User talk:Synthwave.94

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Synthwave.94!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi SW94 i have a question for you

If Wikipedia was going to list the genres of music for these songs (all of them) what genres would you list

3D (intro) by TLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgU_kBqmLok — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.223.62 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. It souds like danceable pop/R&B, but I'm not sure and didn't find any source to confirm what I've heard. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

American gratteux...

Salut.

Je vois que nos contrib's se croisent (suis en plein ménage de Category:Male guitarists from the United States puis tous les autres instruments pour séparer femmes et hommes !!!), et c'est tant mieux. As-tu un plan de travail ? Ne fais-tu que les guitaristes ?

Afin de soulager nos tâches, il serait bon de se concerter. À te lire ici LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour. Mon "plan de travail", c'est pour l'instant de trier les groupes de rock par genre en rajoutant des nationalités (comme par exemple les groupes de rock psychédélique américains) à partir de la catégorie des groupes de rock psychédélique). J'en profite bien évidemment pour recatégoriser le plus précisément possible les images que je trouve. Je t'aiderai peut-être à recatégoriser une partie de la catégorie des guitaristes américains dès que j'aurai suffisamment avancer. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, donc, en ce moment, nous ne faisons que nous croiser. Je vois que tu n'es pas non plus tiré d'affaire avec tout ce qu'il y a dans cette catégorie. Quand tu en seras aux 295 images, si tu vois le nom des guitaristes, n'hésites pas à les mettre même s'ils sont rouges et si tu en vois en rouge, ne les supprimes pas, stp.

Bonne fin de semaine LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 21:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Categorization by dates of birth and death

Please see Abraham Lincoln; Albert Einstein which are categorized by dates of birth and death. If you believe this should not be done, please propose a change at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Infoboxes automatically categorize the page with hidden categories such as birth/death dates, family names and so on, but are here incorrectly used in gallery pages, where they shouldn't belong to as per COM:OVERCAT, considering they are already used in the same corresponding categories (see Category:Abraham Lincoln and Category:Albert Einstein). Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you don't use the same categories for gallery pages and categories, considering they are specific categories and templates for galleries, which are therefore never used in categories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT does not apply here. That principle is for duplicating categories on a single item, so that an item is not placed in a category and a subcategory of that category. The Gallery page and category are categorized separately and independently. The categories applied to one item should not influence the categories placed on the other. They are separate items and both must be categorized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I disagree, considering Albert Einstein is categorized under Category:Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln under Category:Abraham Lincoln, which means that the gallery page is a subcategory of the eponymous category.COM:OVERCAT therefore applies here and you obviously don't use the same categories for galleries pages. Template:Infobox gallery pages about people is even here to avoid the use of an infobox in gallery page, and therefore to avoid the appearance of dates, give names, and other automatically generated categories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but Gallery pages are not categories. They reside in different namespaces. If your reasoning assumes that Galleries are Categories, then you are mistaken. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The page for Albert Einstein is listed in several places as an example of how to do a Gallery page. So if you disagree with how it is done, then the community would need to reconsider its use as an example. But until that happens, doing the same what the example page does cannot be called wrong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I didn't say that gallery pages are categories, but that they require a different categorization and that they shouldn't appear under the same categories as their eponymous categories: Albert Einstein shouldn't be categorized under 1879 births, 1955 deaths, Einstein (surname) and Albert (given name), like its corresponding Category:Albert Einstein, but only under Gallery pages of scientists and Gallery pages about people of Germany, Gallery pages about people of the United States. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

