User talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2021

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

File:Hajji Gurbanguly Mosque (5731109280).jpg[edit]

File:Hajji Gurbanguly Mosque (5731109280).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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams[edit]

Category discussion warning

Diagrams 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch War Graves[edit]

I was about to process and upload 13 pics of Dutch War Graves (as signposted at the gates of Rice Lane Cemetery, Walton, Liverpool) as a subcat of Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones in Walton Park Cemetery, only to find you'd moved and redirected to War graves in the Netherlands. Try as I might (I'm tired) I cannot work out how to distinguish between Dutch War Graves (i.e. of Dutch servicepeople) in The Netherlands and those elsewhere, e.g. in the UK. Any thoughts? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: We haven't set anything up for that, as far as I can see. Canadian war graves overseas are at the awkwardly named Category:Canadian war graves outside Canada. You can follow that or start a CFD. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Template:NoFoP-Iceland[edit]

Template:NoFoP-Iceland 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 template, 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.

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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to unilateral category move[edit]

Good day, please see Category talk:Musicians from New Orleans. Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons![edit]

Dear Themightyquill

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings_by_surface[edit]

Category discussion warning

Paintings by surface 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

BriefEdits (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC[edit]

Hello Themightyquill,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:1953 in Tanzania[edit]

Did you forget to close the actual discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:1953 in Tanzania? I know you started it but there's really no objections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories related to Ireland[edit]

Hi! I have noticed that you are moving some categories related to Ireland. For example Category:Swimming pools in Ireland --> Category:Swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland.

I do not know if it was discussed somewhere or if you are just renaming the categories. But I do not think that the old categories were wrong.

The categories related to Ireland are (or were) categorized like this:

Same with all other categories like that.

Instead of renaming categories you could create the categories for "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" to complete the category tree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Yes, the discussion was here. You can see from the wikidata infoboxes that "Ireland" in this case is already referring to the Republic of Ireland, but the categories have been named in an ambiguous way. There are certain natural geographic and cultural categories that justify an "in Ireland" category (e.g. Category:Surnames from Ireland‎ or Category:Geology of Ireland‎), but sports venues are very clearly in either the RoI or in the UK. There's no need of an "in Ireland" category for basketball courts. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There is of course also the possibility that someone added the wikidata incorrect ;-) Anyway I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that there are categories for "Big Ireland". --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion. Diagrams[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams. Is your opinion from the previous discussion still the same concerning this version of Template:Diagrams (right now it is blank until this discussion is finished).

Please comment at the new "Categories for discussion" page. User:Royalbroil has the same opinion, and has said so at the new "Categories for discussion" page. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland / Republic of Ireland[edit]

Why do you persist in renaming "Ireland" categories as "Republic of Ireland" categories? You know by now that each RoI category has an automatic parent of "Ireland". You also know by now that each NI category has an automatic double parentage of "Ireland" and "UK". Please stop playing disruptive games. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Ireland. There's no reason to have an ambiguous "in Ireland" for something which is clearly in either N. Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That decision was just wrong. It flies in the face of how categories are organised in Wikipedia. I will start a new discussion to reverse the ill-conceived decision.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that decision may not be as clear cut as the citation above seems to imply. There is, for example, this discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Ireland. One of the contributors there states: "Yes in most cases there should be a "Foo in Ireland" containing "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo in Northern Ireland" ". This is certainly the correct position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: Please start a new discussion, and I'll hold off on any more deletions until it's resolved a second time. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the discussion but don't have time to fill it out. Will get back to it later. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific ship categories in Category:Categories by name (flat list)[edit]

I see that you added a number of individual ship categories, including Category:Lian (ship), to Category:Categories by name (flat list). I don't believe they belong there. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mistaken click on my part. Thanks for pointing it out! I think I've fixed it now. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've done similar things! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Auckland Museum[edit]

