it was from the CIA World Fact book. Other maps are from the U.S. National Atlas, etc. Really old maps can be "mechanical reproductions...."
If you find things which are obviously wrong in passing (it happens), you can make a list on my talk page, add the "no source/no license/copyright violation" tag or nominate for deletion. If an image is too confusing, you can always just skip it. I do as much as I can until I get cross-eyed, and then I have to stop and do something else. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all help in considering becoming a rescuer of these no source images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I will definitely look at that in the near future. Right now I am going to continue with something else I started working on -- diffusing Category:Bridges, and possible some of its subcategories. It's amazing how many of the files there are for bridges that already have their own categories! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I enjoy it. It's just a challenge to learn the different ways things are done here and in different Wikipedias. There are so many cases where it there are conflicting ways of categorizing that all make sense, I just have to figure out what the community wants. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who does lots of work with cats, I first say thanks for the hard work for doing it so few do - here or on wp:en
However, I do as a Indonesiaphile take issue with allocating 'Oceania' to Indonesia - it reminds me of some endless arguments about what constitutes the seas and oceans in which Indonesia lie - some time got wasted there. Oceania - either in its definitions on wp:en or here - should coincide - and even if a small part of eastern Indonesia might be considered - the major proportion of insular south east asia - is considered asia. I am sure you might have some rejoinder - but it needs to be discussed - as most editors have shown on wp:en Java is either computer program or a coffee - the arguments have a cyclical sense over the last 7 years about every 2 to 3 someone tried obliterating Java the island (the source/primacl/historical/original) and putting the program first. For Oceania - I do not think it is appropriate to catalogue/categorise Indonesia as being in it... cheers sats (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. With the work I've been doing, I go by what is on the main category for the country. I see that you have removed the Oceania categories from Category:Indonesia, so when I check in the future I will see only Asia and categorize accordingly -- unless, of course, someone undoes your edits. You probably know that some Wikipedias' articles have Indonesia in Oceania (as well as Asia), at least in part, in the text, by categorizing, and/or in templates. However, all I go by here is the way it is categorized here. I hope that satisfies you. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
hahaha - in the old days people used to have intelligent discussions, and consensus might be approached and a resolved issue might see oceania being removed from Indonesian articles and templates across the wikis - but hey - Indonesia is in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean at the same time if you are a newbie - but if you try the IMO website - there are definitions of what starts where and what ends where. Anyone can edit, anyone can mess up - but there are indeed points of no return. My personal satisfaction has nothing to do with my editing - anyone can foul things quicker than you think. Just be thankful we can edit and get on with the job. sats (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Puerto Rico
Did you have any sort of consensus for this edit? As far as I know, we have traditionally treated Puerto Rico as a country (as well a a U.S. territory) for this sort of categorization purposes. - Jmabel ! talk15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's confusing to figure out this kind of thing, and not just for Puerto Rico. In this case, it's covered under mosques in the US, so it shouldn't be needed. I could see including it in a category for mosques in Latin America or in the Caribbean, because the US as a whole wouldn't be in those categories.
Is there anything that documents how this kind of thing should be handled? I wonder if there would be support for renaming these categories so that non-country entities could be included without appearing to be outside the scope of the category: maybe something like "by country or territory" or just "by location". That would help keep people from assuming that everything in them is for an actual country. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Things like this are pretty ad hoc. There are so few colonial territories left in the world that it is a bit anomalous to go renaming broad categories (e.g. "mosques by country" to accomodate them. As I say, the usual ad hoc solution has been to treat Puerto Rico both as a country/nation and as a part of the U.S. Remember, we are not creating a taxonomy for legal purposes, we are creating a navigation aid that is likely to let people find things in the places they might look for them. And, as Steven Sondheim wrote over 50 years ago, "Nobody knows in America / Puerto Rico's in America." Not "nobody," of course, but enough to make "by country" a likely place for people to look. - Jmabel ! talk23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! It's my favorite Wiki thing to do. I know I get some things wrong along the way, but usually someone helps straighten me out. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am also not seeing the logic in chucking a whole pile of historical stuff into Category:Ferndale, California when the entire town is not the historic district. You didn't do the same thing to Eureka, California which also has a historical district. BY doing what you're doing with these categories, you're also losing the entire category of historical markers in the county which deserve to be filed together rather than split up all over. I really have a problem with this "new cat scheme" just being dropped down on northern California without any discussion. We previously had a user who catted and recatted all our images until it was a nightmare, we just finished straightening it all out and now these edits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any changes I made to the page about the Northerner. Are you talking about making the subcategory for the cross monument? I see that I left the California Historical Landmark (CHL) category on the ship page, so I have taken it off. If that wasn't your concern, please explain further.
I agree that this is confusing. I didn't do the same thing with Eureka, because the only designation shown is the historic district.
For the change to the image of the gazebo showing the historical marker, it is true that the marker is there, but the marker is for the CHL that is the entire town. The marker has to go somewhere: it happens to be at the gazebo, but the gazebo itself is not the registered CHL.
Just a heads up that I retained Category:California adobes as a redirect for now, since some people might be kind of attached to it... the term actually has a slightly nuanced meaning beyond "an adobe building in California", but I'm not sure how much anyone will care. It could always be reinstated as a subcat of "Adobe buildings in California" if there's noise about it. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for letting me know. I live in California, and I've never heard the term "California adobe" as having any special meaning. (Of course, that doesn't mean there is no such term.) I tried searching for it, but couldn't find anything. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't know that it has any "official" meaning, but in casual use tends to imply one of the historically significant buildings of the colonial era, often the main house of a former rancho or estate. Example of usage:[1]. In any case, probably no harm in keeping the redirect around... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I really like your California counties navigation template you created. Would you allow me to copy and modify the code you used to create a template for Georgia? --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Category:Photographs_taken_on_2012-01-24_08:47 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!
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!
.jpg)
