User talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2014

File:Boysenberry-gate.jpg

File:Boysenberry-gate.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thermal baths

Why do you think this removal is correct? Orrlingtalk 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I removed it for two reasons. One, it was redlinked. Two, I don't think of human-constructed thermal baths as being nature. I just checked and Category:Thermal baths is not a subcategory of Category:Nature (nor is Category:Hot springs, for that matter), and Category:Thermal baths in Germany is not a sub-cat of Category:Nature in Germany (nor are other similar thermal baths by country x categories). I hope that makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, neither is a reason. :/ First and foremost, hotsprings/thermal baths and about anything that has to do with geological phenomenae is hard for me to think of as not directly related to nature; that equivalent categories other than Budapest haven't yet been aligned to this obviousity is clearly not warranting that those very-famous thermal baths of Budapest be off-derivation of the city's nature... And no, red links as parent cats are not omitted because they are red. Eventually there'll be enough content and Category:Nature of Budapest will be created. Cheers. Orrlingtalk 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they're both reasons, but I see you don't agree. Again, it's not just equivalent categories for other cities: Category:Thermal baths is not a subcategory of Category:Nature and neither is Category:Hot springs. It doesn't make sense to just add it in this one case. However, all the other equivalent categories AND Category:Thermal baths are categorized under Category:Geothermal features so I've added Hungary and Budapest's thermal baths to that category. Good compromise? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course Category:Hot springs and Category:Thermal baths are subcategories of Category:Nature. Where do you think they both go uptree? Category:Springs >>> Category:Bodies of water >>> Category:Landforms >>> Category:Nature. This would be so unbelievably strange if "Hot springs" weren't related to "Nature", don't you think? The problem now, as I see it, is that you've apparently created a category – Category:Geothermal features in Budapest – whose sole cause was to contain that one single item we're talking about, and, unlike "Nature of Budapest", it has quite obviously nil growth prospect... which makes it rather useless. If you know how the categorization principle works, you may know that this is a less helpful solution, not to say odd (there is no "Category:Geothermal features by city" while there is Category:Nature by city) and even if it does exist, it can't evade the "Nature of"-parent, itself... I'll appreciate if you undo yourself and discard the uncustomary, unnecessary "Category:Geothermal features in Budapest" replacing it with Category:Nature of Budapest, which will soon after be a blue link for at least that one concern. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's far stranger to have a bunch of photos of buildings in a subcategory of the category nature. Yes, they have a connection to nature, but they are hardly photos of nature, any more than a drinking fountain or a wooden desk is a photo of nature. I've created the reasonable sub-categories including Category:Nature of Budapest. If you want to propose deletion of Geothermal features of Budapest, go right ahead. Thanks for your help on this matter. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the buildings that are the nature, it's the encyclopedic fact that these are primarily related to an ever-throbbing subterranean natural activity. I wouldn't bother to categorize Swimming pools as subset of Nature, would I? And finally, when it comes to nature-in-cities, most elements are man-modified/processed which doesn't efface the nature kernel of them i.e. parks. Cheerz Orrlingtalk 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm glad it worked out though. By the way, are you sure there aren't any geothermal features in Budapest that haven't been turned into thermal baths? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Budapest boasts of its nature just for these baths, so I don't see where the disagreement is. Advise you to have a look at contents of random city's nature categories so you fetch an idea on the wide range of things that qualify as urban nature. To your last question, I assume with most probability that "geothermal features in Budapest" has no value other than embracing the one cat you created it for. This makes that parent as odd enough to be unwelcome, and we generally avoid constructing categories unless we know they potentially have more than one child. Orrlingtalk 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why you won't accept that my view has at least some validity. There's a difference between "things that use nature" and "nature." Category:Painters from Hungary back be tracked through Category:Colours to Category:Nature. Painters use colours, and colours are a natural phenomenon. I have no problem with that line of categories, but that doesn't mean I think Category:Painters from Hungary belongs in Category:Nature of Hungary. For a less extreme example, Category:Windmills in Amsterdam isn't listed under Category:Nature of Amsterdam. I understand your point of view, and I've found a solution that seems to suit us both, but your instance that you are 100% right is starting to look like bullying. I'd appreciate if you'd let the conversation end here.- Themightyquill (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the Category of a photo for the Pausilipo

Hi,

I do not understand why you change a perfectly valid category ("Monuments of Los Santos Province") to a description (Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras) which does not constitute a category, but the name of the monument... If you want to create "El Pausilipo" as category, it is clearly a sub-category of the previous one. Changing the category by a specific name of the monument does not make sense to me... specially since is done only for this monument. The name of the photo clearly specifies already it as "El Pausilipo" and there is no need to change a useful general category. So I will undo it until you explain the change..

use of your picture Pinot Blanc grapes

Hello, I would like to make you aware of the placement of your photo (a section of, rotatetd) on my website:

http://www.rhc-weinkontor.de/Seite-/-Kategorie/Weissburgunder

Hope you like that. Thanks + best regards --Holger Casselmann (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)