User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2021

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

Error grammar in province

Thank you Auntof6 for correcting me in my input error by adding an "s" to the word province that I had not yet seen.
Cordially, —— DePlusJean (Talk) 12:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Auntof6, I need the advice from someone more experienced. As you probably know, we have various architecture-related cats like X at night, X at sunset, X at dusk, so I believe a parent cat is needed, however, I'm not sure which one is better:

What do you think? --Orijentolog (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Sorry for my late reply. I'm not sure there's a good option, but I think "by part of the day" might work. When I see "by time of day," I think of clock time (2:00 am, 3:47 pm, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

File talk:Onyxmarmor.jpg

Hi Auntof6, I have informed the uploader on the discussion page of the file and notified him. A difficult case, the description and file name. greatings Lysippos (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lysippos: OK, thanks for letting me know. I was going by what was there, but I should remember that file names and descriptions are sometimes inaccurate. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Auntof6, yes, unfortunately that is the problem. I can't help here, but I would like to very much. greetings Lysippos (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi. About this edit: I do not see many countries whose "Housing in" cats had, as supra-cat "Society of". Why Turkey? Strangely enough there was only "Slums in Turkey" in that cat when the edit was made. So I understand the Turkish society lives in slums only (regrettably a part does so). Of course there are also the caves of Cappadocia... Never mind, I am correcting categorization in this area: in Turkey, Australia, France etc. Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Literary paintings

Hi Auntof6. In a recent edit, you deleted the link between Category:Literary paintings and Category:Mythological paintings by subject. You probably had a reason for this, but you did not state it, which would have been a good idea when you are removing links, except when there has been an obvious error. The link was not an error. Yes, Literary paintings have their own subject in the system of paintings by subject, but they are not one of the 11 genres of paintings. So in order to make them fit into the genre system, it was necessary to make a link to mythological paintings (which is a genre). Because literature is a form of creating mythology. If you do not submit to this kind of reasoning, please state so - otherwise you are expected to revert your edit. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rsteen: Sorry, I'll try to remember that -- I did state a reason on some other removals, such as this one. The reason for this removal was that not all literature is mythological. For example, Category:Literary paintings contains Category:Works of Shakespeare in paintings. Some of Shakespeare's works have mythological characters or themes, but not all (for example, Hamlet and Othello, which are both represented in the category). Since literature is not a subset of mythology -- in fact, the opposite is more true -- maybe literary works in and of themselves don't fit under genre -- or should be their own genre? Is it written somewhere that there are only 11 genres? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. Actually it does make sense to see literature as the creation of myths. This is just a broader definition of mythology - not specified as greek, roman, norse and so on, but mythology seen as based on "stories". In that way it fits, and it becomes possible to get to these paintings from the mythology genre. As to the 11 genres, they are (for instance) shown at the top of Category:Paintings by genre. The point is that some users swear to the genre system and expect to find paintings according to genres (as opposed to subjects). So, in order to make this possible, items are categorized so they fit into the genres. Literary paintings also did that - until you removed the link. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. Your lack of response may be seen as a sign of lack of interest in this subject on your part. However, it is important to other users, so for that reason the link you deleted has been restored. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This discussion has been restored from your archive, because you have deleted the category link again. Please revert that action. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsteen: Done -- sorry about that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:USS Acme etc

I'm not quite sure why you removed these ship-specific categories from the disambiguation categories I created.... they are hidden categories (the disambiguation ones), and while adding them to the category is redundant, I was specifically doing so in order to list the disambiguation category in Category:Naval ships of the United States by name (which is also hidden) in order to try to bring some sanity to that chaos. It's far worse than it looks, there are hundreds of ships sorted under "USS", ships that got renamed with multiple categories, and many many 'hull symbols' that have nothing to do with reality, unfortunately..... stuff that you would never, ever ever find on photos or documents from the time, because it's either anachronistic by decades or just plain wrong. I know that 'non-empty disambig cats' is a backlog category, but sometimes there is a reason... I think that it more about files anyhow.