Hi there! I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Images from Auckland Museum - I believe that a consensus has been reached around wanting to split the category into two at this point. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if this discussion can be closed? (I'd create a category myself, but creating and populating a hidden category is a little beyond my abilities at this stage!). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you mass adding Category:Images from Auckland Museum when the consensus is to use a different category name? Please stop and finish the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Images from Auckland Museum before doing any more mass edits. Multichill (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Firstly, I don't think there was a clear consensus, except that people didn't care very much, and were okay with Auckland Museum. Second, the CFD has been stuck for over a year, and most people don't care about the category title, they just want the images split. Third, Category:Images from Auckland Museum is the existing category since 2017, not one I've created. They are going into the right place, whether or not it's named perfectly. I'm going to continue the mass copy. Once it's done, it's easy to rename the category and move the images if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eine Ziege für dich![edit]

Thanks for your support.

5snake5 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Ontario[edit]

Just a heads up. People aren't towns. Disambiguation pages should not have specific categories, just links to them. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Thanks for cleaning up after my mistakes! - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for you assistance sorting out the categorisation for "Images from Auckland Museum"! Much appreciated! Jetaynz (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont[edit]

Was there a consensus to move Category:Fremont, Seattle, Washington to Category:Fremont, Seattle? It goes against what we do for virtually every other neighborhood of Seattle (about 90 of them). - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: There was consensus to move it (Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Fremont, Washington) though I see now that your category was not tagged by the nominator, and I didn't look at the other neighbourhoods in Seattle before moving. Sorry for that. Seattle, Washington follows the pattern at en:Seattle, Washington. I can't imagine there are many "Neighborhood, City" combinations that exist in multiple states, so I find this existing pattern pretty weird, but if you want to move it back to Category:Fremont, Seattle, Washington, it's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, "Fremont, Washington" was someone's poor choice. It hasn't been a city of its own since Seattle annexed it in 1891.
It's not that it exists in multiple states. It's mostly that we settled on that pattern for Seattle neighborhoods early (like almost as soon as Commons categories were created). If you want to change all 90 categories, fine. Changing a small number of them seems like a really poor idea. Changing a small number of them and not leaving even a soft redirect from the one that fits the pattern of all the others seems like a terrible idea.
So which way would you rather go? Change 80+ other categories or change this one? Clearly the pattern should be consistent. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: It's a lot more than 80, because it's in about half the states in the US. It's usually consistent within each state, but not state to state. I've moved it back to Category:Fremont, Seattle, Washington for now. I'll have to decide if I want to nominate the whole Category:Neighbourhoods in the United States tree for discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I presume that would be Category:Neighborhoods in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of dyke march (americas)[edit]

You deleted category dyke march (americas) with a reasoning "topless women (americas)".

As far as I know there was never a DR or CfD for the dyke march (americas) category.

But why is the cat deleted with a topless category resoning? While some participants of dyke marches do go topless, 99% do not. You wouldn't delete a "pride parade" category with a "nude cat" reasoning? (or without a DR or CfD at all, for that matter)

--C.Suthorn (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

 - Dyke March
   + Dyke March by year ...
   + Dyke March (Americas)     <--- deleted!
     + Dyke March (Canada)
       - ...
       - ...
     + Dyke March (USA)
       - ...
       - ...
     + Sao Paulo
   + Dyke March (Europe)
     + Dyke March (Austria)
       - Vienna(2019)
       - (Vienna 2020 - no cat Covid)
       - Vienna (2021) - future
       - (Linz - no cat - no fotos yet)
     + Dyke March (Switzerland) (no cat - no fotos yet - covid)
       - Lesbendemo (Basel) (no cat no fotos yet)
       - Dykemarch Zürich (no cat - no fotos yet)
     + Dyke March (Germany)
       - Berlin
         - ...
       - Bremen
       - Braunschweig
       - Erfurt
       - Frankfurt
       - Oldenburg
       - Hamburg
         - ...
       - Heidelberg
       - Hannover (no fotos yet - covid)
       - Nürnberg
       - München
       - Köln
         - ...

