User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2016

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

Template:IGESPAR

Please be a bit more careful when editing templates. You made at least 12.000 files disappear in Category:IGESPAR with known IDs. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category changes

Hello, I appreciate the changes you are making to the file namespace. However, making twelve edits to one file just changing categories, is not appropriate. You need to find another form of semi-automation like AWB or VFC, either may be a better solution. if you are going to continue this. If needed, you can also enlist the help of a bot at Commons:Bots/Work requests. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Riley Huntley: I see your point. I usually do minimize edits in cases like that, but this one was worse than I've seen before: there was a set of files that all had 20 or so categories, most redlinked and in Spanish. Many of the categories were duplicate, just a different form of the words (for example, if the names had been in English, they could have been something like HYDROSEEDING, HYDRO SEEDING, hydro seeding, hydroseeding, seeding, hydroseeders, etc. -- all on each file). I was working with a category at a time instead of a file at a time. Until I consolidated the categories, I didn't know what the categories needed to be. In any case, I'm through with that particular batch. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good to know, I've experienced similar before. Sometimes too, you don't realize how many times you've edited the same page until you see your contribs. Have a good weekend! Riley Huntley (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You're doing it again. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am. When the issue is the categories and not the files, sometimes that happens. What problem, exactly, is this causing? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you don't use a different program, which would be just as effective, but do it in less edits. It shouldn't require six edits per page to complete one task, it floods otherwise. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It might be just as effective, and almost as accurate, but it would take more time to do the setup. I'm not doing that many sets of them. In this last case, I came upon the categories individually while looking through Special:WantedCategories -- I wasn't looking at the files themselves, so I didn't see that there were multiple ones. In any case, I don't think what I've done is that much compared to the total number of changes being made. Might I suggest that you use the "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" option on the recent changes tab in your preferences? that way, each file will show up only once. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not speaking of flooding recent changes on-wiki, but rather off-wiki in IRC counter vandalism network channels. If you're not doing many sets, then ignore my messages. Have a good weekend! Riley Huntley (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Re:Category:Architecture in Abruzzo

Hello. First of all, I don't understand why you removed the artistic categorization in Category:Architecture of Italy. Then, regarding to the "Culture of..." categories, you're right in adding the category (even if it would be more understandable if you create and add the "Art of..." categories), but not substituting to the general one. To have only the category "Culture of..." is reductive, because architecture is not only an artistic branch (nor a generic branch of "culture"), but it can regard also urbanistic, engineering, and -most of all- the structure of the city itself. --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with architecture being under art. (I have a little problem with it because some things that go under architecture don't have the artistic aspect, but that's only a little problem -- remember that the architecture categories are for the concept, not specifically for what architects do when they design things.) I was working to make the categorization as consistent as possible. Some of the architecture categories were under art and some weren't (even where the art categories existed), so I made them consistent. I could have done it either way. I don't have a problem if you want to put them all under art -- I think there are art categories for all the regions of Italy. I'll even do it myself if you want, when I'm back on my main PC later. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Père Lachaise Cemetery

Hello Auntof6,

Thank your very much for your help Clin Pyb (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pyb: Are you being sincere or sarcastic? You sound sincere, but since you reverted so many of my edits, I don't understand why you would be thanking me. If you think there's something I don't understand about how the categories for that cemeteries are managed, please feel free to explain it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I'm sincere. I'm happy that you have detected and corrected some of my mistakes.
I reverted some edits because there is a lot of homonymies in the cemetery. That's why now I add "(Père-Lachaise, division xx)" in the name of the category. Pyb (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat pointless sort keys?

I have noticed that you have been adding the sort key, "τ" Greek small letter tau, in your edits of various templates (example diff). If you are intending to sort templates into "T" as such edits do you can simply use that letter. I should also note some templates are the only pages in a category rendering such keys truly pointless. Regards. Allen4names (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I don't intend to sort templates under the letter T (tee). My understanding is that templates (and template categories) in non-template categories should be sorted with the tau sort key so that they stay together and separate from other things in the category. In the example you give, it's true that there are no other pages in the category, but in the future there could be gallery pages. I don't think it hurts to use the tau now in case that happens. I don't do mass changes to add the sort key; I only add it when I'm doing something else with the template. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe‎

Hello, you have changed Macedonia into Republic of Macedonia. I'm not sure if this is correct for countries (as opposed to states) and if "Republic of" should be part of a country (or state) name, but this is not my point. Changing the template makes disappear all Categories that have until now been in the list but only have "of Macedonia" as name. Would you be so kind and also move these categories to "of the Republic of Macedonia"? Thank you. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gürbetaler: I'd be glad to do that if you tell me which categories those are, and if they're really for the country. The categories for the country should already have "Republic of Macedonia" in their name (see Category:Republic of Macedonia). Any that have just "Macedonia" are probably for the region (see Category:Macedonia (region) and its subcategories). The ones for the region shouldn't be linked by the template, so we shouldn't change those. Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but all these seem to be for the Republic of Macedonia:

...just to mention a few...--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've done a few (marked as "done" above). I'm looking at the others. For some of them, it makes sense to me that they would be for the country and not for the region, but I'd want to be sure that everything in the category is specific to the country before I change them. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. For the five rail vehicle categories it's very obvious that they only deal with the republic of Macedonia as they only contain MŽ rolling stock.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Categorie by name