But the page is categorized that way, and is given as an example page for how Gallery pages for people should be set up. So the community seems to disagree with you on this matter. I can understand your reasoning, but current practices and the guidance of example pages are at odds with what you say. I would encourage you to draft a proposal to adjust the language of the relevant pages if you think community practice should change. Right now, there is no such limitation in place, and the model pages like Albert Einstein do not adhere to your thoughts on the matter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I'm sorry but I didn't find anything about how Albert Einstein is an example page for how Gallery pages work and how they should be categorized. The page doesn't appear at Commons:Galleries or even in this past archive. I'd be curious to know where the "current practices" you're talking about come from, and when it was clearly decided that this page should be an example for all other gallery pages. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If it were "clearly decided", then there would be policy somewhere explicitly stating one way or the other. Because there is no such policy, we must find guidance on the relevant pages, and rely on the example pages offered. My mistake about citing Albert Einstein; has category is the example at Commons:Category scheme People. The Gallery example for a person is Mohandas K. Gandhi, which you can find listed as an example at Commons:Galleries#examples. That example page has birth and death dates, just as Category:Mohandas K. Gandhi has. If you disagree with the guidance on Commons:Galleries, you should raise this issue as I stated before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleting galleries

Hi, Synthwave. You nominated a lot of galleries for speedy deletion. I must always add standard reason when deleting something. There is "a gallery without at least two images" in the list, but there is no proper reason for deleting galleries with at least 2 images. Such galleries can be deleted after regular deletion request, they cannot be speedily deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: I redirected most of the gallery pages I nominated for speedy deletion, but some of them only have two images and should therefore be deleted. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Only galleries with 0 files can be speedy deleted, please see COM:CSD#GA1. If a gallery is truly out of scope (and I don't think most of the galleries you have tagged are), you may open a deletion request instead. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Your work on galleries

Can I add a note of thanks to you for the work you are doing here. I find galleries to be genarally pointless and confusing. S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Saga City: Thanks for the feedback. I also prefer categories over galleries, but I personally don't find them "pointless and confusing" (see Mohandas K. Gandhi for example), but I agree that many galleries are definitely out of scope and should be either deleted or redirected to the corresponding category, which is very often the case. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

In to Of

Why are many categories being changed from (something) in (location) to (something) of (location), when "in" often seems much more accurate? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: As per Commons:By location category scheme, the correct pattern is "[object] of [location name]", with "Music of Mexico" cited as an example. In is only used for objects (eg. "Sculptures in London"). Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. (Seems to me another awkward "one size fits all" attempt at uniformity - eg a visiting bel canto opera singer in Memphis is no doubt "music in Memphis", but "music of Memphis"? If W. C. Handy went from Memphis to New York to record "the Memphis Blues" and someone took a photo, it would be "music OF Memphis" but "music IN New York". Just my thoughts on why the fit seems imprecise.) Good to know about the "category scheme" guidelines you're following. Cheers, - 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I had the same question and I agree with Infrogmation that (in my case) music performances in Spijkenisse (the Netherlands) are not Music of Spijkenisse. And I see that Commons:By location category scheme is only a proposal, not yet a policy, we can still give reactions. So there might be a possibility that at least for music both prepositions "in" and "of" should be allowed. I'll make a comment on the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB: I made a comment on the talk page as well. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your music category fixes.--Artaxerxes (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Artaxerxes: I'm always glad to help. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing categories from sub-categories and putting all individual images in the category instead? Why?

Hi. In edits like this and [1], part of what I see you doing is removing categories from sub-categories and putting all individual images in the category instead? Why? All the individual images from that convention at a hotel were grouped together within the hotels by year category already. Could you please explain the rationale of what you are doing? Thanks. Puzzled, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: The reason is simple and is based on this revert : categories "could include other media like videos, not just photos". Commons:Categories even explicitly says that "pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page." For example, Exoticon 1999 is not a "hotel in the United States" nor a "20th-century photograph of Louisiana", but an event which occurred in November 1999 in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Another example of bad categorisation is Portrait photographs of Maria Callas, which was included under black and white portrait photographs of female vocalists, even if two photos were in colour (namely Callas Meneghini 1957 and Maria Callas Milano 1957 Federico Patellani). This is the reason why I recently removed several categories from 20th-century photographs of Louisiana and its subcategories. I suggest you creating new categories following the same pattern (eg. 20th-century photographs of Exoticon) to keep a consistency with other associated categories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Useful (to me) category redirects

