User talk:DanielPenfield/Archives/2020

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

File:Desenfoque (141668967).jpeg

[edit]

Hi, when you edited this page it showed up with the tag "undo" with the summary undo unhelpful categorization. Except it wasn't an undo? I'm not sure why you made that summary, since you added two more specific categories, rather than restored the original category. epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving images into already-overcrowded categories is not helpful--see Commons:Categories#Modularity principle. In other words, for the edits you mention above, I believe you would benefit from feedback so that you can improve your categorization techniques in ways that uphold the principles set forth in Commons:Categories#Principles. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, now I understand the reason for the undo. I was unsure of the categories for these two images (I thought the first one was a model of the Manhattan skyline, not a skyline itself, and I didn't recognize the second). That's why I moved it to the generic parent category. epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point--I have added Category:Tilt-shift miniature faking to the image. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pier 1, or Pier I?

[edit]

I don't really think the pier on the Upper West Side at 70th Street in Manhatan is named "Category:Pier 1 (Manhattan)." In fact I've seen enough evidence to indicate that it's actually "Pier I" (as in the letter "I"). Therefore the category should be renamed. ----DanTD (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ueno Park in 2014

[edit]

2 questions/comments: (1) for a place, don't we usually name these along the lines of Category:2014 in Ueno Park instead? Or is this inconsistent, and I just happen to work mostly in a few regions where we go that way? (2) You have a nonexistent parent category Category:Parks in 2014. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: 1) My observation is that it depends on the size of the place. If it's "big enough", then it's Category:2014 in Continent/Country/Region/Province/State/City. If it's "small enough", then it's Category:Site in 2014. See for example Category:Washington Monument in 1884, Category:Central Park in 2020, Category:Brooklyn Bridge in the 2000s, Category:Times Square in the 2010s. This is similar to the distinction between countries and cities in the Romance Languages (e.g., Je voyage en France/Je voyage à Marseille, Viaggio in Italia/Viaggio a Firenze, Viajo en España/Viajo a Barcelona). 2) Can you be patient? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. OK. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by year

[edit]