Dyke Marches are traditionally held on the eve of a pride parade (but, espacially with covid, but also for other reasons a week or more before or after the pride parade or pride week, and often Dykes on Bikes do lead the march. The general motto of Dyke Marches is Lesbian Visibility (therefore the extra event complimantory to a pride parade) --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Suthorn: Thanks for your message. I'm well aware of what a Dyke March is and I certainly have no opposition to them or their inclusion on commons. I also didn't delete it with a "nude" reasoning. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "nude" reasoning for deleting a category. I deleted it for the same reason stated in Commons:Categories for discussion/20/08/Category:Topless women in the Americas, which is why I included that link in the edit summary. The toplessness parent category was also its only link to the "Americas" category tree. "The Americas" is a supercontinent, not a continent. There's no more reason to group Dyke Marches by "in the Americas" than there is to group them by "in Eurasia". You'll not that we don't have Category:Demonstrations and protests in the Americas in Category:Demonstrations and protests by continent‎ , or Category:Parades in the Americas in Category:Parades by continent or Category:LGBT in the Americas in Category:LGBT by continent. If you want to great categories for North America and South America (though preferably in the format Category:Dyke March in North America or possibly Category:Dyke Marches in North America or Category:Dyke marches in North America) that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am aware of Dyke Marches in the Americas (2x North Amnerica, 1x South America, 0x Middle America) and in Europe (DACH, while there may have been one in London, but do not have a link). While it would make sense to have cats for Africa, Asia, Australia-Oceania once there are a number or subcats, at the moment it does make most sense to have cats for the Americas and Europe. it does not matter to me if they are Uppercase or Lowercase. However it is not ok to delete a cat without DR, CfD or other notice before, and it is not ok to give a reasoning of topless. I have seen that a tree of cats has been deleted that match the criteria of topless, but the DMAcat does not. I do not even know, why it actually was a subcat of the topless cats. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creating Category:Dyke Marches by country would make a lot more sense than creating a "in the Americas" category which is totally unparalleled by anything similar. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a wiki. I created Americas and Europe cat, everyone can replace it with a by country cat, but deleting it (without DR, CfD, or telling before) does not. If I had tought by country would make sense I had done so. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated and nominated for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collections of Auckland Museum[edit]

I noticed that you added Category:Collections of Auckland Museum to Category:Auckland War Memorial Museum, but you also added Category:Auckland War Memorial Museum to Category:Collections of Auckland Museum. Why?--Kai3952 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai3952: By accident. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quadricycles category[edit]

I've added a comment to the Quadricycles category discussion.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed v Demolished[edit]

What should the category tree be like, thus? - Blackcat 10:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but all of the "Demolished X in Y" should be "Destroyed X in Y". It just takes a while to do them all manually. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Television channels from/in[edit]

I'm wondering why the discussion was closed and the categories were changed when, from what I can tell, there wasn't a consensus yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: You said, "On 'x of y from z', I don't have a problem with that." which I read as a compromise. We can go on arguing over in vs of, but the discussion has been open since 2018. If you're not opposed to of/from, why wouldn't we use that? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd be fine with it "but" and then I added a bunch of reasons I wasn't into it afterwards. Then when you asked me I was fine with "from" instead of "in" I clearly said no. So what if it's been open since 2018? That doesn't mean a discussion just gets to default to whatever a single person wants before there's actually a consensus. Ultimately I would have liked there to be more opinions. Since it's not really a consensus if only two people are involved in the discussion and they disagree with each other. That said, I guess it doesn't ultimately matter anyway since the whole thing is massively screwed up and that isn't going to change just because one category is changed. Still though, I would have liked more opinions. I was hoping the original participates would say what they thought. I'm pretty sure both are still active. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrouilleur & Renommeur[edit]

Bonjour Themightyquill, j'au malencontreusement perdu dans un déménagement le mot de passe de mon ancien compte User:Bohème et suis maintenant actif comme User:Bohème21. J'ai par conséquent perdu les statuts d'autopatrouilleur et de renommeur. Pourrais-tu s'il te plaît me les réattribuer ? Merci d'avance. Bien à toi. --Bohème21 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohème21: Je ne m'y oppose pas, mais je n'ai jamais fait ça auparavant. Pourriez-vous plutôt demander à Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ? Merci! - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bonsoir Themightyquill, merci bien de me mettre sur la bonne voie. Je m'y rend de suite. Au plaisir, --Bohème21 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake nyos.jpg[edit]