Hi Auntof6. Please can you explain me your reasons for removing the template by name in a lot of categories by name? Thank you. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was doing a couple of different things. In some cases, I changed the metacat template to the catcat template. In some cases, I removed or changed the "name" parameter in the metacat template. In those cases, I did so because, although the category names include "by name", they weren't actually meta categories, at least not for names. A metacat groups categories by a common characteristic. It can be by name, but not every category called "by name" is a meta category.
As an example of what I mean, look at Category:Cafés by name and Category:Churches by name.
  • Category:Churches by name is a meta category, because it has subcategories for churches that have the same names, or nearly the same. For example, Category:Elim churches is for any church named "Elim". Category:Wesley churches is for any church named "Wesley".
  • Category:Cafés by name is not a meta category, because it doesn't group things by shared names. It is more of a list of café categories. It would be a meta category if the subcategories were things like "Cafés named Corner Café", but that's not what it has.
So, among "by name" categories, some include things grouped by name, and others include categories for individual named things or people. I think only the former are meta categories, so in the latter I have been changing the metacat template to the catcat template. It's still valid to have only categories in those, even if they aren't meta categories.
In other cases, instead of removing the metacat template, I removed or changed the name parameter from it if it was still a meta category by virtue of another criterion. For example, Category:Hotels by name by country is a meta category because it groups by country, but not because of the name aspect because nothing is grouped by shared names.
I hope that makes sense. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you made a bit of a mess when doing this. You merged Category:Monuments and memorials by city by name (which was essentially a flat category) into Category:Monuments and memorials by city, which was already divided into a set of by country categories. Now that by city category is clogged with redundant categories. I haven't looked at your other edits, but there may be similar cases. - Eureka Lott 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
That's the only one like that that I have done, but I'm not sure I'd agree it's a mess. Is the issue that some categories (for example, Category:Monuments and memorials in Aachen) are now in both Category:Monuments and memorials by city and in a category like Category:Monuments and memorials in Germany by city? In a category like "Foo by city", you expect to directly see subcategories like "Foo in City1", "Foo in City2", etc. Besides that, a category name like "Monuments and memorials by city by name" isn't clear as to whether "name" refers to names of monuments/memorials or names of cities.
What if we move the categories in question to a new category called something like "Monuments and memorials by city (flat list)"? To me, that would be clearer than "by city by name". What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you identified my main concern. If a category is in Category:Monuments and memorials in Germany by city, it shouldn't also be in Category:Monuments and memorials by city. As for the flat category, I don't know if there's a need to recreate it. Do you think it would be useful to have? - Eureka Lott 03:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think it would be useful. That's why I emptied it and asked for it to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then I think the only task left is to clean up the overcategorization issues. (Also, it's interesting to note that Category:Monuments and memorials by city (flat list) did exist at one point, but was deleted for unclear reasons.) Please let me know how I can help. - Eureka Lott 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I've taken care of all the ones I moved. There might be some entries under Category:Monuments and memorials by city that could be moved to a specific existing country category, but I don't think I moved them before. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks better! Thank you! - Eureka Lott 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

NR names

To give you a random example, consider The Chadwick in Indianapolis, listed in 1983 and delisted in 2011 after a fire. Refnum 83000061 will always apply to the place, unless they do some sort of major reorganisation of NRIS and change around (or abolish) refnums. A refnum does not cease to apply to a place just because it's been delisted, as you'll see if you go through the Access or Excel files that are available for download. It's not merely places that have been delisted recently; St. John's Lutheran Church, listed in 1982 and delisted in 1991, still appears with refnum 82000024. Although no longer listed, these places are still associated with the National Register in whatever place they are, so removing NR in Place is unhelpful — nobody would suggest that you remove the photo of a place from its county's NR list on en:wp just because the place got delisted, and in the same way, it still belongs in the county NR category. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"By name" categories vs flat list

Hi Auntof6 - Over the past while, you've changed the {{Metacat}} template on a bunch of "X by name" categories that I've created to {{Catcat}}. I can see the logic. Category:Streets by name groups all Category:King streets‎ together, whereas a category that groups all the streets of a city together (instead of sub-diving by district or something) is doing something different. Should those latter categories be renamed from Category:Streets of City x by name to Category:Streets of City X (flat list) ? If so, I've been doing this wrong for some time now, but I'm not the only one: Category:Categories by name is full of these flat list type categories. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding to this - Category:People by name and all of its many sub-categories should also be renamed. The more I think of it, the more I'm not sure any of this makes sense. What is the point of grouping things based on their shared name? Is Category:King streets‎ actually useful, or would it make more sense to have Category:King street as a disambiguation page, and leave it at that? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

First, thank you for understanding the distinction I see. I'm not yet through going through everything under Category:Categories by name, so I expect to address more of the flat list categories that are still there.

Second, those are all good questions. I raised similar questions here at the Village pump, but there didn't seem to be consensus. I've been thinking of raising the question at Commons:Requests for comment, but I haven't looked at the procedures for that yet.

I guess the "flat list" naming could work, although there's one issue I see with it: the metacat template puts categories in the flat list categories. For example, Category:Churches in Germany by name uses {{metacat|name|topic=churches|topic2=Germany}}, and that "name" parameter puts the category in Category:Categories by name (flat list). Is there any way the two uses of "flat list" would cause confusion?

As for your question about whether the shared-name categories make sense, and whether a disambiguation category would be sufficient: I hadn't thought of that. One aspect of that would be that individual files wouldn't have a place with dab categories. Look at Category:Emmaus churches in Germany. There are both categories and files there, and that's OK. If we replaced the category with a disambiguation category, those files wouldn't be represented: not all such churches would have categories. Maybe they don't need to be represented, but it's worth thinking about.

Those are my thoughts at the moment. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of (city) not actually for photographs of (city)

Yes, I would like more information on what you brought up. Please see the section of my talk page where you began the discussion. User_talk:Infrogmation#Photographs_of_New_Orleans Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion re HD categories

Hello, Auntof6/Archives. You have new messages at Nyttend's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi Auntof6, I posted a substitution request on Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Moving_infos_from_category_to_description. Could you have some time to help us? Thank you! --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (BEIC): I might be able to help, but there are probably other bot operators who could do it better. I use my bot account only with AWB, so I'm limited in what I can do. I'd also have to get approval if I were going to use my bot account for this. Can you tell me how many categories are involved, and how many entries are in each? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Auntof6, the problem affected almost every 17.000 images of the collection, but many were already removed by users (loosing infos); probably there are still about 10.000 to fix, each for a single entry (category). --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of redirected category

Hello! I noticed that you added category Categories of the United States by state to category Sports teams in the United States by state, which is redirected to category Sports teams of the United States by state. However, the template states that "redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves". So, I don't believe categorizing the redirect is appropriate but was wondering if there is a reason for doing so. Waz8 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason is that I made a mistake! I was trying to populate Category:Categories of the United States by state because a lot of the categories were missing, and I missed the fact that I needed to exclude that one. I have fixed it. Thanks for letting me know! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! I did not even know that there were Categories of ... categories but will add one whenever I encounter an appropriate category that lacks one. Waz8 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresntation

