User talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2016

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

Local government districts of England by county‎[edit]

As they are clearly on exactly the same topic I have just been bold and merged them anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on a 2nd look you appear to be suggesting to delete them both, if that was then feel free to revert me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: No worries. Being bold was fine. I think they could safely be deleted since nobody is likely to type those category names in on their own, so if you want to tag them each with {{Bad name}} instead, you're welcome to, but it doesn't matter too much. Best, Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see "Local government districts of England by county‎" is a reasonable redirect, for example "Borough Council wards of Ipswich" is used but that is probably less precise anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd actions[edit]

Hi Mightyquill, I made up Category:Cfd requests with missing discussion page yesterday. Maybe you'll find there some cfd entries you've been involved in. And a happy new year! --Achim (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Several of them are my fault. Moving or redirecting without archiving leaves the cfd template, but without a working link. I'll archive these properly now. Thanks for drawing them to my attention! - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification: It's not archiving. If a cfd request is closed the cfd tag has always (except the category gets deleted) to be removed from the category page, no matter if it is kept or moved. Unfortunately that has to be done by hand (afaik), a small gadget would be helpful I think... --Achim (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I just thought step was done at the same time as archiving, but it should be done at the same time as closing. I will do from now on, but I expect there are some CFD tags I've left on closed discussions which have now been archived. I'll take a look. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

The Category Barnstar
in appreciation of your tireless work at CfD. --Achim (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quacks - a question :)[edit]

Hiya - I just need someone to help me out here & hope you can: I'm just wondering what you reckon the difference is between Category:Charlatans and quacks and Category:Quack doctors? Is a "quack" not always a "quack doctor"? And would they not just be called "quacks"? I'm not sure why it was bundled with "Charlatans" (this seems odd to me anyway)? I was going to redirect Category:Charlatans and quacks and Category:Quack doctors to Category:Quacks (to sit in Category:Quackery? Or would redirecting to Category:Quack doctors be clearer? An opinion is appreciated - Thanks in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadstar: I'm no expert (pardon the pun) but I think that quack and charlatan are essentially synonyms. The only difference is that, while they both can mean imposters to any skill/profession, "quack" has a tendency to refer to imposters of medical skill. So if it was necessary, one might put "quacks" or "quack doctors" as a sub-category of both "fraud" and "medical profession" but "charlatans and quacks" might only be a sub-category of "fraud." That said, it's quite possible that all the media in Category:Charlatans and quacks related to medical frauds/imposters, in which case you could safely move everything to Category:Quacks. You might even move everything in both of those categories to Category:Quackery since Category:Samuel Solomon is the only actual person category listed under either category. But it might be worth opening to discussion. Maybe those who created the categories have some clearer vision, even if it isn't currently reflected in the contained files. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - so the differences are very subtle. I'm being BOLD & have adjusted to what seems a little more logical to me and have Category:Quacks redirect to Category:Quack doctors and for that to be inside Category:Charlatans and quacks (seeing there seems to be a distinction). I don't think we'll be able to tell from the images what's what unless you go into serious research mode. I'm going to move all images of persons from Quackery to Charlatans and quacks. Thanks again & Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 10:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New cat[edit]

Hi, just FYI: I made up a new cat Category:Category maintenance and recategorised the cat maintenance stuff there. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun[edit]

To avoid trouble and discussions I do not need I highlighted the names of two special users like a warning plate, look here. ;-)). Cheers, --Achim (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I didn't know you could edit your own css like that. That could be useful in a lot of way. There's so much to wikimedia software I'm unaware of. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Banknotes of Danzig[edit]

Hello- Thank you for your offer and I'm sorry to be responding so late. We do have images that are not technically from the Free City of Danzig in the existing category. I will start the Category:Banknotes of Danzig (1914-1919) category and move the files over.--Godot13 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name[edit]

Hi, thanks for responding to me on the page Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/03/Category:Ruf at Motorshow Geneva 2016. I didn't know this model (bad name) and didn't find any quick way to delete the category. So thanks. --Asmoth (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Is it possible to go to my talk page on Wikipedia and place an answer to a request for my Profile deletion as I can't log in to Wikipedia and I can't leave a response. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WayneRay: You can contact the appropriate people here. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not allowed to edit on Wikipedia? Thus the problem. WayneRay (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WayneRay: There's an email address. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir, I just sent an e-mail. WayneRay (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books are not people[edit]

Here is one of the Cats that you have mentioned to me and it is not mine. Category:Pierre Boaistuau Should I move these to the books by year appropriate Cats and have this deleted? There is nothing on the author except I guess these are his books, possible rename to books by Pierre Boaistuau WayneRay (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WayneRay: No need to have this category deleted, but you can copy the images to book-related categories if you wish. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done and connected to appropriate Cats. WayneRay (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/03/Category:Grave of Seninger (Père-Lachaise, division 85)[edit]