I'm not just randomly creating those, I'm actually using both the modern and 1970s DANFS (because tables and appendices, and things like the all important list of abbreviations are not online) and if needed pulling up historical Navy publications to try to deconvolve these things, fix their categorization, and throw a hell of a lot of info into the Wikidata infobox. Just 'looking at the picture', you get things like Screw Sloops called 'tall ships' because they are wood and have masts, and things categorized on the basis of stuff like 'probably in San Diego' in the description. Not interested in an edit war about it, though if you remove the disambig cats I created from the ships, then they need to go back in the 'ships of the US by name' cat individually, and I'll have to try to figure out some other way to keep this all straight. Jarnsax (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: Thanks for your question. Disambiguation categories should normally have no content. You don't put the individual categories in the disambiguation category; that's not their purpose. If you want a category to group ships with the same name, you might want one like Category:Ships named Atlas. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, first, you used HotCat to make the first set of edits, leaving no meaningful edit summary, and I had done a bunch of edits to those pages so it's wasn't really a revert. Fine. I changed it back, with an edit summary explaining myself, and you just changed it back, using with no edit summary. Despite you saying something here, that's not 'discussing it' and finding a consensus, that's making the same exact change twice, and starting an edit war. Stop.
Second. Disambiguation categories are not members of Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. Your own argument starts with "normally" (a conditional) and then becomes "don't" (an absolute) with no logical bridge between the two different things. "I don't like it" is not a reason to start an edit war.
Third. Category:Ships named Atlas is a 'topical' category, and it's 'topic' (ships named Atlas) is rather different than using a disambiguation category to index "ship categories of ships that served as commissioned vessels of the United States Navy (hence the USS) while under this name but were not the only ship that did so", in order to make the other index Category:Naval ships of the United States by name more useful. Why is this a problem, exactly? Jarnsax (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
You also completely ignored the last sentence of what I said. Jarnsax (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for continuing to categorize and identify paintings in the San Diego Museum of Art. Very helpful! -Another Believer (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: You're welcome! I'm working my way through paintings in American museums. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I've uploaded quite a few photographs of SDMA paintings and plan to create new stubs about specific works as they are identified. Keep up the great work! -Another Believer (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Auntof6

Hi Auntof6! I don't need to introduce who I am since we know each other from simple wiki already! I recently started 'editing' here. I'm wondering what I can do here besides translating image descriptions, on Simple Wiki, I'd patrol new pages there, but since I don't have patroller here, and I've never help cleanup new uploads by adding cats, etc, how can I get started? --Tsugaru (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@つがる: Hi, and welcome to Commons! I don't know what kinds of things you'd be interested in doing, but you might find some maintenance-type things under Category:Commons backlog. If not, you could ask at the Village pump if anyone has suggestions or would like help with anything—different people work on different things. I haven't done patrolling much here: it's different from doing it on Wikipedia. I mostly do category-related stuff. By the way, it isn't only new uploads that need category attention! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I like Japan-related topics, though not sure what else I could do with that, thanks for the message Auntof6! --Tsugaru (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

«Вікі любить Землю» 2021 в Україні пройде з 1 по 30 червня

Доброго дня!

Ви брали участь у конкурсі «Вікі любить Землю» в Україні раніше, тож приносимо вам важливу новину — цього року конкурс відбудеться протягом червня.

Як і в попередні роки, долучитися до змагання можуть усі охочі — як професійні фотографи, так і аматори. Головне, щоб ви любили Землю і розділяли ідею конкурсу — представити природно-заповідні території України за допомогою світлин під вільними ліцензіями. У Вікіпедії та Вікісховищі конкурсні фото будуть доступні тисячам людей.

Загальний формат конкурсу буде таким же, як у минулі роки. Протягом травня ми опублікуємо детальні умови та можливості для участі у спеціальних номінацій. Стежте за новинами проєкту у Фейсбуці, Інстаграмі або у блозі. Також ключова інформація буде з'являтися на сторінці у Вікісховищі.

Під час зйомок у заповідних територіях просимо дотримуватися правил їх відвідування і встановлених карантинних обмежень. Найважливіші правила ми зібрали тут.

Сподіваємося на вашу участь у червні! --AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (обговорення) 13:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Religious paintings

Hi. Just wondering about one of your category edits (03:36, 28 May 2021). You removed Category:Paintings by production area by subject from Category:Religious paintings by production area. This is interesting. Do you not think "Religious paintings" are a subject of paintings? It is a genre, yes, but it is also a subject. And there are people who swear by both methods of categorization. If you deny the existence of religious paintings as a subject, it would be a good idea to bring that theory up in the proper discussion forum - otherwise you will be alienating a number of users. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rsteen: You're welcome. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes these things aren't as intuitive as we'd like them to be. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

«Вікі любить Землю» 2021 проходить до 30 червня: Долучайтеся!