File:Lake nyos.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

De728631 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the template for a closed discussion[edit]

Dear Themightyquill, I saw that you changed the template for the archive of the discussion in at least two Discussion pages to {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country}}. Thanks! This is more clear an easier. But I followed the manual on Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion, point 5. If there has been a change, shouldn't this be changed as well in this manual? JopkeB (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be. Sometime last year (I think?), I followed someone else's lead in shifting toward just posting the whole discussion on talk pages. Our talk pages are so little used, that posting the full discussion doesn't clutter anything up, and it's easier than requiring a second click to read the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I left a question on the Talk page of Commons:Categories for discussion about this matter. JopkeB (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/09/Category:People of the Hyderabad State[edit]

Why not redirect them? I don't see how deleting helps anything as people will still be searching for them and Hotcat automatically corrects it if you use the old name.

Note that I don't disagree with the renaming, I just don't understand why the old names have to be deleted as it isn't an incorrect form, just a less commonly used form. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an incorrect form? Leaving redirects can also encourage people to use the same form, and confuse people when trying to find a similar category. If we were to leave redirects, I would suggest only doing it from Category:The Hyderabad State but not from every potential sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Excellent work with Commons:Categories for discussion!--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of really deep sub-cats[edit]

First of all, since I return to commons, I see that mobile site does not even display the categories and the desktop needs an option toggled (not on by default) for the cats to be seen. So, it is a low priority for the "Powers that be", as clearly shown in the configuration.

I like them because they are an instant nice looking and well constructed web page for whatever subject they are containing, allowing the editor to go and do whatever they were doing on other wiki's that require more interaction.

The constant subcatting of things destroys that usefulness of this low priority item. I saw where one needs to go to Works of-->Publications of-->Books of And I realized that the justification I used to restore the magazine parts of my bibliography is the kind of thing that creates that. We have cats now where the author area is filled with photos of buildings named after them, and statues but to get to their actual works, one needs to go two or three cats away. What ever logic can there really be for this or how can this ever be considered logical? Logistics is the method of getting from one thing to another, btw. A vulgar definition but mostly correct.

I am without an idea or even a guess for the answer to my next two questions and would like to know the answer.

  1. What is the purpose of moving the important things farther and farther away from what makes the subject important?
  2. What reason is there that an item cannot be in the cat and the subcat? Like maybe "Books of" is important to you. But I like having an instant bibliography at the artists cat. What is the actual reason that the item cannot be in both?

And a personal question. Is there so little for an administrator to do that they must spend their time on such a low priority thing as cats? Did you not see the instant bibliography that was there and can you find this anywhere else in the wiki universe? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An example of good catting, if you are in need of a productive task Revision #610748081 --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am just going to undo everything that you did. I have questions but not hard feelings. If that sub-catting was important to you, do add it (unless there is a reason (a logic) and not a tradition for not doing that). Bad policy goes away when adherence to it is not enforced. Not only have other administrators here not enforced these bad policies, but they have aided me in ignoring them.

There is this weird thing at wikidata, I mention it here because it is similar. Wikiprojects get pushed down on the data chain, while outside projects are free to be where ever. No policy for outsiders. It keeps the wikiprojects from being more than just a bunch of articles. Books in particular. Gutenberg versions can be at the first mention of the publication but wiki books need to be a version. I am sure this is happening in some way in all subjects. The software has the capacity to be more than just a collection of articles. If the policy prevents that then it is a bad policy.

Good policy protects good contributions from bad and promotes positive evolution. Check out almost any author at en.wiki (maybe the problem exists on other languaged wikis, I don't know). It is like a personal web site for gutenberg. I like gutenberg, I have contributed there and plan to continue this. I have no problem sharing the wiki stuff with gutenberg, but policy is preventing equality by keeping the wikiprojects down.