Thanks your help!--Stang 09:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CfD reqs[edit]

Hi Quill, could you please have a look at these? Thank you. Cheers, --Achim (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: I fixed my error. Thanks for pointing it out. I try to check this category periodically, but it has been a while. Incidentally, do you think it would be possible to create a category for CfD requests linked to archived discussion pages? I don't know the mechanics of templates, but that would make it easier to find categories with outdated cfd tags, left behind when discussion was closed. Also, if I want to ping you, should I be pinging Achim or Achim55, or it doesn't matter? Best, Themightyquill (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
About 6 weeks ago I did a complete scan and was surprised that I found not even one tagged cat page pointing to a closed cfd request. This cannot be handled creating or modifying templates but by doing database queries (see quarry: for example) whose results can be put into a page (like I use to do here). - For pinging one should always use the user's account name (Achim55 for me) and not the shown signature. When I created my account unfortunately User:Achim already had been occupied, so I had to choose a different user name, but I sign always using my real first name like some others also do. Best, --Achim (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, and sorry for my late reply. For some reason, I mistakenly thought you controlled the "Achim" account as well. Best, Themightyquill (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carriages[edit]

Hiya, there doesn't seem to be a link to a discussion page for the above category? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deadstar: I'm not sure what you mean. There's a link in the "Category for Discussion" template, no? For me, it points to Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/04/Category:Carriages. It's not working for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's working now! Strange days indeed... :) Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 08:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piacenza[edit]

Yes you're right. But the CfD was erroneusly opened by the user, he meant to propose it for deletion instead. Because of my distraction I didn't notice it had a CfD pending on it. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: - Thanks for your message, though like I said, it's not a big deal because it surely would have resulted in a deletion anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the help in deleting the category I made by mistake. And thanks for info on the "bad name" template. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Themightyquill, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

~riley (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Themightyquill/Archives,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Greyhounds in art[edit]

Themightyquill; A discussion has been started on the Administrators' Noticeboard that mentions your edits.[1] Your comments are welcome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drawings of greyhounds[edit]

It was a mistake to have changed this from GiA, works on paper.

  1. Most of its entries are not drawings at all but engravings.
  2. The former category of works on paper included both, as well as other important methods. One of the seminal engravings in art is Durer's St. Eustachius, now relegated to only to saints. No reason to remove it from there, but it should be with other engravings in works on paper, a commonly used term for drawings, engravings, etchings, lithographs, monotypes, woodcuts, and other forms of reproducing art on paper. Prints on silk and vellum are ambiguous, but I would not challenge anyone who included them as a work on paper--or not. But most of the entries here classified as drawings are not.
@Henrytow: I tried to discuss it with you, and you didn't participate. You are more than welcome to create Category:Engravings of greyhounds if you feel it is justified. Be sure to put it in both Category:Engravings of dogs and Category:Greyhounds in art by medium so it joins the existing category trees. If you are determined to create a "Works on paper" category tree, I suggest you bring it up at Category talk:Art by medium rather than just creating it purely for images of greyhounds. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I missed your offer to discuss. I still stand by my second line, few of the images in "drawings" are such. A portmanteau category would avoid such issues. But you clearly want control of this page, and so as far as I am concerned you may have it. I may add an image from time to time, but it would clearly be a waste of my time to go further. Henrytow (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrytow: I was really hoping to avoid this. I do appreciate the uploading that you are doing, and your efforts to sort things. I don't want you to stop contributing. I can understand how you must have found your interactions with me frustrating. I just want you to understand how the existing system works and I want you to work with it, rather than building a parallel system for yourself. It's a big big collection of images, and the point of categorization is to make things available for browsing. I'd like someone browsing through Category:Drawings of animals to be able to find their way to your valuable images. As you set it up, the only way someone browsing might reach Category:Works on paper of greyhounds would be if they started with Category:Greyhounds in art. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand the category system. What would preclude finding Category:Works on paper of greyhounds within Drawings of animals ? And I shall still contribute. Just not change the categories of GiA. Henrytow (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrytow: While there is some room for exceptions, in principle, sub-categories are meant to be narrower sub-divisions of broader parent categories. So theoretically, everything in Category:Drawings of animals and its sub-categories should be a drawing of an animal. And since, as you say, not everything in Category:Works on paper of greyhounds is going to be a drawing, it doesn't work to put it in Category:Drawings of animals. It also can't go in Category:Works on paper of dogs or Category:Works on paper of animals or Category:Works on paper by subject or even Category:Works on paper by subject because those categories don't exist.
Generally, if a category title has different elements to it, each of those parts should be reflected in the parent categories. So Category:Paintings of men sitting in chairs outdoors is in both Category: Paintings of men sitting outdoors and Category:Paintings of chairs. So someone could get there via Category:Paintings of furniture or from Category:Chairs in art or from Category:Paintings of people sitting outdoors or from Category:Paintings of men in nature. That's the advantage of consistency... that it's easy to create connections with broader overlapping categories. If my explanation doesn't make sense, you can try reading the official one here: Commons:Categories
If you think you'd like a new sub-category for GiA, just run it by me first, and we'll make sure we can find a wording that fits with the existing category trees. Would you like me to create Category:Engravings of greyhounds so that you can move the appropriate images there from Category:Drawings of greyhounds? I'd move them myself, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge which is which. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the last two times you've commented on my talk page, you've accidentally deleted comments from other users. Please try to be a little more careful. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram[edit]