Category:Christian denominational families by region was neither a page, nor was it a test or nonsense, a simple nomination to delete because it was renamed, would have sufficed, you might not have liked the way the category was named, but where possible we harmonise categories with similarly named categories at wikipedia (makes life easier for the bots}, would you consider w:Category:Christian denominational families by region to be nonsense.--KTo288 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@KTo288: I did not consider this category to be a test or nonsense. The template I added to it, {{Empty page}}, is a generic template that can be used to request deletion of any empty page of any type. (Categories are pages, as are files, templates, galleries, user pages, talk pages, etc.) The text on the template has a list of different reasons that a page can be considered empty, including "or no valid content" which can mean simply that there was nothing in it. Adding the empty page template to the page is a way of nominating it for deletion. I use this method frequently: not all categories have to go to CfD to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't consider Categories to be pages, they're well...categories, but even if I were to accept that they are, to me that template is inappropriate in this case. Yes some categories need to be speedily deleted, but its one thing to nominate for speedy an unused category you stumble across and another to systematically depopulate categories (and I'm taking into account the other by region categories you did this to) and claim that they are worthy of speedy deletion by virtue of the fact that they are now empty, this is a rename and although not all category renames need to go to Cfd, you can at least use {{Speedy}} with a reason or {{Category renamed}} and be upfront about what you have done.--KTo288 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I was removing things from "by region" categories that were not by region. I used {{Empty page}} for some that ended up empty because in the past I was told by an administrator that that was the template to use. That template is for use on any kind of page: the message it displays is customized for the type of page it is on. I intended no misrepresentation. I didn't know about {{Category renamed}}, so thank you for telling me about it. I will definitely use that more in the future. However, I disagree that it applies in the case of Category:Christian denominational families by region because I didn't rename that category: I simply removed entries that I felt didn't belong in it, after which the category was empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Gadget-Cat-a-lot

Hi, the Gadget-Cat-a-lot can modify just 200 pages at the same time.

Haw i can do to modify all pages of a category at the same time? -- Smith 17:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.71.134.190 (talk) 17:55, 09 July 2016 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot can only work with what's displayed on one page at a time. That can be more than 200 if you include things other than files (for example, categories, galleries, and templates). If you're only talking about files, I don't know how to display more than 200 on a page. If you give me a specific example of what you're trying to do, I might know another way of doing it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6 I'm just asking. There are a lot of categorys regroup more than 200 pages. So Haw we can modify the categorys of this pages at the same time? -- Smith 18:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Without a specific example, I don't know a way to do that. When I've needed to change a category name, or even just remove things from a category, I've just done them 200 at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories of the United States by location and by state

Regarding your commnets on the subject. . .

First, you are correct that Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa are not states, but there exist somewhat valid arguments against your assertion that Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands are "territories" of the United States. (Washington, D.C. should also be included in this discussion.) Even though none of these are actually "states", but there always exists the possibility that they may become so in the future (a balloted question regarding an affirmative desire to become a state received a majority vote in Puerto Rico in 2008), the overwhelming majority of the subdivisions of the United States are states, with only about 10 percent of the subdivisions be "other than states". Canada, on the other hand, has about three times that percentage of subdivisions that are "other than provinces", hence the need for the categories "by province or territory". Austrailia is a little better with only 25 percent being "other than states".

However, nearly entirely aside from that argument is the issue of the more than 1,500 existing (but rapidly increasing number of) categories which are labeled either Foo in the United States by state or Foo of the United States by state, nearly all of which include some or all of the aforementioned "other than states". So precedent is that, even though they are not states, these "other than states" are included in these categories anyway and, therefore, this is where most readers will look for them. There are a very small number of categories that cannot fit in the Foo in the United States by state; therefore these few should be included in Foo in the United States by location, with a subcategory of Foo in the United States by state. (An example of this is Military of the United States by location, as many of the locations therein are actually within other countries.) While some Foo in the United States also include the subcategories of Foo in the United Staes by city, Foo in the United States by county, Foo in the United States by metropolitan area, and/or other similar subcategories, the vast majority do not. Therefore, in nearly all cases, creating a Foo in the United States by location category provides little benefit and creates an unnecessary tier of categories.

In addition, you have likely noticed the navigation template that is (or at least should be) used at the top of nearly all the Foo in/of [state] categories also includes the aforementioned "other than states", with them (other than Washington, D.C.) being included as "insular areas". This further supports the precedent of including these "other than states" in the categories of Foo in the United States by state.

As for your suggestion of creating Foo in the United States by state or territory, it would also be incorrect since it would not include Washington, D.C., and possibly some other areas as well. As for creating a Foo in the United States by location for the aforementioned more than 1,500 existing categories, surely such time and effort (which would provide very little benefit) could be better spent on other improvements within Commons.

Notwithstanding, your comments and input are appreciated.

An Errant Knight (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for explaining how to see files being added to categories on my watchlist! Most of the time it works really well but it seems to be a tiny bit glitchy as it doesn't always register when files are added. Happy anyway! --Takeaway, 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Takeaway. That's a fairly new feature and it can be very useful. Could it be that the ones that don't show up are files that you added to the category yourself? I think the default watchlist setting is to hide your own edits, so maybe that's why you don't see them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
These were files that were added by others. And when I recategorise files, my watchlist shows me that I have removed them from the category. If you want, I'll report back in a week or so and tell you if I still encounter these glitches. - Takeaway (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. If you'd like to tell me one/some of the categories in question, I could watch them, too, and we could compare notes. How did you find the added files, if not through the watchlist?. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do. As for how I found them: I've added a whole bunch of categories (that I have "cleansed" before) as favourites in my web browser. When I open them in my browser, I can see in one glance if files have been added or not. Today's glitch happened with this file. It didn't show up in my watchlist, even though I had added Category:Panoramics to it. It only showed up on my watchlist after I had recategorised it into it's correct category. At least one other glitch occurred before but I can't remember where any more. Category:Panoramics regularly receives images so it might be a good category to watch for this experiment. I have to admit though that I tend to dump any files that have been robodumped by bots into this category, straight into Category:Uncategorized panoramics. I always recategorise files uploaded by "real contributors" into their correct categories though. It was just that I couldn't stand these robodumps any longer, where I was suddenly confronted with dozens, if not hundreds of files that could have easily been put into a correct category by the bot-users themselves if they had just though about it for a minute or so. - Takeaway (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Update on glitches:

- Takeaway (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not watching most of those categories (because they aren't the one you asked me to watch), but I looked at the ones in the panoramics category.
  • I see File:Panorama MC green small.jpg being removed from the category, by you.
  • I see this file being removed as well, by you. I see in the file history that that file was added and removed within a few hours. If you didn't look between the time it was added and the time you removed it, maybe you wouldn't see it.
It seems that I see only the latest change, because I don't see these being added to the category. I've also never seen any changes that I made. Are you sure you don't have the "my edits" box checked on the watchlist page, or the "Hide my edits from the watchlist" option in your preferences (on the watchlist tab)? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I made it a point to first look at my updated watchlist before opening the categories in my browser. I'm guesstemating that in the past few days, about 90% of the files show up, and some 10% don't. I keep an eye on a whole bunch of categories, and normally Panoramics gets quite a lot of entries. Must be due to the holidays that things have slowed down a bit. Feel free to add in those other categories too that I have mentioned here above in the "update" list.
I looked in my preferences under the "Watchlist" tab, and all that is checked is the "Add new files I upload..." option. I did see that I had "hide categorization of pages" checked under the "Recent Changes" tab. I have now unchecked that too. Could that have been what was causing this? - Takeaway (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have that option checked, too. That option should only affect what you see under recent changes, not what you see in your watchlist. However, this is a new function/feature, so maybe there's a bug.
I think just seeing the ones in Panoramics will be enough of a test. Let me know if the change you made seems to fix the problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do! - Takeaway (talk)

Update on glitches 2:

Perhaps it would be best to stop reporting any new ones I find and conclude that most of the time this feature works fine but that it's not infallible. I hope that the bugs/glitches can be ironed out in time. Until then, I'll continue using my old and trusted system of actually viewing the categories to see if anything new has been added, in addition to using this new feature. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bridges over the Connecticut River

The Connecticut River passes only through Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, plus a lengthy section as the border between New Hampshire and Vermont. There is no way for a bridge over the river not to fit into any of those four subcategories, so there is not reason for there ever to be files in Category:Bridges over the Connecticut River rather than diffused into a subcategory. Thus, I believe it should be tagged with {{Catcat}} rather than {{Categorise}}, which doesn't indicate permanent diffusion to zero. Perhaps you're seeing this in a different light? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The category isn't something that should be required to have only categories. There could be images where the photographer doesn't know exactly which of those categories would fit. There could be images of bridges that no longer exist and whose exact location can't be determined. There could be non-image files (video or audio) describing multiple bridges, or just discussing the river's bridges in general without naming them. There could also be images of multiple bridges that don't all fit in any one of the subcategories. Even if none of these exist now, they would fit in this category under the name it has now. A "bridges over the Foo river" category just isn't a type of category where individual files should be forbidden. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the very clear explanation! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

metacat

Dear Auntof6, I saw a couple times, that you are removing the metacat macros from several categories. I’m not sure why you’re did this without any discussion and knowing the background behind. In some cases you could find pictures in the cat but it would be more helpful to sort these pictures instead to remove the macro. Please, don’t understand me wrong but I’m not very amused about to clean up again and again these cats while people make their own life easy and drop everything with expectation “somehow, someday and somebody would sort it correctly”. Thanks for your understanding and please reverse your changes or let me know more details why you did this. Friendly regards from Bavaria. --Derzno (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Derzno. Could you please give me some specific examples of the changes you're talking about? That way I could explain why I removed the metacat template. Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
2 examples, please have a look [1] and [2]. rgds --Derzno (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
In those two cases, the categories are not metacategories, even though they had the metacat template. A metacategory contains subcategories that are grouped by an attribute. The attribute can be a place, time, color, etc. Here are some examples:
Most metacategories have the word "by" in their names, as in my examples above. Metacategories can contain only subcategories; files are not allowed. I've been checking files that are in categories that are flagged as metacategories. Sometimes the fix is to take the file out of the category, either by removing it from the metacategory (if it's already in an appropriate related category), moving it to one of the metacat's subcategories, or moving it to the metacat's parent category. Sometimes, like with the two examples you gave, the fix is to remove the metacat tag from the category.
Does that help? Feel free to ask if you'd like more explanation. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Frankly spoken I don’t understand this kind of rule/guideline what you mentioned here. It depends on wording better said on the preposition only. In this case : “by”. It is usual in our area to use metacat to avoid any over flooding categories with pictures if you have or can define a helpful structure below. Example: [[3]]. If you're not doing you will get such things like [[4]]. It is showing rubbish which have nothing to do on a such high level and will lead to impression, this is Upper Franconia. Another one is: [[5]], thsi village seems to have geese as citizens only. Categories are and become more and more a big mess in commons. Everybody doing what he think and get started doing what he like. Better I’ll give up to clean and keep all pictures flat. Anyhow, I don’t start an edit-war or any further struggle on different point of view and keep it as it is. Administrators don't take care about and categories are become a big mess in commons. Everybody doing what he think without any clear definition or provide a written rule for. It is as it is and I wish you a nice day and greeting. --Derzno (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The categories you mention are not metacategories, but there is another way to handle those. You can use the {{Categorise}} template. That tells people that files should be put in subcategories, but the subcategories can be different kinds of things. Some categories that use this are Category:Bergen and Category:Literature. The categories that use this template are not metacategories, but the files in them should be in subcategories as much as possible. Would this do what you want? --Auntof6 (talk)