Вітаємо!

До кінця червня триває щорічний конкурс «Вікі любить Землю» в Україні. Його метою є зібрати якомога більшу базу фотографій пам'яток природи України; для переможців передбачені цінні призи у різних номінаціях. Ви брали участь у конкурсі в минулі роки — можливо, вам було б цікаво долучитися і зараз.

Корисні посилання

Більше інформації — на сайті конкурсу та у соцмережах (Фейсбук • Інстаграм • Телеграм). Якщо у вас є запитання, можете писати на wle@wikimedia.org.ua --AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (обговорення) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@AntonProtsiuk (WMUA): I don't understand this language. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. Do you have any plans to run for admin? From the threads in your talk page archive, it seems like your main concern is that you are unsure about how commons function as a wiki. I, and possibly together with @Pi.1415926535 and Taivo: , am willing to guide you around. Commons is in need of more administrators, and with your impressive edit history, I believe that you'll be an asset and will be able to help out with the huge backlog. --Minoraxtalk 12:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Minorax: I didn't have any such plans, but I will think about it. Can you recommend any pages I can read to get a better idea of what the responsibilities would be and/or anything else that might be relevant? I'm an admin on Simple English Wikipedia, but that wiki is somewhat different from other Wikipedias, and of course Wikipedia is different from Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
For starters, you can take a look at COM:GTA. If you are well-verse in copyright-related issues, you can take a look at COM:TOO, COM:DM, COM:DW. --Minoraxtalk 00:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Diffusion of categories