Before quoting Commons:OVERCAT, please learn that moving files of places and buildings to categories by year and removing the parent category is not proper categorization, per Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused_categories, as besides the year, it should shown what is depicted. Tm (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tm: You are more than free to do just that. I am not preventing you from subcategorizing anything. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing the parent category and, in effect hidden uncategorized images, so you are really preventing anyone from moving to proper categories. It is not bad to create categories by year, as what is bad is removing any chance of someone moving this files to subcatgories like i did here. Tm (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm:
Your claim My response
You are removing the parent category and, in effect hidden uncategorized images Where is this alleged hiding? Your edit contains the exact same categories--name for name, hidden or otherwise--as mine does with the exception of the COM:OVERCATted Category:Ueno Park. Are you falsely assuming that because you personally can't be bothered to look in Category:Ueno Park in 2019, therefore nobody else can be bothered either? Isn't that both presumptuous and arrogant?
what is bad is removing any chance of someone moving this files to subcatgories Histrionics aside, your accusation is a patent falsehood. Nobody is "hiding" anything. Moving an image to a more specific category is exactly what fulfills the goal set forth in COM:Categories#Modularity principle. Furthermore, if you truly were interested in proper categorization, Category:Ueno Park wouldn't have contained 165 images (as it did when I started) or contain now, as of this writing, 148 images. You and everyone else has had all the chance in the world to diffuse this category for years to your personal tastes and yet you haven't. And the minute someone else rises to the occasion, you're pretending that doing so would prevent anybody and everybody from the God-given right that they (and you) haven't exercised and won't exercise. That's right, I expect this category to be just as crowded 10, 20, 30 years or more into the future.
like i did here Yes, you were able to categorize exactly two images ( [1] and [2]). The remaining 148 that you couldn't--or wouldn't--move to more specific categories more than demonstrates that nobody cares enough the massive uploads of images from Panoramio, Flickr, 500px, etc., etc. to actually take the effort to categorize them. That's right, the very images you seem to want to defend from being "hidden" (your definition of "hidden" being not stuffed into the top level category with hundreds of other images from Panoramio, Flickr, 500px, etc., etc. as the images aren't actually hidden from anybody) will still be in the same spot 10, 20, 30 or more years from now, despite you "saving the day" from the "tragedy" of moving these long-neglected images into "by year" categories.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused_categories is pretty clear. By year does not replace location categories, and even if i moved just two images, there were two more than you, just saying. Tm (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim My response
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused_categories is pretty clear. By year does not replace location categories If you truly believed the spirit of that discussion, you would immediately "rescue" all of the images you ignored for years by subcategorizing them further, sparing no expense. And yet, you've managed to do a grand total of two. Two. I can't imagine a better way to demonstrate that preventing your alleged "tragedy of hiding" isn't really that important to you. It will be all the more laughable in ten years at which point it will be clear that you haven't returned to carry out the mission you wanted me to believe is so critical.
and even if i moved just two images, there were two more than you, just saying. You don't seem to quite understand that I don't really believe your claim that moving images into a "by year" subcategory forces a hardship on the thousands of editors clamoring to categorize the long-neglected images in Category:Ueno Park (who apparently are also too lazy to descend into the "by year" categories at least according to you).
Failed to respond from above
You are removing the parent category and, in effect hidden uncategorized images		 So, you're not even going to try to defend your slanderous accusation?
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just quote Commons:Overcat:
"The categories (or galleries) you choose for your uploads should answer as many as possible of the following questions:
what? / whom?: what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image? For instance Category:Automobiles, Category:Felis silvestris catus or Category:Jimmy Wales
where?: where was the image taken? What is the location of the subject? What is the location of the camera? This is especially important for pictures of places. E.g. Category:Basin Street, New Orleans
also use {{Location}}
when?: when did the depicted events happen, or when was the image created? When was the image taken? This is especially important for historical images. An example would be Category:Warsaw in September 1939, Category:April 2010 in Northern Ireland"
Enough said. You can create categories to when, but dont move files from where to when. Tm (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim My response
Enough said. Not only does your quote fail to support your demand, it's actually from COM:Categories#Categorization tips which is two sections above COM:OVERCAT
You can create categories to when, but dont move files from where to when. You don't actually have the authority to make demands in what is ostensibly a volunteer project. If you want this outcome, you will have to take responsibility for it yourself. The fact that you've been able to subcategorize a grand total of nine images from Category:Ueno Park in over 36 hours now plus the fact that you're now making a demand tells me that you're starting to realize that this requirement that you yourself imposed is a) labor intensive and b) worth the effort really for only the best images (99% of photographs contributed to Commons being from photographers who can't seem to hold their cameras still, can't seem to hold their cameras level, can't seem to shoot in optimal lighting conditions and in a way that minimizes shadows, can't seem to be able to remove obvious obstacles obscuring their subject, seem oblivious to the concept of subject isolation, or more fundamentally seem to be completely unable to ask themselves why they're shooting the subject that they end up shooting).
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation of a new crime

[edit]
  • "…photographers who can't seem to hold their cameras still…" You've done this to many old Seattle images by professional photographers, and it seems to me to be a problem for exactly the same reasons raised by Tm. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Another vague claim that is unsupported. If you can't be bothered to provide multiple examples that demonstrate your claim, I am going to assume this is yet another baseless slander. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielPenfield: You mean like you demonstrated that "99% of photographs contributed to Commons being from photographers who can't seem to hold their cameras still…": nothing at all like a "baseless slander," I suppose? Sorry, I'm not interested in providing detailed evidence for someone who feels free to shoot from the hip while demanding I work with the precision of a surgeon. -- Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:
Your claim My response
You've done this to many old Seattle images by professional photographers OK, if I make the following substitutions:
  • "many" → "exactly one"
  • "Seattle" → "Kansas City"

I arrive at [3].

