User talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2019

Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed

Hey Themightyquill,

Shall the category above be deleted as well? -- 1989 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Problematic summary

This is going to be a very problematic summary. Would you please be the one to warn him that is not exacly a good thing for him to do so? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: No, I agree it's not appropriate but I'm not interested in joining the conflict. Sorry. Make a complaint at AN. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I would like to ignore all this attempt to ignite a conflict. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"by subject"

You put File:If you can use tools.jpg and File:Emergency Peace Federation 1917.jpg (and probably others not on my watchlist) in Category:World War I by subject, but that's a meta-category and should not directly contain photos. Any plan here for a next step? - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I didn't consciously put them there, I just renamed Category:Life during World War I to Category:World War I by subject, and moved all the hundreds of contained files across. I already removed some of the files, but there are a lot more to be sorted. I can do a mass move of all the contained files to Category:World War I if you think that's better than working through them slowly. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as you are working on it, that's fine with me. Nothing in the edit summary let me know that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Just because you master English and its nuances better than me... I have not understood at all this comment. I went to the decision to have the less possible to do with that user, still I don't understand why sorting a cat is 'disruptive'... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: I guess if none of the categories have sort keys, they will all fall under L, but under L, they'll be sorted in order by number. (Option A) If they all have numbers as sort keys (like the one you added), each would be sorted to the appropriate number (instead of L), EG. 011 under 0. (Option B). Option B is better than option A. But if you add a sort key to just one category, then you effectively create option C, where some are sorted under L and others are sorted by numbers. So the suggestion was "all" (option b) or "nothing" (option a) because a mix (option c) is disruptive. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I concede "unappropriate" but, hey, "disruptive"! -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Maybe disruptive to the sorting order, rather than "disruptive behaviour" in the sense of vandalism. Assume good faith? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, my doubts were only related to the use of such term -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Suffragettes

Hi, the category "suffragette" is reasonably well-defined. They're a sub-set of suffragists. I think it will have to be recreated at some point; otherwise the distinction is lost. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that word (and "suffragist") can each be defined in at least a couple different ways, as mentioned in the CFD. Category:Women's suffrage activists is less ambiguous. Category:Women's suffrage activists from the United Kingdom and Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union‎ take care of narrower possible definitions. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Gagosh Pics

Hello @Themightyquill, I am writing in regards of the deletion request that I received at Commons page. Excuse me for the late response. Well, honestly saying some of these pics can be downloaded from my Facebook page cause I don't keep photos of my works. However this works are mine. I have web, facebook page and instagram where you can find the same pictures. Here are the links: http://gagosh.org/ https://www.facebook.com/gagosha.art/ https://www.instagram.com/gagoshstreetart/ Also, as it was suggested, I wrote to permissions-wikipedia commons hope it will work.

Giogagoshidze (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As you are active in the aviation files sector, I kindly ask you to read my complaint on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Extremely rude personal attacks by User:Snowdawg. Maybe we have another "Pbutt" here. Thank you very much. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WantedCategories

Hello.The categories you deleted are still in use so they became in Special:WantedCategories (10 members) so please empty them.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Could you please be more specific? Which categories are you talking about? I'll do my best. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have resolved itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the problem has been solved ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Move of Category:Northern Alaska

While looking for a particular category, I found that it was moved earlier this year, with the history noting "Themightyquill moved page Category:Northern Alaska to Category:Arctic Alaska: Match en:Artcic Alaska". I remained unconvinced that having a category name structure which blindly copies what Wikipedia and Wikidata does is the best approach. The division of Alaska into major regions was done many years ago based on this file, which in turn was based on a source from the state government. There is a discussion no one wanted to have somewhere on Wikipedia, pointing out that sources vary wildly as to whether there are five or six major regions of Alaska and exactly how they're delineated. Anyway, based on the boundaries depicted in that file, "Arctic Alaska" and "Northern Alaska" are not quite the same. That is, unless the ultimate objective is to arbitrarily define "Arctic", which is generally understood to mean places above the Arctic Circle. I've seen others expressing a belief elsewhere that anywhere in Alaska falls within the definition of "Arctic", which includes places at 55 degrees N. As for the difference between "Arctic" and "Northern", "Northern" extends as far south as 63 degrees N, or well below the Arctic Circle, while Interior Alaska extends as far north as 68 degrees N, or above the Arctic Circle. So, even if Wikipedia may feel that there is no overlap, there most certainly is, and care should be given to that considering that we deal with a great amount of content depicting fixed locations which shouldn't be viewed or categorized arbitrarily (even if such is rampant anyway). Pinging @Dankarl: and @Nyttend: as they were mostly involved with this matter in prior years.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Little or nothing on Commons should depend on that map. It was created exclusively for the purpose of sorting Alaska geography stubs on en:wp, and because I specifically said that that was the purpose, I didn't envision it being used for any other purpose. If by accident it reflects some other useful division, the map needs to give the details, and if it doesn't, we shouldn't rely on it except for stub-sorting. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Picture-sorting has a lot in common with stub-sorting, so a map drawn on established boundaries is useful and avoids judgement calls.