In what way is Category:To be categorised by country not a metacat? It's a category who's only job is to hold other categories. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There's more to a metacat than just holding other categories. The categories in a metacat are grouped by a common attribute, as explained above. The categories in Category:To be categorised by country are not grouped that way. I can see the confusion, because most categories with "by country" in their names are metacats. An example is Category:Golf by country. Each category there, with two exceptions, is for golf in a specific country. The common attribute is the country. The categories in Category:To be categorised by country are not grouped by individual countries, so that is not a metacat. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really. If it's not a metacat then what is it? It's certainly not meant to contain any media files just other categories. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Metacats aren't the only kind of category that should contain only other categories. Metacats are a special case: their subcats are groupings by the thing mentioned in the name of the metacat (in this case, country). If Category:To be categorised by country were a metacat, it would contain subcats that were each for a different specific country (something like Category:Media of Russia to be categorised). This category name would make sense for that, but that's not how it's being used. It's being used to hold things that don't have a category for the country they're in. There's really no reason this category shouldn't have media in it: there could well be something needing its country identified that doesn't fit in any of the subcats. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Charlesvoix, Michigan

Could you show me how to add a "bad name category"? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I can show you how to add the bad name template. You do that when a category has an incorrect name and there is a category with the correct name. You add the {{Bad name}} template with one parameter. That parameter is the name of the correct category. For this category, here is what I added: {{bad name|Category:Charlevoix, Michigan}} --Auntof6 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Praying men

I hope you don't mind a quick category question since you're one of our experts. Can you take a look at Category:Praying men? Firstly, should the religions be lowercase, and secondly, is "christianism" even a word? It shows up underlined in red in my spell-checker, and I would've expected Christianity. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 23:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The religions should be capitalized. I've never heard of "christianism", either, with or without a capital C. Besides that, there might be better names for these. I might suggest something like "Praying Jewish men", but then you'd have to be sure the men were actually Jewish (or whatever religion), not just that they were at a Jewish event/service. (In other words, people sometimes go to places or services for religions other than their own.) Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and move them to capitals and get rid of "christianism"... Thanks. INeverCry 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Spanish and several other languages use "Cristianismo" and similar words. Presumably this was a case of nuance being lost in translation. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Some Help Needed

Will you please clarify to make me understand of removals of Categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indrajitdas (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 August 2016‎ (UTC)

I've answered this below. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Careful Before you move or Remove from Category

This is not Howrah Bridge. So that I removed from the category. Please let me know reasons to understand of removal from other categories that I earlier added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indrajitdas (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 August 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. I misidentified it. The reasons I removed the other categories (and will remove some of the categories you put back) had to do with overcategorization. COM:OVERCAT explains what that is. Here is part of the category tree that File:Vidyasagar Setu - River Hooghly 2014-01-01 1889.JPG is in:
Category:Bridges in India by city
Category:Bridges in Kolkata
Category:Vidyasagar Setu
Category:Vidyasagar Setu illuminated
Because this image is in the lowest category shown, Category:Vidyasagar Setu illuminated, it doesn't need to be directly in any of the categories above it. In addition, Category:Bridges in India by city is a meta category, and meta categories contain only other categories, not files. Let me know if you want more information about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking advice

I am seeing a lot of strange category changes, and as your one of our expert 'Catters, I would like to ask you to look at this diff https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Blue_Mailbox_and_Antenna_Eureka_CA2.jpg&curid=36633960&diff=205439363&oldid=183686231 and the resulting category change. I do not ever recall a "mail box" in the United States being called a "post box", and really have to wonder about what actually is going on, why this exists without the subcategories (which exist) being part of it. I have wondered at a lot of recent categorization, but finally in full head scratch have to ask an expert. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To save chasing around, here's the cats being petted:

I really do not understand this system if indeed there is one other than just rearranging for rearranging's sake. I would appreciate some clarity if possible. I am beginning to wonder about the recategorization efforts in some areas - if they are indeed better or even necessary. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Interesting. I'm in the US (California, in fact, though originally from the other coast) and I have never heard anyone here use different terms for incoming and outgoing. I've always heard the term mailbox for both. We just know by context which kind is meant. The only case where I sometimes hear a different term is for the boxes you can rent at post offices to receive mail: those can be called "PO boxes" or "post office boxes". In case it's relevant, the mailboxes we have at each residence can also be used to leave outgoing mail for the letter carriers to pick up.
I just looked at the USPS website. I see them use the terms "collection boxes" (large boxes for the public to deposit outgoing mail), mailboxes (individual boxes), and "PO boxes".
And you are right that all mailboxes in the US are for the US Postal Service. There are collection boxes for other services (such as FedEx, etc.), but we don't properly call those mailboxes. I see File:UPS mailbox.jpg in Category:Post boxes in the United States, showing a collection box for the United Parcel Service. While we don't use the term "post box" at all, we wouldn't consider this UPS box a mailbox: only things processed through the USPS are mail. Maybe the editor making these changes considers the collection boxes for any deivery service to be post boxes.
So if we should use country-specific terms, then we should use terms that Americans would understand. If we should use the same terms for all countries, then we have to expect that Americans would put things in wrong categories. Whichever we do, it would be good to have all the reasonable redirects set up to help the situation.
Hope that helps: let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

City halls category

Thank you for your work on Municipal Buildings, I've started a discussion here [6] --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Municipal buildings, city halls, town halls

Could you please explain to User:Nyttend the category tree you created, he/she just undid a lot of work I did. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've placed a complaint about this user here [7]

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2016 в Україні

Вітаємо!

Триває міжнародний фотоконкурс «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи.

Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінації: «Цивільні споруди доби Гетьманщини» та «Національний заповідник "Софія Київська"».

Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки», 10:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MetaCat

Hi, all the "Created with..." categories are meta-categories. If you look at their hierarchical system you may see that the single categories are all prefixed (and often also suffixed). This enables a very useful category disffusion. Some of the SVG created with ... templates metacategories are still containing files, it will need some work to diffuse them. sarang♥사랑 16:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sarang: Actually, none of these categories are set up as metacats. Metacats have subcats that are grouped by some criterion, and that criterion is indicated in the name of the metacat. To be a metacat, the "created by" categories would need to be named something like "Created with R by file type". With the names they have now, files of any file type could be added directly. Even if you diffuse all the files that are currently there, there could be other file types added in the future that don't have subcats. It would make more sense to put {{Categorise}} on these. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerning. The subcats are of e.g. different file type, and files should never be added directly. May be it needs more explanation at the single categories? I need to confess that I did not yet care too much about the "Created with R"-branch in that system of more than 30 "Created with" templates, and main categories. {{Categorise}} would be fine, at least as a first hint. sarang♥사랑 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Change from "Category:Landmarks in New Mexico" to "Category:Visitor attractions in New Mexico" and Scientology Trementina base