Hey Synthwave.94. I've been informed by Turelio that several category redirects were tagged for deletion. These are redirects such as Category:20th-century American judges for example. These are useful when people categories are created by copying categories from English Wikipedia. Unless these redirects cause an issue for you, could you stop marking them for deletion? Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cryptic-waveform: Hello. I understand why you consider these specific redirects helpful, but they are unhelpful for me. The whole category area is a huge mess, and when I use the search bar to find and rename badly named categories, it takes me hours, or even days, to finally keep a full consistency (note that I don't care about "main" redirects, such as bands for musical groups, as I clearly understand why they are useful and I don't intend to ask for their deletion). Note that improperly named and/or empty categories may be tagged for speedy deletion, and Túrelio already deleted hundreds of them so far without reverting me a single time, before you decided to start a discussion here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why these categories bother you. If you feel strongly about removing empty categories with valid names (why is Category:20th-century American judges less valid than Category:20th-century judges from the United States?), then please continue doing so. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cryptic-waveform: They bother me as it takes me much more time looking after newly created categories by other (or even new) users through the search bar. Also, considering Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons use two different naming conventions, I'm just trying to make sure categories from Wikimedia Commons use the same consistency (as per Commons:By location category scheme or other similar pages you can find across WC). As a result, I'm not going to start an edit war with you, but I'm not going to stop tagging other badly named/empty categories either. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

SW, thanks for your working on cats! You said I'm not going to stop tagging other badly named/empty categories either. I think you are not aware of the following problem: If a file is renamed that's not an issue because our databases provide a table that keeps the info so that xwiki links can be fixed easily by a bot or by hand. Unfortunately there is no such table for category pages. If the previous category (redirect) is deleted that can cause broken links nobody is aware of and which cannot be fixed automatically without scanning all 900+ wiki projects. An example: You moved Category:Lotte (singer) to Category:Lotte (musician). That move itself might be OK, but requesting deletion of Category:Lotte (singer) is a really bad thing because de:Lotte (Musikerin)#Weblinks contains a link that points there. That interwiki link is broken now and might be deleted for being a broken link. So I think it's better to not request deletions of "source" categories (except misspellings of course) which are cats of persons or things that might have an equivalent on other wikis. Regards, Achim55 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the hyphen in African-American. I gave up a long time ago arguing about it here and on Wikipedia. But I will note that "African American" really should be "Black". Even NRHP uses Black, as in Category:Oddfellows Black Cemetery. In real life I never hear "African American". Krok6kola (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Thanks for the feedback. Note that all my moves are based on this discussion and this external source. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I used that external source to support my rational on Wikipedia. And again I thank you. The fact that the whole category doesn't make sense is not your fault. Krok6kola (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Thanks again. I'm always trying to do my best to keep a full consistency between categories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:The Shelter

Category:The Shelter is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD C2 (unuseful empty category) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Concert Photography Categories

Hi,

first of all, thanks for your consistent work on categorizing concert photographies using my Template:Concert Category. I noticed that you are using the third parameter, most of the time repeating the event name but with a preceding whitespace. I originally included that feature as a workaround, because certain festivals don't follow the common 'Festival - Year' scheme but instead name their categories in a 'Year - Festival' fashion. In these cases, the third parameter allows the user to add the 'Festival - Year' scheme for sorting in the artist's category, while keeping the 'odd' naming scheme for the festival category.

Personally, I don't think prefixing the festival's name with a whitespace has an advantage, because that results in the artist's category showing all performances in one bulk instead of being sorted by name. While that may look prettier for artists with only a few covered performances, it makes artist's categories with a lot of shows a bit confusing in my opinion. I'd be happy to hear your opinion on that.

Greetings from Germany, LeoDE (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)