User talk:Elkost/Archive9

Dental schools

What is the difference between:

Dental schools in the United States
and
Dentistry schools in the United States  ?

Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC).

What are your suggestions? --Elkost (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dental schools and Dentistry schools are the same thing. The first one is chiefly American English, and the second one is chiefly British English. So, there should not be two categories. I would suggest that you reinstate the redirect page category:Dental schools SEE category:Dentistry schools and make the changes in the files. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC).

As soon as you consider these a.m. terms equal, then we have to redirect “Category:Dental schools” to “Category:Dentistry schools” and “Category:Dental schools by country” to “Category:Dentistry schools by country”? Did I understand you well? --Elkost (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If so, I have no objections. But you should consult User:NeverDoING, who has created “Category:Dental schools by country”. --Elkost (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "a.m." This is more complicated than I first realized. I am not an administrator on Commons, and it seems that you are not interested on resolving the problem. Therefore, I would like to back out and hope that another administrator takes interest in fixing this. Best wishes. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC).

@Jeffrey Beall: Dear colleague, I am an administrator in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, not here. Excuse me for the unclear abbreviation "a.m." – here it means “above-mentioned”. I want to avoid duplication of these categories, too. Best regards! --Elkost (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Small notices

Two small things:

1. Cemeteries (in Iran) as part of funerary buildings (in Iran) are already in wide usage (see: Funerary buildings in Iran by province and Funerary buildings in Iran by city), even have infoboxes, so IMHO it's not wise to make radical organization changes. Of course, I know that cemetery in strict technical sense isn't a building, but vast majority of cemeteries in that particular country include buildings. Likewise ossuaries, tombs and similar structures are sometimes buildings, and sometimes are not. At the moment, Iran is the only country which has such system.
2. I know your habit to put technical categories on top and major one on bottom, but thousand Iran-related cats have inversely organization (thanks to me), therefore I aligned recent edits with that. It doesn't change anything. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog. Important note: anywhere (in Iran, too) the cemeteries are not buildings; therefore Category:Cemeteries is placed in “Category:Funerary monuments”, not in “Category:Funerary buildings” (like mausoleums). A mistake is always a mistake, so it must be corrected – even by “radical organization changes”, if needed. Anyway, I will not follow your edits to correct wrong categorization. --Elkost (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if my "unofficial categorization teacher" says so and insists, I can only say: yes, sir. I promise that very soon I will change all comprehensively. So, it should be like this:

• Category:Cemeteries in Tehran (under cats below)
  • Category:Monuments and memorials in Tehran (instead of Funerary monuments, not to duplicate all "by city", "by province" and so on)
  • Category:Landscape architecture in Tehran (instead of Burial grounds, for the same reasons above)
  • parent administrative cats

Are you fine with it? --Orijentolog (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog, thanks. These 2 categories (“Monuments and memorials” & “Landscape architecture”) are OK. When you remove “Cat:Funerary buildings”, it will be fine. --Elkost (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it will be solved. It's the same situation like with bridges (in Iran), a year ago they were in "buildings" cats, and recently I'm changing them to "land transport infrastructure". Only issue is time because I'm fixing related cats comprehensively, so for now 1/3 provinces are completely solved (examples: solved, solved, not solved, etc). Interesting thing here is that I left monuments and memorials for the end, see proof here, all is solved except one memorial.

Anyway, parallel to that planned change, do you also agree that I replace "funerary buildings" with "monuments and memorials" in tombs, so I keep "funerary buildings" only for "mausoleums"? --Orijentolog (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In meanwhile I reorganized cemeteries, tombs and mausoleums, as well as some provincial and urban subcategories. Still long way to finish, but the important thing is that "international" categories (those using "Countries of Asia" template) are solved. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't get mad because of recent reverts, the only reason I restored previous order is that the same system is used on thousands of others sites [Iran-related, which I edited]: first come country-related categories (by name, material, shape, condition), then localization (city/county/province), periodization (dynastic, year/decade/century), and finally registration status and similar things. When I see order upside-down, it make me confused. :) I hate exceptions, like you do. Speaking of it, there's one small exception in my reorganization of monuments and memorials: busts and statues are included there, but reliefs are not. I know that most category-named reliefs in Iran are indeed monuments (for ancient rulers), but speaking of ALL reliefs, 99% are actually of purely decorative nature (like flower ornamental reliefs in houses and so on). If you insist we can put it back (reliefs under monuments), as a supplementary cat, but it can be misleading. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

They simply cannot let it be. --A.Savin 01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Incredible! --Elkost (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Claudio_Machado

Category:Claudio_Machado has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