Hi, I’m struggling to understand why you created this category containing 5 files. We only have 14 paintings by this man. Why do we need to look in two different categories to view them. One of the advantages of being an independent catalog rather than a museum website is that we can offer a viewing of all the paintings of an artist in one place and you’ve just thrown that away. It’s maybe ok if you have multiple screens. How can you compare pictures against each other, if you split them up? We already have a problem with people uploading the same picture multiple times, because of poor or no appropriate filing. These pictures were already catted to Yale. There was no need to diffuse this mans work by separating them out. Again what are you trying to achieve here. Please tell? Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It was to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art. If you want to be able to see all of the artist's works in one place, I would think a gallery would be the place for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, however the paintings are not defined by their museum rather they are by by their artist. You have diffused the artist in this case.
A painting is defined by its content, not by the wall of some museum its hanging on.
This over diffusion of of cataloguing images is robbing us of the opportunities of matching a painting to its original draft; be it sketch or wash. We can no longer see it against it's lithographic version either. Or its companion piece in a set if we only have a painting of one and an engraving of the other. To do that we need multiple screens, 4 as described here.
If you want to do something like this, obviously you legally can. Should you not also copy the images in the main cat, as we do by images from Google art project?
As an aside galleries are a waste of resources, they need maintenance and that's seldom done. They get in the way of search, because they have precedence they are always presented first. They are fundamentally more suited to Wikipedia than here. They're for a far different audience. Anybody that's catting unknown files in a serious way just doesn't use them. Broichmore (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the "over diffusion" complaint, especially that such diffusion is "robbing us of the opportunities of matching". I have felt the same way. This applies to other categories as well. Perhaps one of the problems of using Cat-a-lot without actually looking at each image? Krok6kola (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The "diffusion of categories" complaint seems to be a case of wanting to see the images instead of wanting to find them. The category system enables us to search in more dimensions, including the question of where, when it comes to items like paintings. At the time of writing, the category Category:Paintings by museum by artist covers the location of the works of 538 painters, and - when fully categorized - the works of Marcellus Laroon the Younger would fit neatly there. So the category provided by Auntof6 is just one step in the right directon, and should be applauded instead of criticized. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I pondered this myself, when I considered creating Category:Paintings by Gustav Klimt in the National Gallery, Prague. It would have exactly 2 paintings (Category:Water Castle (Klimt) and Category:The Maiden (Klimt)), if their online catalogue is up-to-date. It seems that creating the category is one step in the right direction (towards completeness). Aavindraa (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rsteen: Paintings by Pablo Picasso are spread over a 1000 museums.
Rather than have one place to find them, your advocating that creating 1000 sub cats to store and separate them into, is an optimal improvement on seeing? The preferred way. Are you?
Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?
The only reliable search query on commons (even better than artist), is museum ownership, but that tells you nothing about the content of the file. You seem to think content is secondary, or that filing images is better served by classification rather than the visual. Really?
There is an ongoing argument on wikimedia, on whether or not "museum ownership" should be a hidden cat or not. If its hidden then its a supplementary cat as I alluded to earlier. IMO they should not be hidden cats, but they are supplementary and secondary.
If some admin makes your "by museum" cats hidden, What then? Broichmore (talk)
I don't know why this topic has been hijacked here, I'm going to move it to the Village Pump where it belongs. Cheers. Broichmore (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Autofun6 Hi, So you have no objection then, to my copying the file from "Paintings by Marcellus Laroon the Younger in the Yale Center for British Art" back into "Marcellus Laroon the Younger"? Broichmore (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: I would object to that because it would result in a violation of the policy about over-categorization. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Not doing it is overcatting. Over catting is where you have to open two screens to see the same subject matter or not?
I would suggest that galleries are a different branch from an artists body of work.Broichmore (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Overcatting is when something (a file, a category, or something else) is in two or more places in one branch of the category tree. For example, if you put the category for a person under both Category:People of France and Category:People of Paris, that is overcatting because Category:People of Paris is already included under Category:People of France. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course, people are people. That's a branch all of its own. No real argument. Leaving aside common sense, for the moment, after all Proust and Dumas, are people of France, not just Paris.
However painting (an artist's body of work) is a different thing to Museum collections or buildings. A different branch!
A sign of over catting is where you have to open two screens to see the same subject matter or not?
Again this artist is defined by their body of work (the very definition of a branch) not the museums he's hanging in.
I would remind you there are Admins here convinced that collections are hidden cats and can and will make your Yale cat hidden, without consensus, whether you like it or not. What then? Broichmore (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I see you just added yet another art cat to File:The "Kearsarge" at Boulogne MET DT204991.jpg. Actually not adding a cat but burying it further down the in the MET's collection. Hiding it in effect.
Other than one of it's cats defining it as a Manet. This file has 3 other cats. None of which define the significance of its contents. You never thought to define it otherwise, in other words make it useful in the real world...
By burying it further in the morass of trivial art cats, of which it has 4. You have obscured the issue that this is in fact one picture, of a named ship, that is duplicated a further three times on commons. All of them jpg's.
Why not fix that?
This picture is in fact represented in 11 artcats, and another assigning it to Mr. and Mrs. Henry R. Kravis Gift.
Three of them only have one defining cat assigned to them. Fortunately that happens to be a specific 'exact' defining cat.
Two separate of the images are assigned to non art cats. Unfortunately they are pretty weak and not actually helpful.
So the image has only one useful cat, two debatably at the very most. Not good is it?
This just goes to prove the how assigning art cats is a hit and miss approach and inadequate to defining an image.
Yet you scorn me for pointing out this failure in the system. Broichmore (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: I don't understand everything you're referring to. Eleven categories? I don't see that many on the one image you mentioned, even counting the administrative cats. In any case, we obviously have different ideas of how things should be categorized. I'm sorry you don't agree with mine, but what I'm doing is pretty standard across Commons' content for many museums. Be aware that I am not finished with what I'm doing. After diffusing the main category, it will be much easier to look in the subcategories for multiples of individual paintings and group them together with better categorization. If you have spotted more images of something I have changed a category on, it might be that it's not in the category I'm currently working with and that therefore I wouldn't have seen it. Rather than complain that I don't see everything all the time, you could either point out where those duplicates are or you could change them yourself.
Regarding your comment about categories being made hidden, I see no categories in Category:Hidden categories like the one you originally mentioned, so I am not worried about the categories I create being made hidden.
As for your edit summary pointing out that I hadn't replied to your previous message, I had no response to it so I said nothing. In future, I would appreciate you not accusing me of being rude, even in an edit summary. You'd be more likely to get a response if you're at least civil, if not actually polite. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Point taken Auntof6.
I'm in trouble if I cant get my point over, about the shortcomings of filing as we know it.
Take Manet's painting of the Kearsarge as an example, and how it's catted (None of these are hidden cats. I have excluded them from this list).
A jpg image of this painting can be found in 20 cats (often single copies), namely:
Category:Marine paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Category:Department of European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Category:Paintings by Édouard Manet in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Category:Marine paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Category:Department of European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Category:Paintings of seascapes by Édouard Manet
Category:Oil paintings of seascapes
Category:19th-century sailing ships in paintings
Category:Breaking ocean waves in art
Category:Paintings of Pas-de-Calais
Category:1864 paintings in the United States|Manet
Category:Paintings of seascapes by Édouard Manet
Category:Mr. and Mrs. Henry R. Kravis Gift
Category:1864 paintings
Category:Paintings of ships
Category:Paintings of boats
Category:Boulogne-sur-Mer in art
Category:Boats in Pas-de-Calais]]
Category:USS Kearsarge (ship, 1861)
Category:Boulogne-sur-Mer
That's 5 cats at the MET; a total of 17 different art cats. There are only 2 sub cats of the artist. Only the last two cats are route specific, and defining.