Turkish tea, in good company

Hi, thanks for your efforts on cats. I have a question about another type of cat, a very sexy one: Nesrin Cavadzade has articles in several WPs, I want to make another but a beautiful woman without her picture (in Commons) sounds dull. Do you think we can use her instagram pics? I have no idea about uploading pictures not taken directly by me, and every time I tried it they were all deleted. Got some time to help me or to deal with a pretty face? Thanks all the same. (I mean independently from the possibility that you help me or not. You see I am not only bad about cats but also in expressing myself briefly. :) Best. --E4024 (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E4024. Only pictures that have been released with a license (like public domain or creative commons) that makes the picture available for commercial re-use are allowed on commons. Unless she states that her instragram photos are available for commercial use, they're not acceptable for upload commons, and would be deleted if you uploaded them. So, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to use this pic of singer Zarema? The link has banners like "embed", "license" etc. I am really too clumsy on all these things. My kingdom for a Zarema (now that I know I cannot have one of Nesrin's :) picture! Many thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's commercially owned copyrighted photograph. If you don't understand how commons works, please consider going through the contribution tutorial. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm only uploading my own pictures, and in most cases of food, some of which are also cooked by me. No copyright concerns... Here, enjoy some Turkish tea with cookies. --E4024 (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed several times categories[edit]

Hello, you have removed several times categories. What am I doing wrong? --Jos1950 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jos1950: Sorry for my late reply. I'm not sure what categories you're talking about. Could you be more specific? I'd be happy to explain my actions more fully if I can. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura[edit]

I see you redirected Category:Sakura to Category:Prunus in flower. I understand what you are after, but a lot (maybe the bulk) of the images in question related specifically to the East Asian (especially Japanese) tradition of celebrating the cherry blossoms. It seems to me that there is some information lost in not recognizing that. And Category:Cherry blossom festivals doesn't seem quite right either, since it suggests an organized event, so I won't just move them there. I'm thinking of things like File:U Wash Quad cherry blossoms 12.jpg and File:U Wash Quad cherry blossoms 08.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks for writing. I think your concerns are totally legitimate, but wouldn't Category:Hanami (en:Hanami) satisfy that need? en:Sakura just redirects to Cherry blossom. I'm not sure "festivals" necessarily mean something organized. Category:Festivals of lights contains both organized events and traditional festivals like Diwali. So perhaps Category:Hanami should be in Category:Cherry blossom festivals? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Don't worry, it happens to us all. =) Anyway, I think text with a cross link sounds good for the time being. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 13:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Athletes[edit]

What is not done Themightyquill?

When you undo something like this, leave me a message in the talk page please. --Ruthven (msg) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ruthven. All the sub-categories that are included in the discussion, and mentioned in my final comment, still need to be renamed. It's an enormous amount of work that I'd rather not do by hand. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand well, the conclusion was to also move subcategories of Category:Athletics competitors. E.g. Category:Athletes by club‎ ---> Category:Athletics competitors by club. Right? --Ruthven (msg) 16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: Yes. You can see my unanswered request for assistance at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/talk#Athletes_to_athletics_competitors.3F - Themightyquill (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I haven't seen that discussion. We can do it. If you prepare the command following User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category_moves, I can then launch them. --Ruthven (msg) 16:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems too long for you, I can write the requests with a script. Maybe not right now, but tomorrow it will be done. --Ruthven (msg) 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was compiling the list that was too much work for me. If you can do it, that would be great. No rush - the CFD has been open since 2011, so another day or two won't hurt. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople ?[edit]

Hello Themightyquill. I see you have been moveing some Olympic sportspeople to new named categories. So I just wondered, where would you put olympic sports-referees and othere sportspeople that are needed to supervice the single olympic competition in football, handball, hockey, icehockey and other types of olympic sports referees ? In the same group as the other competitors or in a grup of all olympic referees for that special Olympic Games ? Cos' i believe they are sportspeople too, but of course not sportscompetitors. Best regards and a happy new wiki-year, Migrant (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do have separate Category:Sportspeople and Category:Sports competitors categories. I suppose the same could apply if necessary for the olympics, especially if we have any photos of referees, coaches, etc. If we're already breaking things up by country, or by year, I'm not sure there's any great need to separate competitors out from other olympics sports people, at least for the moment? - Themightyquill (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up... Best regards Migrant (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2016&oldid=258947040"