E4024 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

your changes on ETOY-Categories

Hello Elkost, i have seen that you have made several changes to the ETOY categories. for example: Category:Tree of the Year (Bulgaria). First of all, I am glad that others are aware of the interesting tree pictures and want to use them accordingly. The sorting of the tree pictures uploaded by me in the order had a sense. On the one hand there should be an example picture of the tree in the respective category to enable a faster finding of the pictures by means of the automatic gallery function of the categories and not to have to create an extra gallery page, but this could be done later. On the other hand it should help to enable the authors of the individual countries to create a tree article, either about the tree itself, about the competition or about the places where the trees are located. This whole project (ETOY = European Tree of the year) is still in progress and more images and wiki articles from other countries will follow, so I would ask to undo the changes made, so that the unified system can be maintained when adding the images to the wikis. I would be glad about international participation and cooperation, we can also talk about the progress of the project. Starting from my main article in the German wiki: Europäischer Baum des Jahres, I have tried to gather as much information about the competition as possible, obtained the licensing rights to the images and will try to provide more information on pages in other languages as well - here, help from national language authors would be useful. Please let me know, if there is any interest in this. - with kind regards--Cookroach (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cookroach: Hello! My edits in “Category:Tree of the Year (Bulgaria)” are well done – I left all the images in their most specific category and removed them from parent categories according to Commons:Overcat. Sorry, I could not help you any more in this project. --Elkost (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elkost, Thank you for your quick reply, no need to apologize, I already understood how it was meant by you. So I will create extra galleries that show the pictures of each year and the countries. Let me know if there are any other rules that should be followed and please send me a link to it. The reason why the images were categorised in this way is explained briefly below and, in my view, forms an exception as described in Commons:Overcat. Let me explain it with an example. Although the tree pictures and the category of e.g. “Category:Plane in Garmen” only contains the pictured tree from Garmen, the use of the category in the “category:Garmen” and in the “category:Famous trees in Bulgaria” or similar, lets the future author of a page find the category about the subject, but does not contain the picture itself. The plan is to create one article each about the stories about the trees per year (see my german example: Liste der ETOY-Nominierten 2011) or other combinations in different languages, such as “participants from Bulgaria” or whatever else others. Your strict interpretation of the Commons:Overcat-guidelines would, however, now prevent only the supercategory from being found in the article reference to the images, but not the images themselves. Until the completion of the whole project of tree stories, one picture of each subcategory should remain in the supercategory, so that it can be found more easily by creators. But I accept this variant, because there are still possibilities to provide the articles themselves with galleries, to create the galleries as pages at Commons and also to link the individual subcategories in the article, but this means considerably more effort and makes it appear more confusing. Okay, now we've talked enough about it, it's a pity that further collaboration on the project is not possible for you and thank you for the correspondence.--Cookroach (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cookroach: The best way, I suppose, is to create gallery pages for participants – either for each year and/or each country. Such pages could represent images of the participant trees by country and year. --Elkost (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Bridges to nowhere

I think this is wrong. These are generally not unfinished structures; it's just that there is little or nothing at one end. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: In principle you have right. 3 years ago Olybrius had added “Category:Unfinished bridges” to “Category:Bridges to nowhere”. In most cases, I think, he is right, although rare exceptions are possible, e.g. for folly bridges. --Elkost (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Maps by country

Next time, consider changing the template Template:Maps by country rather than changing the individual country by year categories. Any particular reason you wanted it sorted by 1990 rather than _1990 like I had? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In principle categories ‘by country’ are sorted by country's initial letter. --Elkost (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes ((reply|Elkost}} but I'd seen most year categories use a space to distinguish it from some odd pages or subcategories that use numbers for sorting. It's also easier to organize the pre-1000 years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Oldenburg_palace

Oldenburg palace has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Alaexis (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

UK railways

Do you know the difference between an engine shed and a Traction Maintenance Depot? it's quite an important one to those who understand UK railways. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you share your considerations.--Elkost (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I too would appreciate some discussion of this. What are the definitions of a TMD, TCD, MPD and "engine shed"? This has often changed over time. Can we reasonably group MPDs under a TMD category, for one? (They're functionally much the same, but the names are older and most MPD sites disappeared years ago, with a few now renamed as TMDs or TCDs.)

But "railway depot" just isn't a term used in the UK, within the cognoscenti. There's also a pretty strong distinction between stabling points, refuelling points, depots used for more extensive maintenance, goods facilities and carriage storage facilities. It's hard to say that "railway depots in GB" simply shouldn't exist, but it should be empty, or almost empty, and just used as a container for the more useful groupings by types. This sudden growth of "Railway depots in Yorkshire" etc. is particularly pointless. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning TMD, TCD, MCD and other types / names of these depots I cannot find good definitions to differentiate them well. In Wikidata TMD is a “railway depot where locomotives are serviced and maintained”, in En.wiki Toton TMD is “one of the largest rail depots”, while (there again) Willesden TMD is specified as “a railway locomotive” TMD (i.e. TMDs are not only for locomotives).

If you consider that “railway depot” is not a British English term, then “Category:Railway depots in the UK” (and in its constituent countries) is enough.--Elkost (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata is not a reliable source. Not even to the standards of Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Special trains and temporary solutions

I don't think that Category:Special trains and its subcategories should be categorized under Category:Temporary solutions. Special trains are run for a variety of purposes - charters for sightseeing or carrying a certain group, inspection of rail facilities, celebration of events, etc. They tend to be planned events for a specific purpose, not implemented to fix a problem. As such, I don't believe they belong in Category:Temporary solutions any more than an event like a concert or convention would. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not me, but Benzoyl, who had added “Cat:Temporary solutions” to “Cat:Special trains” in 2018. --Elkost (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You recently added a number of country-level special train categories to country-level temporary solutions categories, which is what attracted my attention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I had not great objections against this categorization. However, I have to agree with your strong argument that these are not planned to be implemented to fix a problem, i.e. to be solutions of a problem. So, we have to remove “Cat:Temporary solutions” from “Cat:Special trains”. --Elkost (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Such removal is necessary for the subcategories as well. --Elkost (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Finally

As I promised you a half year ago, everything related to cemeteries and tombs is  Done now. They're excluded from buildings and put into monuments and memorials. You can see how it looks in Monuments and memorials in Iran by city and Monuments and memorials in Iran by province: all standardized, zero exceptions. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Fine! I'll take a look later. --Elkost (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's OK, no need for any kind of deeper check, I guarantee it's all fine. A contrary example would be Poland: you put their metacat tombs under monuments and memorials, but all ten cities inside still treat tombs as buildings. That's the issue that I solved in Iranian case.

By the way, one novelty about reliefs is that I opened Reliefs in Iran by building function (for houses, mosques, etc). That's also the reason why I kept reliefs outside of monuments and memorials. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)