Of the four images one has 9 cats, one has 6 cats, and two only have 4 cats.

My contention is that art is a branch, as is the location depicted, as is the ship depicted.
What I mean by over diffusion of cataloguing images or hiding them is, where a main cat (branch), like a battle, has no images in it but has multiple sub cats. Example Battle of Foo may have Paintings of the Battle of Foo, Engravings of the Battle of Foo, Drawings of the Battle of Foo, Cartoons of the battle of Foo, Battle of Foo in art, etc... In that case you would need 5 screens open for an overview.
To assess Category:Marcellus Laroon the Younger. You need 3 screens open.
That is robbing us of the opportunities of matching a painting to its original draft; be it sketch or wash. We can no longer see it against it's lithographic version either. Or its companion piece in a set if we only have a painting of one and an engraving of the other. To do that we need multiple screens, 4 or more as described here in this paragraph. Separate screens may be required, open, to view a single image's different versions I.E. sketches, paintings, wash (watercolour), Lithograph / engraving. etc, aquatint, other picture in a set...
The policy about over-categorization is either poorly written and understood when offering guidelines about branches or it's inadequate, if not broken. It needs fixing...
Hope this helps? Broichmore (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"To assess Category:... [y]ou need 3 screens open." Fair point, but this can be viewed as a shortcoming of the user interface. I'm hoping to address this soon by adding a feature to load nested categories to my userscript. I've already coded a rudimentary version of dynamic pagination. Repo here: https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia Aavindraa (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Broichmore completely. Hopefully Aavindraa will fix this problem for User:Aavindraa/common.js.@Aavindraa: How will we know when this feature is available? Krok6kola (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have something ready this week (by Friday). I'll ping you and a few others I think might be interested when its ready. Aavindraa (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

borobudur

gets dumped by very perspicacious and perhaps very illiterate uploaders - so if it is indeed not a metacat - could you please kind editor please explain to me why or how one can warn dumpers that lack of description and a pointless allocation of a very pointless general category might be distinguished with more qualifying items such as date or location - any effort appreciated to explain what I have misunderstood would be appreciated. JarrahTree (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OK so I have identified from conversation directly above, and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_meta_category_criteria into a territory of diffusion and meta cat - it would be great to have in simple terms, if there is a simpler tag I havent found yet that says 'items here should be in sub cats and not this cat' without upsetting anyone? JarrahTree (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: How about {{Categorise}}? --Auntof6 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much - apologies for the ignorance that I exhibit on the subject - I appreciate your suggestion JarrahTree (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Category check

Category:Females by hair color by country
Category:Males by hair color by country
Category:Women by hair color by country
Category:Men by hair color by country

Could you please go through these categories to see if i messed something up? I have a feeling something's not right so i'll be grateful to hear a third party opinion before i create more categories --Trade (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you should delete these categorises or never start them. How are you going to handle brunettes who dye their hair, and then go grey.?
Or even the current habit of footballers who dye their hair different colours 4 times a year.
We have zillions of files awaiting categorisation, and few to do it, why waste time here? Broichmore (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: We're all volunteers here, and we work on the things that interest us, that we think are important, or that we choose for some other reason. Not everyone wants to work on the same things, so none of us will always be happy about what others work on.
As far as your specific question, images wohld be categorized by the hair color shown in the image, regardless of what color hair the depicted might have at some other time or in other images. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Trade: With this kind of category, where the attribute in question isn't automatically the same during a person's whole lifetime, we don't include categories for specific people. An example of this is Category:Men with beards, which used to include categories for individual men. I would go into these categories and all of their subcategories, find the categories for individual people, and remove those categories. You can copy the individual files into the hair color categories instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:San José, California, spelled with acute accent mark

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 ∙ +/−

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Paintings by country - deja vu