Scientology Trementina base is most definitely not a "visitor attraction" in any sense of the word -- the Scientology hierarchy doesn't want random strangers poking around there, and likely would handle trespassers with the full force of the relevant laws... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The general landmark categories are being eliminated, and it was decided that in general the best place to move the contents was under visitor attractions. There are bound to be some things that don't fit there very well, though: feel free to fix any of those that you see (without putting them back in the categories that are being eliminated, of course). Keep in mind, though, that a visitor attraction doesn't have to be something that's open to the public. It can be something that people would be interested in seeing from the outside or learning about, even if they have to keep their distance. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:British Rail Class 707

Hi Auntof6. Can you take a quick look at this cat? There doesn't seem to be a point of having the subcat Category:British Rail Class 707s of South West Trains since this is a model built by Siemens only for South West Trains (see British Rail Class 707). Thanks for your time. INeverCry 22:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very knowledgeable about that subject area, but that sounds right to me. You could add Category:Trains of South West Trains to the parent category, move all the content, and put a speedy tag on the child category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Even the Wikipedia article pointed to Category:British Rail Class 707. I've moved the files and deleted the child cat. Thanks for the help. INeverCry 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Guerrillero Heroico

Why this? While it can be debated whether this is really a portrait (considering the framing and setting of the original image) and what’s really «bust length», your edit still de-categorized this from being tagged as a black and white photograph. Why removing the category instead of replacing it with its grandparent Category:Black and white photographs in the 20th century? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, that was a mistake. I have put it back. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States: Thank you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States resulted in over 1,700 individuals contributing over 11,000 photos of cultural and historic sites throughout the country. This barnstar is awarded to you as a thank you for your help with categorizing and cleaning up the countless number of photos that came in - your work is highly appreciated and invaluable towards the success of the event. Cheers, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your work and feedback throughout the event. I know the event resulted in a lot of files requiring cleanup, categorization, and so on, and your contributions are highly valued. Having seen what worked and didn't work this year, I'm confident next year will see improvements. I'll follow up on this in the coming weeks with some more details about the outcome of the event, as well as a post-event survey for feedback. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop this massive break of many cateogries

You've simply not understood how categories are really sorted, and are mixing everything, without even looking at them. You usage of a bot to do this massive break is completely wrong, and abusive. All cateogies were manually and scupulously corted, one by one. verdy_p (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Auntof6/Archives. You have new messages at jmabel's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Sorting

Hi Auntof6, I read the topic "Seeking info about sorting of "main categories" in Village Pump and your reply. You mentioned sorting keys. I would like to know more about that topic, so thought to write to you directly. In particular, where is a list of the code to include in order to make certain categories appear at the top of the list of sub-cats? What code specifies how to alphabetize a subcat? What does the exclamation mark at the top of some somecats, or a question mark mean?

I looked up the terms sort keys and sorting keys and found nothing. Can you direct me? Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drbones1950: I recently looked for this info, too, and didn't find much. Commons:Categories#Creating a new category says this:

If the category should be sorted according to a different string than the category title, add a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}. For instance, the title of a category about a person would not be the right sort string. For such categories, insert just before the categories a line like {{DEFAULTSORT:Lastname, firstname}} with the correct sort string. See meta:Categories#Sort key for more information.

That Meta page gives a little information. A note in the following section there refers to en:wp:sortkey, which also gives a little info. So there isn't much actually here on Commons, but here are a few things I have observed:
  • A question mark is sometimes used to begin the sort key for categories related to unidentified things. For an example, see Category:Buildings in Argentina, where Category:Unidentified buildings in Argentina‎ is sorted under a question mark.
  • An asterisk is sometimes used to group some subcategories. This seems to be done in some cases in lieu of creating a metacategory. An example of this is in Category:National Register of Historic Places, where some categories are grouped under asterisk. Some of those subcategories would fit in a metacategory for NRHP properties by type if there were such a category.
  • An asterisk is also sometimes used to set apart subcategories that are related but may not really fit under the main category. An example of this is in Category:Metropolitan areas in the United States, where Category:Boroughs in the United States‎ is sorted under asterisk.
  • Metacategories are usually given special sort keys. There is disagreement as to what character that is. I have most often seen a space used for that, and the templates that define metacategories use a space. However, I have recently been discussing this with another editor who uses a period.
  • I have also seen other characters used, but I'm not sure there's any rule about them. I've seen plus signs, tildes (sometimes for templates and template categories), bullets, and others.
Does any of that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that helps me understand how they are used. But how would I apply the to the categories that I am sorting? Where would I apply the ? or * or . And, as an example of what I am doing, I am editing the category "Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) and I want one of the subcategories, "Category:Presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church‎" to appear before all of the other subcategories. How would I accomplish this? (Related question: why do some of the subcats show with a black arrow and others show a grey arrow?, eg.► Presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church‎? Thanks again, Drbones1950 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To get that subcat to appear before the other subcats, you would code the category in Category:Presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church‎ like this:
[[Category:Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)|*]]
See the pipe character and asterisk between the name of the category and the square brackets at the end? The pipe character separates the category name from the sort key. In this case, I showed the example using an asterisk for a sort key, but other sort keys are done similarly. I think an asterisk is the best choice here, because there is already a set of subcats using a space, and this subcat doesn't fit with those.
The subcats that have the darker arrows (on my screen they're actually two shades of blue) have subcats of their own. If you click on one of the darker arrows, the display should expand to show you those lower-level subcats.
Next question? :) --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Great. Very clear. Yes, I am full of questions, but I will put this answer to use first. Drbones1950 (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Auntof6. I really hoped not to ask a further question about this, but after applying your suggestion to Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) I see that Presiding Bishops now appears under an asterisk but at the end of the list of "Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of...", after Wyoming. What I wanted to see was "Presiding Bishops" above all other subcategories, before even "Bishops of the Diocese of Albany". Would such a sort be what you call a megacategory? What code, then, would I apply to Presiding Bishops to make this subcategory appear before all the others? And related question, what key do I press to create the "pipe" symbol? (I did go through the Meta page you referred me to, and didn't get an answer). Thanks! Drbones1950 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Pipe character: On my keyboard, the pipe character is above the backslash. In other words, you would hold down the shift key, then press the key that has the backslash and pipe. The key is in different places on different keyboards. This image shows it to the left of the "Z" key, but on my keyboard it's three keys to the right of the "P". If all else fails, you can always copy and paste it from a page that uses it. Another option is this (I may not be using the right terms for things, but I think I'll be clear):
  • Right above the edit box (the box you type in when editing) is a bar with several options. Click on the "Special characters dropdown.
  • You'll see a scrollable section appear at the left. The first option in the list is "Latin". Scroll down to "Symbols" and click that.
  • The second character that appears is the pipe character. It's right after the tilde. To use it, put your cursor in the spot where you want the pipe to appear, then click on the pipe character.
Sort order: We don't sort anything before the space character. You could sort the presiding bishops category under a space, but it wouldn't be good to mix it with the bishops by diocese categories that already sort there. Here are some options:
  • Leave it the way it is, with the presiding bishops sorting under asterisk. As asterisk is often used for categories like this where most of the others are a specific type of thing (in this case, categories for individual people). Is the problem that the presiding bishops category sort of gets lost?
  • Change the sort keys on the categories for bishops by diocese to group under a different special character, then use space for the presiding bishops category. However, the space is often reserved for metacategories, so that might get changed if a metacategory is ever added here.
I think I'd combine the bishops by diocese categories into a new metacategory, because there are so many of them. That new metacategory would sort under a space, but then the other category under asterisk wouldn't "get lost".
Overcategorization: By the way, concerning the entries for individual people under Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States): I see that some of them (I didn't check them all) are also in the subcategories for dioceses. That is called overcategorization, and should be fixed. An individual who is in a category for a specific diocese doesn't need to also be in the parent category.
Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I found the "pipe" character, it is the same place that yours is on the keyboard. Thanks for the sorting options, yes, I thought that the Presiding Bishops category does get lost. But you also brought up overcategorization, and I can move the individuals to their proper subcats. It was overcategorized when I found the cat. Then, with individuals taken away, the Presiding Bishops might be more visible. The further detail you provided is very helpful. Would you consider adding it to the Commons page? It might be useful for some other novices like me. Drbones1950 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please use sub-categories