2.If you look at Category:Regions of Alaska you will see a variety of approaches to delineating the regions. Many of these differ in detail but a several group the Seward Peninsula and Kotzebue Sound with the North Slope. Perhaps the best justification for this is that these three regions constitute the pre-contact range of Inuit people. It also is a good approximation of the region north of the 12 C summer temperature line. So I have no strong objection to calling it Arctic Alaska and have seen it used similarly elswhere (no idea where now). However I suspect there are some literalists around who will want that term to describe an area delimited by the Arctic Circle, which would not be useful; that was the original region for keeping the Northern Alaska name.Dankarl (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dankarl, a major issue is that this doesn't necessarily rely on established boundaries. It consists of boroughs and census areas, all of which have established boundaries, but the color-based grouping doesn't necessarily have its own boundaries. Part of the issue is the stub-sorting standards at en:wp — we wouldn't want to have stub categories that were too big (too many articles) or too small (too few), so the groupings were chosen partly because they would result in proper-sized stub categories. In particular, if there had been fewer stubs in Yukon-Koyukuk, Fairbanks North Star, Denali, and Southeast Fairbanks (yellow), they might have been combined with Nome, Northwest Arctic, and North Slope (purple) instead of forming their own grouping. Apparently these reflected a state agency's regions map (can't tell much about it, since the link has rotten), but when I was helping to form stub categories, the procedure was to find a group of relevant counties/boroughs-and-census-areas/parishes and then find a state website or other major website that used regional boundaries comparable to what we had already picked. It's not really encyclopedic, but when you're just doing stuff for internal project purposes, the standards are a lot lower. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

PS, I found the original map archived. You see that the boundaries don't closely match the boroughs and census areas. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, User:RadioKAOS. I believe I was trying to identify how to connect Category:Alaska with Category:Arctic. Since en:Arctic Alaska existed (and doesn't mention "Northern Alaska" but only "Far North Alaska") I thought it best to replicate that title to fit within Category:Arctic. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening a closed CfD

Regarding Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses: I pinged you on this as someone who has commented on the CfD in the past, but also as an experienced CfD participant. I would appreciate if you could take at least a quick look over what I wrote there and let me know if I am missing the point when it comes to either the process or the purpose of CfDs. As you know I try and attack the backlog a bit, but I haven't yet had one where someone wanted to pry one back open after not responding while it was active. At any rate, I would value your input. Josh (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits

Hi dear friend.
It is my duty to appreciate you.
There is the least I can do for you.
But in the future I will do less.
Because your focus does not interfere.
Many thanks
This text has been translated by Google Translator. (Mostafameraji (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC))

new page

Hi Quill, just FYI: I made up User:Achim55/Cfd requests requiring review and will update it about once a month. It started with 250+ entries, Auntof6 has been so kind to work on that. Best, --Achim (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Post-World_War_II_weapons

Post-World War II weapons 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!