and it seems to me to be a problem for exactly the same reasons raised by Tm. Under the criminal theory advanced in [4], it's a "crime of hiding" to move image A.jpg from Category:B to Category:B in YYYY without simultaneously assigning it a subcategory of Category:B. In order for your new criminal complaint to actually constitute a "crime", you'd have to advance the theory that simply placing A.jpg into Category:B in YYYY is a crime even if A.jpg never started in Category:B to begin with and regardless of whether you added multiple other categories in the same edit or edits with which you placed A.jpg into Category:B in YYYY. In other words, you're attempting to broaden the definition of what constitutes the "crime of hiding" set forth in the original allegation/slander. Compare for example [5] versus [6].
(Absence of any links whatsoever to back up false accusation) Let me point out that not only have you failed and continue to fail to provide links to support your accusation, you apparently took the liberty of changing both the details of both quantity and place to make it difficult for anyone else to verify your accusation or demonstrate that your accusation is false.
You mean like you demonstrated that "99% of photographs contributed to Commons being from photographers who can't seem to hold their cameras still…": nothing at all like a "baseless slander," I suppose? The problem with your counterclaim is that it's just so easy to find images that aren't worth wasting one's time to categorize. Examples from Category:Ueno Park include:

Blurry

Camera not level

Obscured subject

Clipped subject

Abysmal subject isolation and lighting conditions

  • Haze/smoke in upper left-hand corner?
    Haze/smoke in upper left-hand corner?

Inclusion of distracting elements

Too much sky

What is the subject?

Simultaneously overexposed and underexposed

Images with that appear to be COM:DW and are therefore not something Commons can host

Sorry, I'm not interested in providing detailed evidence for someone who feels free to shoot from the hip while demanding I work with the precision of a surgeon. You leveled an accusation. Accusations require proof. Readers who would like to verify for themselves that you leveled a false accusation (namely "You've done this to many old Seattle images by professional photographers, and it seems to me to be a problem for exactly the same reasons raised by Tm") are invited to review my last 120 contributions at the time you leveled your false claim: [7]. (I'm guessing that the edit that serves as the basis for the false claim is [8]). Alternately they can review the entirety of my contributions at Special:Contributions/DanielPenfield to find this "crime of hiding" which you allege (and for which you refuse to provide proof).
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the original accusation

[edit]
COM:Categories#Categorization tips is pretty clear, and it is you that "fail to support your demand", not me. And saying "You don't actually have the authority to make demands in what is ostensibly a volunteer project." is really funny and surreal when a few days before you demanded that "If you truly believed the spirit of that discussion, you would immediately "rescue" all of the images you ignored for years by subcategorizing them further, sparing no expense.". Dont see the double standard that you demand from others, what others dont demand from you. Also, refuse to listen to other people with the same complaint, but instead accusing said others of slander, without proofs is pretty ironic and will close any venue of reasonable discussion. Tm (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CfD: College athletics programs

[edit]

Hi, I have started a discussion to rename a large collection of categories, one or more of which you may have created or edited. Please see the discussion thread at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/College athletics programs for details. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I undid part of some of your recent changes

[edit]

You replaced the metacat template with the catcat template on the following categories:

However, these are indeed metacategories, so I put the metacat template back. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: The {{CatCat}} vs. {{MetaCat}} looks like the proverbial distinction without a difference. Also, using metacat instead of MetaCat results in a redirection. Why wouldn't you use {{MetaCat}} directly? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between {{CatCat}} and {{MetaCat}} is that the subcats in a metacat are grouped by a specified criterion/topic. The ones I changed are examples of that. Categories that use catcat should contain only categories, but for a different reason. Examples of this type of category are Category:People by name and Category:Categories of France. (Note that categories that specify "by name" -- as well as certain other criteria -- can be metacats or not, depending on how they're used. I can explain further if you want.) --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe precisely in what way {{MetaCat}} is "meta"? It appears to me to be closer to a GROUP BY of images by some criterion other than image name. It also fails the analogy "if metadata are data about data, then metacategories are categories about categories". Even COM:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION avoids the use of "meta". In other words, I suspect the template is difficult to use because it's poorly named to begin with. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as using the redirect, redirects are often used. You're welcome to use them or not, as you choose. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me fix that for you: You're welcome to use them or not, as you choose until some aggrieved editor who is used to getting his or her own way 100% of the time complains that you're forcing him or her to wait an additional X microseconds by using the redirect at which point you're no longer welcome. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People wearing gas masks in %COUNTRY_NAME% vs. Gas masks of %COUNTRY_NAME%

[edit]

Hello, I noticed you created a bunch of categories yesterday. Thanks for the Category:People wearing gas masks in the United States and its subcategories, those are all very useful to manage hundreds of similar pics from the US DoD!