dansk | Deutsch | Österreichisches Deutsch | Schweizer Hochdeutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | svenska | +/−

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

––Apalsola t • c 06:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Apalsola: Yes, I know about not overcategorizing. I saw that you reverted some of my changes, where I added Category:Categories by country to some categories. You probably didn't know, but these "categories by x" categories are exceptions to the rule about not being two categories that are under each other. For example, any "by country" category can be in Category:Categories by country even if any of its parents (or grandparents, etc.) are also in it. It's understandable if you didn't know about that. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Where is it said that Category:Categories by country is an exception and what is the difference between Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by country (flat list) then? ––Apalsola t • c 07:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's said anywhere; those categories aren't well managed. However, if you look at some of them you'll see what I mean. An example is Category:Christmas by city. That category is in two other "by city" categories (three if you include Category:Categories by city). If you trace the category tree upward from Category:Religious festivals by city or Category:Christianity by city, you'll see that it goes through several other "by city" categories, some of which are also in Category:Categories by city.
I know that's not very helpful. These categories aren't well defined, except that all the metacategories go in the flat categories. I think the idea of the flat categories is that all the "by X" categories should be in "Categories by X (flat list)". As far as I can tell, what goes in the non-flat categories is up to the individuals creating or working with the categories. Any "by X" category can be in them, but none of them have to be. It could be that they started out differently, though. The difference between the flat and non-flat categories has been the subject of discussion. If you want to start another discussion about these, maybe they can finally get straightened out. I tried to find previous discussions, and the only one I could find was at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Flat categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

JT

Thanks for the detailed instruction. It's really helpful. Damian Vo (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Metacat

How can you say that "Writer from Belarus by name" is not a metacat? It has "by name" criterium. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. What's the utility to have "Writers from [country] by name" then? There's already "Writers from Belarus".... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Blackcat: It keeps the cats for individuals from getting mixed with the other subcats, which would make it harder to find what you're looking for. At least, that's the only reason I've figured out. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Then there's a problem, because it may lead to ambiguity, and mine won't be the first and sole case, I guess. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
If you mean the ambiguity of what "by name" means, then I agree, and your changes are not the only cases. Earlier this year I went through everything in the "by name" flat category and removed a lot of things. I've been keeping an eye on it since then. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Soil erosion by cultivation type

Hi Auntof6. This category name was in line with other subcategories of Category:Erosion:

Either you improve the categorization (incl. the former content) or you (or I) need to undo everything. --Leyo 08:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo: I'm not sure I see how the name "Soil erosion by cultivation type" is in line with the names of the three categories you list. Can you explain more? I changed it because it was named as a metacategory, but the contents were not that of a metacategory because it contained files. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, these files were waiting to be categorized in appropriate subcategories. --Leyo 08:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
While they're waiting, it's better for them to sit in a non-metacategory, especially since at least some of them hadn't been touched in a long time. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No, at least not in such a general category like Category:Soil erosion. The aspect of cultivation is lost. If you do not provide a better solution, I will restore the previous status. --Leyo 21:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
How about "Soil erosion caused by cultivation"? A category name like "Soil erosion by cultivation type" is a name for a metacategory, which can contain only other categories. Really, though, it's not just up to me to figure out the name. The main concern I have is that metacats do not contain files directly. If you put files into a metacategory, I will remove them. --Auntof6 (talk)
You may only remove them in a sensible way. Your suggested category name sounds OK, but “Erosion of cultivated soil” is closer to the original category name. Depending on the chosen name, the content would differ to some extent. --Leyo 22:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We might not agree on what's sensible. However, "Erosion of cultivated soil" sounds fine to me. All I would do, though, is move the original contents of Category:Erosion of cultivated soil to the new name. If you think that some of that content doesn't fit under the new name, I'd have to leave it to you to resolve that. With that in mind, do you want me to create Category:Erosion of cultivated soil and populate it with the content that I moved from Category:Soil erosion by cultivation type? --Auntof6 (talk)
I created the category and moved 88 files into it. There may be more candidate files for that category. --Leyo 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, then I will assume there's nothing I need to do. Thanks for taking care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Category deletions

Hi! Pretty please check the age of the category before requesting deletion. Older categories should never been deleted but a redirect placed. Deleting them would break tons of external links. Thanks! C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: OK, if you say so. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that in all the time I've worked here. Some of them don't have very good candidates for redirection, but I'll do my best. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Goody! Some of the categories link to wikidata, probably all of them to other websites using commons categories. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I proceed?