Josh (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creator template for a photographer

Hi, after our discussion on the Photographs by Nadar page, I was hoping you could you help me with another photographer I came across (rather randomly): There are about 2000 photographs by "H. Allison & Co. Photographers" (or "Allison Photographic Studio") from Armagh - info from here. (I think they are all part of Category:Photographs by Public Record Office of Northern Ireland). A new creator template might be helpful here, with related category, but I'm not sure how to go about it as most my edits don't need that type of processing power. Thank you in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deadstar, that seems like a worthy effort, but I've never made a creator template myself either, so I don't think I'd be much help, I'm afraid. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the reply :) -- Deadstar (msg) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hearses

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Horse-drawn_hearses&diff=364697392&oldid=276724684 : the term hearse dates back roughly to the 17th century, so for hundreds of years it specifically meant horse-drawn hearses, so I think this is wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Category:Hearses was redirected Category:Funeral vehicles. I didn't just remove it from Category:Hearses. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Funeral carriages - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine then. I just saw the edit & the summary & didn't have context. - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Temp

Category:Temp 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!

Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Marinas in Ireland

I just saw your deletion of this category to move it to Category:Marinas in the Republic of Ireland. Shouldn't this category continue existing, with subcategories of Category:Marinas in the Republic of Ireland plus Category:Marinas in Northern Ireland, to match en:Category:Marinas in Ireland? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but no, I don't think there's a need for Category:Marinas in Ireland. There's no reason to categorize everything by the island before sub-categorizing by country. Maybe with some natural geographic features, but marinas are clearly in one country or another. I'm not sure why English wikipedia has categorized everything by the island rather than the country. We have no Category:Marinas by island so there's no natural home for it either. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I've modified the commons category links on enwp accordingly, and will do the same for other cases like this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thnaks. Please note that it won't always be possible to match things properly. English wikipedia has Category:Fishing in Ireland and Category:Fishing in Northern Ireland but no Category:Fishing in the Republic of Ireland. Category:Fishing in Ireland is in Category:Fishing by country, so its precise reach is unclear. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Lighthouses in Ireland

I see you deleted this category and moved it to Category:Lighthouses in the Republic of Ireland under the claim it was incorrectly named. You are maybe not familiar with the fact this is a false claim because the lighthouses are not statewide but are islandwide marine navigation aids under the control of the w:Commissioners of Irish Lights. Also see the w:List of lighthouses in Ireland that contains more than 13 non-Republic of Ireland lighthouses listed and note there is no such list as lighthouses in the Republic of Ireland. Please revert to the correct and proper category. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I'm not sure if I understand. Just because they are under the control of a jointly run organization, the Commissioners of the Irish Lights, doesn't mean the individual light houses are not physically located in either one country or the other country. Just because the United Nations is a jointly run international organization doesn't mean its headquarter building isn't in New York. Category:Lighthouses in Northern Ireland has existed since August 2008. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The implication of having two separate categories is that they are state specific when that is not the case. Ww2censor (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, their location is state specific. And as I mentioned, there have been two separate categories since 2008. Category:Lighthouses in Ireland was also in Category:Lighthouses by country not Category:Lighthouses by authority or Category:Lighthouses by island which also implies that it's related to particular states. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

Should we speedy delete it: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Videos of information technology. At the moment it is here: category:Cfd requests with missing discussion page--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I just forgot to remove the template after closing. Thanks for letting me know. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User: GeoDude123

Request flag for User: GeoDude123 --Allforrous (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The general question

@Auntof6: What should be done with discussions not in English, like Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Art Nouveau reliefs in Bydgoszcz. For example, here ({{缺字/biang2/1}}) I used Category:Needing transcription (zh)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I use google translate, and it tends to be good enough to understand the broader points, if not the finer details. Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I'm not sure what you're asking. These should be handled the same as discussions in English. As far as I know, there is no restriction on what language can be used in these discussions. I also sometimes use Google Translate, and I have occasionally added a courtesy translation for the benefit of others, if I felt I could accurately represent what was said. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with EN wikipedia biography sources?

Hi!

You don't happen to be somewhat familiar with English wikipedia source policies for biographies of living persons?

I recently started the biography stub en:E. Mark Gold, about the computer scientist who wrote the famous article en:Language identification in the limit. I could find only very few information, mainly from headings of his published articles (like "Current address: XXX"). This week, presumably his son left a message on the talk page en:Talk:E. Mark Gold, asking for some corrections and offering some new bits of information.

My problem is how to verify the son's authenticity, and how to include his information in accordance with English wikipedia's source policy. I found en:WP:BLPRS, but it wasn't helpful.

Do you have an idea how to proceed? Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: I've responded there. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that you'll be able to include information from his son. =( -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)