However, I would advise against including the created categories in Category:Gas masks of %COUNTRY_NAME%, consider Category:People wearing gas masks in Kuwait: not a single pic currently included in it features a gas mask of any local force, hence I removed the non-existent category. Do you think you could check all your categories and fix that everywhere?

P.S. I have no idea whether this photo was made in Poland or Romania, but probably not both ;-) Ain92 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, somebody used the false equivalence that 
Category:Gas masks of {{COUNTRYNAME}}
is somehow the same as 
Category:Gas masks from {{COUNTRYNAME}}
. Great. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my understanding, both gas masks produced in a country (whether designed there, produced under a license or even made as a knockoff) and gas masks used in country's military are gas masks of this country. However, both have little to no (depending on the country in question) relation to gas masks actually worn by people in that country.
  • On the one hand, most countries in the world produce no gas masks and don't upload photos of gas masks (or any other equipment) of their military and security services to Commons. That's why most photos we have on Commons from those countries are photos of US military wearing US gas masks.
  • On the other hand, most countries in Europe, quite to the contrary, either produce gas masks or at least have designated a foreign mask for their military (e.g. CAT:ARF-A gas masks in Portuguese service).
  • But no country exists in which people don't wear foreign masks at all: even from Russia, where there's a cheap supply of local masks, and only them are used by the military, police, security services and EMERCOM, we have photos of (much more expensive) foreign masks worn by civilians. Ain92 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using your categories shouldn't require a whole research activity. 
Category:Gas masks in {{COUNTRYNAME}}
means literally "located in". 
Category:Gas masks from {{COUNTRYNAME}}
means literally "originating from". 
Category:Gas masks of {{COUNTRYNAME}}
means literally "related to in some way" and likely is the parent of both 
Category:Gas masks in {{COUNTRYNAME}}
and 
Category:Gas masks from {{COUNTRYNAME}}
. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment
Your claim My response
We currently categorize no military equipment with "from" (perhaps for a reason, although I've never investigated why) Likely the first person to create a gas masks category used "of" because that was what came to mind first and everyone else simply followed suit.
The current consensus in prepositions usage is that, e. g., Category:Soldiers in France is not related to Category:Soldiers of France in any way. And yet Category:People in France is a subcategory of Category:People of France, as is Category:People in China/Category:People of China, as is Category:People in India/Category:People of India, as is Category:People in the United States/Category:People of the United States, as is Category:People in Brazil/Category:People of Brazil, etc., etc.
The current consensus in prepositions usage is that, e. g., Category:Soldiers in France is not related to Category:Soldiers of France in any way. If this consensus exists explicitly, where is it written down? If it's not written down, it's more likely that the categorical relationships are the result of piecemeal editing, not deliberate design.
If you want to create "Gas masks in %COUNTRYNAME%" categories so much, you don't need to rename anything for that, just build that system independently of the current one (there is actually quite old Category:Gas masks in London, but it's the only exception AFAIK). True, but irrelevant to the discussion of how inaccurately "Category:Gas masks of ZZZ" categories are named.
Also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Soldiers by country of location – some Commons users even want to get rid of in—of distinction! Yes, if you define "some" as "exactly one, but two want to keep Category:Soldiers by country of location as is".
And some degree of research is needed Ideally, no degree of research should be needed. And yet, you chose a subcategory name that requires effort to figure out that to you, "of" means "from" only.
if we need to identify gas masks so that they could illustrate Wikipedia articles and not just to populate categories Commons images are not restricted to Wikipedia—see COM:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. It is both self-centered and self-serving to require visitors to be power-users able to discern nuance in category names.
(Complete and utter silence on the most obvious failure of the current naming) The only way to know presently that Category:Gas masks of the United States really means "Gas masks from the United States" is to examine all 77 images (as of this writing). How does User:Ain92's false equivalence work when there are 777 images in Category:Gas masks of the United States? What about 7777?