So, please, no hard feelings. If those cats are important to you, add them, don't remove mine. Instant chronological bibliography of the stuff that is here! How can that be wrong?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for your explanation. No hard feelings, but I do disagree. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Books illustrated by Arthur Rackham, as well as COM:OVERCAT and COM:OWN. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not so good with direct communication, I see. The chance to educate (explain the logic) me, or to keep your tree and mine is not an option? I kept works about Rackham in a separate cat. Those were almost all containing illustrations. And there are articles that he wrote and illustrated, where to put those and not have them in two cats? I think it is cool to have subcats, like "works about" and maybe even "illustrated while living in" if he had moved his residence.
Mostly, I am here to thank you, as I found something that I had not seen yet.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: Sometimes it's helpful to have a discussion with more than the two people involved. If I wanted to avoid communication, I would have restored my edits instead of responding with words. Firstly, I'm not sure a book that collects the various illustrations by an artist together counts as a book illustrated by the author. For instance, I wouldn't say a biography of Van Gogh that features some of his paintings was "illustrated by Van Gogh", even if it has illustrations by Van Gogh. Second, there's no problem in having books in two categories, just not (per Commons:OVERCAT) in a parent and child category. Third, I'm glad you found something new. There also seems to be some real overlap in images since multiple editions of peter pan in kensington gardens re-used his illustrations. I'm not sure how to handle that. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just subcat them. Weird that the policy-makers would not include the person who did more than 90% of the catting and the content. I don't own them, I contributed them. This is not a discussion of ownership, it is a discussion of logistics and presentation.
Now I have another question. What sort of policy is there about making policy and not including the main contributor? Is a slap preferable to a conversation?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to bring that up at COM:Village pump. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

purpose, and lack of real purpose[edit]

I used a word yesterday. I was uncertain what the actual definition of the word was, but gave in my own words what I thought it meant and also, the reason I was using it. I asked you what the reason you moved that cat around and you pasted a link. I think that if you cannot express in your own words what the purpose of something is, you should not be using it to interfere with something that is functional.

I have eh, I forget the word... when you take a machine apart and figure out how they made it. I think the word engineer is a part of what I am not remembering. But I have some inkling as to what caused those policies. My inkling comes from the images that I encountered that were imported from en.wiki that had more cats than images. Stupid cats (stupid meaning "non-useful" and even sometimes "racist" or "chauvinistic" cats. (Later: reverse-engineering!)

label maker

Another understanding is something in me. There was an animation in the 1990s about a psychai... shrink. The shrink had a secretary and a son. In one episode, the secretary got a label gun and she spent the next few days typing out labels for everything. She made that claim, also "I can label everything". The son said "No you can't" she said "Yes I can" and put the label "No" on his forehead. I saw that long before wiki was made, but I recognized myself in it. So, those policies are a cautionary thing for me, to not over-label. I blame this tendency of mine on the position of the stars and planets when I was born, further caution for me and something that I can look at and understand and apply. I suspect that all of the label makers have the sun in this one place or in strong aspect to that place. I also have suspicions about the people who blindly paste links to policy and their sun position.

I watched all of the women elected to congress cease being congress and become "women congress" so that if you looked at that cat for who was in the congress of that area, you would see only men. "Women congress" is interesting and useful, but it is a subset of the main cat and to not have them in both is chauvinistic and a de-evolution all due to a policy.

I went to the category for Lincoln, looking to see if we had a copy of a scan of a speech that had been referenced in something that I was transcribing at source. I couldn't find it because I did not know the date. All of the speeches had been subcatted by date here. Whatever made those policies, it wasn't that someone was catting Lincoln's speeches in eh, Lincoln's speeches. The need to subcat them only into date cats so they can go neatly into date trees is artificial. That policy is there to prevent something wrong but not that. I begged that the speech get subcatted into at least two cats, never just one, because I knew the location of the speech, just not the date. Like June or November. This is a "use case", not a link paste. Again, I ask, what is the reason that all of Lincolns speeches cannot be in one main cat and then subcatted as interesting and useful?