Hi Auntof6. You have made an edit that make sweeping changes to the way paintings by country are organised. Maybe you are not aware that there are at least three lines of categorizing paintings by country, being by country of origin, by country of location and by the depicted country. You seem to assume that this is just about country of location, but the World is not that simple. Please revert your edit. If you do not agree on the way paintings by country is set up, we have forums to discuss that, and your comments there will be welcome. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rsteen: I am aware of that. Would you please give me an example of the edit I made that looked like I thought it was only country of location? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi again: This one: Revision as of 06:25, 5 August 2020 by Auntof6 (talk | contribs) (removed Category:Paintings; added Category:Paintings by location). After that, users can not directly access Paintings by Country from the Paintings category - except by taking a detour around "location". And as stated, location is just one of the three dimensions in the category structure. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. Your lack of response indicates that either
a) You were actually not "aware of that".
b) You were aware of it, bút could not be bothered.
c) Some other reason?
The category system concerning "paintings by country" is still broken on account of your edit, so please revert it. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rsteen: Thanks for the nudge. I have undone my edit.--Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for being so civil. The edit you undid was, however not the one in question. But assuming you meant to, the work has been done for you so this matter can be closed. Hope you agree. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rsteen: Sorry. Next time, if there is a next time, it would help if you give a link to the diff instead of just giving the edit summary. But, yes, I'm fine with whatever you did. Cheers. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to bring this up again, but we are back at the discussion in August 2020. Have you changed your mind since then? (Revision 585613499, August 25, 2021, 10:49). Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rsteen: Did this fix it? (Notice that I gave a link to the change in question. Please do the same in return, as requested above, if you want me to look at something. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks so much. Yes it is fixed. Please note that the omission of the link was not caused by ill will, it just demonstrates my technical inabilities. The best I could come up with was the number of the revision. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Vifs remercîments

Thank you for your very useful recategorization work! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: De rien! While we're on the subject, I noticed the many painting categories that each contain only one file. It seems to me that a category isn't needed for only one file, so I was thinking of bringing them up at Commons:Categories for discussion to suggest that they be deleted. What would you think of that? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This is to allow one to make a link with Wikidata, but also to go to more relevant categories where the subject is quickly found. This is important for a label like VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know.

[1] [2]. Regards --A.Savin 13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Auntof6, if I have done something wrong please let me know. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Krok6kola Rope bridges are a type of suspension bridge. I have put the suspension bridge category back. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for my mistake. Krok6kola (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Krok6kola No problem. We're all constantly learning. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Village Pump

Hello, regarding the misidentified image, please see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks. Would the same issue apply to any of the other files in Category:Portrait paintings of Lady Caroline Paget in National Trust places? They're all by the same artist. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for notifying me. I have added them to the deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:San Francisco files needing cleanup

When removing files from Category:San Francisco files needing cleanup, please make sure that you've fully cleaned up the file before removing it from the cleanup category. That means not just categorization, but also a useful filename and description. A number of files that you've removed from the category, like File:San Francisco (37575113714).jpg, have poor filenames and no description. It's totally fine if you only want to add categories, but in that case please leave the files in the cleanup category. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I would have liked to do that, but there was no indication of exactly why they were put in that category. The only thing I saw was some {{Uncategorized}} templates, so that's what I took care of. You can tell me to check the filenames and descriptions, but 1) if they need something else, that isn't indicated, and 2) my interpretation of Commons:File renaming is that file renaming is discouraged.
However, I will grab all the ones I changed and check at least that they have good descriptions. If I see any obvious bad file names, I'll fix those (such as one I saw that said the image was a cable care when it was actually a streetcar). If there's any other kind of cleanup they need, how would I know? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added {{Files needing cleanup}} to the category; hopefully that clarifies the types of cleanup that are needed. As a rule of thumb, a filename must identify the subject of the file, and usefully distinguish it from other files about the subject. The latter part is particularly relevant here; a filename of "San Francisco" or "Golden Gate Bridge" is utterly useless when we have thousands of images of each. If a filename isn't sufficient to allow easy identification of the file, then the benefits of renaming it far outweigh the downsides. With one or two exceptions, every file currently in the category has a useless filename and needs to be renamed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Category Barnstar
Excellent work with Commons:Categories for discussion! Estopedist1 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Thanks. I try, but I don't think I'm keeping up with it lately. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Auntof6/Archives/2021&oldid=637991371"