I would like to know if you agree with my last proposition in Category_talk:Diagrams_of_road_number_signs_of_Spain, in order to proceed with consensus.

Have a nice day!

Ce Ele 415 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I hadn't gotten back to you. I will reply on the category talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sports venues by competition

Is not technically a metacat, but a category with zero diffusion. It would be a metacat if it were i.e. "sport competitions by sport" in which the criterium is "sport" (children cats: Association football competitions, Basketball competitions, Rugby union competitions, etc). This is not the case. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blackcat: I disagree. Why does it make a difference that it isn't by sport? A metacat criterion can be anything. If the category is for subcats that group by the same kind of thing, it's a metacategory. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Auntof6, remember what just you told me here about two weeks ago on a similar topic? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackcat: I don't see what that has to do with it. When subcats are groupings by a specified kind of thing (in this case, sports competitions), the parent cat is a metacat. The people by name categories that I was talking about back then are not that kind of grouping. If they were, the subcats for Category:Writers by name would be things like "writers named Charles Jones" (meaning any and all writers with the name "Charles Jones") instead of categories for individual people. This sports venues cat is such a grouping: the subcats are for any and all venues for the indicated sports competition.
It's hard to make a meaningful comparison with the "people by name" categories (including writers by name, politicians by name, etc.). That's because those categories aren't groupings as you might expect from looking at the cat name. This also applies to other criteria that identify individual things, such as serial number, aircraft registration number, and others. Some non-people "by name" categories are metacats, but some are not: it depends on how the category is used. For example, Category:Hotels by name is a metacat because the subcats are groupings of hotels with the same name. Category:Airports by name is not a metacategory because the subcats are each for an individual airport.
I know this can be confusing. The "by name" categories are used in different ways, so it's not very meaningful to compare them with other things like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Mind you: if that might be a metacat I would be happy but it left me doubtful after what you told me that time. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole "by name" area isn't consistent. Once I proposed separate naming conventions for the metacats and the non-metacats, but no one responded to it. Since you're OK with it, I'm going to make that cat a metacat again. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Seattle "Landmarks" is an official term

I don't usually cross-check your work, so I only just noticed this. In both Seattle and King county, "Landmark" is an official term, comparable to something like the NRHP. They ship has landmark status. I'll leave your addition of "tourist attraction" (I don't particularly feel it is correct, but I leave that to you) but Category:Landmarks in Seattle is definitely correct: the status is an indisputable legal fact. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I thought I covered these for Seattle by creating Category:Seattle Landmarks and Historic Districts. I probably didn't put the ship's category there because I didn't see it in the list of officially designated places. I've changed the category to that, because otherwise the bot would undo your change (because the cat you used is a redirect). I thought of redirecting the "Landmarks in Seattle" category to Category:Seattle Landmarks and Historic Districts, but didn't because someone might use the term in the generic sense.
I have no objection if you want to remove the tourist attraction category. It seems to me, though, that tourists interested on the history of Seattle might be interested in any of the official landmarks, even if they can't enter them. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's fine, I didn't remember the more general rework, just noticed that all trace of the status got lost here.
Perhaps Category:Seattle Landmarks and Historic Districts should itself be in the tourist attraction category? By your logic, everything there would count, though conversely it seems odd not to have it directly on something like the Space Needle. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
That cat already is under visitor attractions, although, looking at the definition at Category:Visitor attractions, maybe it shouldn't be. I doubt that everything on the list "has an article on Wikipedia and is mentioned in travel guides specific for the local region, or appropriate subject". I never looked for an actual definition before. I'm not sure I agree with this one, but there it is --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Request your assistance

Hi again! I found a category that really could use the help of someone good with categories! Please see Category:Coal. I tried to move some photos around and found myself lost going in circles which is a sure sign it needs your help. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I'll be glad to help if I can, but can you be more specific? What exactly is needed? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see things like "Coal in ___country name___" but only four countries... There's no "history of" or "diagrams about" or places to put a lot of the images which are below the subcategories. I was mostly trying to reduce the load of photos below the header. About 500 were removed by the nomination process and I found myself confused about where to put most of the rest of them because the categories don't seem to have a consistent hierarchy. You're the most experienced "cat" person I know, so I thought I'd ask you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. I did just create a "Coal by country" category, but later I'll see what else I can do. I'm certainly not an expert in coal! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

There is an endless issue with fly by visitors of little or no geographic or naming knowledge identifying things as Perth, Australia - no such thing exists, as there is more than one Perth in Australia (ok not as many Springfields as there are in the US) - your help with cats is appreciated - pity so few eds to keep up the basic maintenance tasks on things these days. thanks again JarrahTree (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for also for the removing the misplaced see also... JarrahTree (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: You're welcome. I appreciate your note. Working on geographical things is one of my favorite things to do here. I suspect that people from my country (the US) are among the biggest offenders in this regard: many Americans are not knowledgeable in geography of places outside the US, maybe even outside their own state. This kind of issue is why I've been arguing that the names of categories for populated places should all be qualified. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. A relative used to live in the Toronto (north of your locale :) ) area, and in later years could not say any place name without qualifier London, England - as so many place names in Ontario were simply replica names from the UK/GB. In Australia on wp en we have had close to serious war over qualifiers/or not - I hate with a passion the idiocy that put Perth, Western Australia - to Perth. However some eds have almost come to very serious grief over the attempts to get rid of the primacy policy. I wait in hope JarrahTree (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you're interested, there are one or two current category discussions going on here about that issue. They started about specific individual places, but have grown to be about the more general case. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip JarrahTree (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Auntof6/Archives/2016&oldid=236238142"