I am asking that if you cannot express the purpose of a policy in your own words, not to enforce it. I am certain that there are examples here of what the policy is meant to prevent, just none where I have been working. Use policy to prevent a mess, don't use policy to mess things up. Thanks for your time and I am sorry about your mindless link pasting.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your request. I am perfectly capable of expressing the policies in my own words, but why bother, when it is already written. I have better things to do. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture by country & century[edit]

Yo Mighty Quill, taking into account your contributions related to architectural chronology, I feel obligated to inform you about several recent changes which I make:

Result is that when you open this, this or this (...) there's no more tens of buildings and elements under different/arbitrary keys, now all is under buildings, architectural elements, sometimes also structures and fortifications.

Another thing: at the moment only Spain has totally organized buildings by century (most cats already existed, I just filled them), but IMHO other countries may soon follow that system. If you have any objections to some particular cat, just inform me. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: Looks great! -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I edited it even more, by this & this, this & this, this & this, all interconnected with geographic and chronological templates. Now when you open 17th-century architecture in Spain, 18th-c, 19th-c and so on, you get: decades, two metacats for cities and regions, and B for bridges and buildings, D for dams (all three can be put under structures, but OK), and E for architectural elements. Later it can also be L for landscape architecture, and that's basically it.
It's so simple, compacted and natural that it's hard to explain the mess which existed before. You can compare equivalent categories of France, Germany and Russia, and see the difference. Anyway, just remember that Spain can be a good role model for other countries, that's it. Take care. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:All other remains at Mohenjo-daro[edit]

The Cultural heritage monuments in Pakistan are what I really care about. That one is listed on List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh as "All other remains at Mohenjo-daro", SD 43. So please be careful about this one and also those in the other provinces. I worked really hard on these! Krok6kola (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that's reasonable, I guess. Not usually how we do it, but it makes sense to match with that list. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krok6kola (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Pakistan is that there is no external source for those lists (that I could find at the time), unlike other countries. Pakistan has a huge number of potential World Heritage Sites (I forget the technical term) that it is struggling to protect and get certified. Somewhere on the Commons there is a list of them, more than any other country. Krok6kola (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Pakistan Krok6kola (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Tentative List for future World Heritage Sites and Category:Tentative List for future World Heritage Sites in Pakistan to see. Krok6kola (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Is there any consensus on Commons for dividing all existing categories of China to PRC and Taiwan? There's one user who is insisting of excluding "China" from Module:Countries/Asia i.e. replacing it with PRC, and even opened Buildings in the People's Republic of China & Architecture of the People's Republic of China, with one-two files (so I redirected it both). IMHO that's truly an organizational nightmare. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: No consensus. I've intentionally stayed out of it. I think it would need to be decided at the Com:Village pump. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already left message on Category talk:People's Republic of China and if it's one-man-show indeed, then I'll ask him to restore previous situation. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely that anyone else but the creator will notice an edit on a talk page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put it at the village pump. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malot Temple[edit]

Hello,

Regarding Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Malot Temple, I believe I dealt with it. If you agree, you can close the discussion. I think I did what was best. Krok6kola (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources claimed for duplicate image[edit]

Hi! I found that

are duplicates, sharing the same resolution (1200x800 pixels), and looking the same. Both pages claim "own work", which could indicate that both accounts are aliases for a single real-world person.

Since I'm not sure if this conclusion is of any importance, I forward it to you, hoping you know what (if anything) to do about it. Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abu Hamza al-Masri.jpg[edit]

Hello, I have nominated this image for deletion but I don't think that the reason I nominated this image for deletion was right, so I decided to delete my nomination but the wikimedia commons refuses to let me delete It because It sees It as blanking and unconstructive edit. so can you help me? Kiro Bassem (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now since you renamed this image you will really have to delete this one File:Abu Hamza al-Masri ITN.jpg, It's useless now. Kiro Bassem (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Themightyquill/Archives/2021&oldid=620906441"