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First of all, I have to note that I strongly disagree with your understanding of what is usually meant by "from". Most people would never call a gas mask from France in Portuguese military service a mask from Portugal, thus "of" currently doesn't mean "from".
  2. "[E]veryone else simply followed suit" — that's exactly what's called consensus in our terminology (we even have flowcharts in Category:Consensus explaining that).
  3. "[T]he most obvious failure of the current naming" I, unfortunately, struggle to understand, that's why I was silent. =( If a new user doesn't understand some principles of categorization (which happens all the time because they, to be fair, often leave something to be desired), that user may ask questions at the help desk. Ain92 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim My response
First of all, I have to note that I strongly disagree with your understanding of what is usually meant by "from". Most people would never call a gas mask from France in Portuguese military service a mask from Portugal, thus "of" currently doesn't mean "from". And yet the subcategories of Category:Earthenware by country of location are Category:Earthenware in Australia, Category:Earthenware in Bangladesh, etc. and the subcategories of Category:Earthenware by country of origin are Category:Earthenware from Chile, Category:Earthenware from France, etc.. Same with Category:Drawings by country of location and Category:Drawings by country of origin, etc.
thus "of" currently doesn't mean "from". This directly contradicts your statement above that "both gas masks produced in a country (whether designed there, produced under a license or even made as a knockoff) and gas masks used in country's military are gas masks of this country"
Most people would never call a gas mask from France in Portuguese military service a mask from Portugal, thus "of" currently doesn't mean "from". You used the "from" and "in" prepositions yourself in your description. The intersection of "Gas masks by country of location" and "Gas masks by country of origin" is likely, for example, "Gas masks from France in Portugal", but there are other possibilities that don't require the visitor to read User:Ain92's mind to use properly.
"[E]veryone else simply followed suit" — that's exactly what's called consensus in our terminology (we even have flowcharts in Category:Consensus explaining that). No, consensus connotes the result of a prior discussion as is depicted (not "explained" as you state) in the first step of File:Consensus flow chart.svg. I assume that since you dodged the question you admit that there was no explicit discussion and therefore no "consensus".
If a new user doesn't understand some principles of categorization (which happens all the time because they, to be fair, often leave something to be desired), that user may ask questions at the help desk. Yes, you could require visitors to endure all manner of somersaults, handsprings, and other acrobatics just to find the images they want, or you could just as easily choose to name categories accurately.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have no idea what's the convention in earthenware categories, I don't edit in this topic at all. Within military equipment one could expect some consistency, but across all Commons… Anyway, I'ld rather avoid far-fetched analogies of this kind whenever possible, taking into account w:WP:OTHERCONTENT and w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  2. We don't know where photos currently in Category:ARF-A gas masks in Portuguese service were made, it's specified nowhere and Trudent Junction 2015 MILEX took place in four countries (Portugal, Spain, France and Italy). "In Portuguese service" in no way means "in Portugal", since militaries get deployed in various locations outside home country, of which the US military is the best example.
  3. Your thesis is plain wrong, see w:WP:Silence and consensus (that's why the flow chart you linked found practically no use BTW).
  4. Your proposal is no more accurate than the current, but rather vice versa, which is best shown by the aforementioned example with French masks in Portuguese service somewhere outside Portugal. Ain92 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COM:ANV

[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at COM:ANV#DanielPenfield. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Kai3952 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Remote views of Ellis Island

[edit]

Why have you been removing Category:Remote views of Ellis Island from numerous photos of mine? Your edit summary "correct cat" is not illuminating: all it does is convey that for some unspecified reason you disagree with the category. - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Note that "numerous" means "exactly five" here. What is your definition of a "remote view"? In the absence of a written definition, I applied the "reasonable person" standard ("Would a reasonable person looking for a remote view of Ellis Island agree that these are 'remote' views?"). See for yourself:
Photos that I believe a reasonable person would not find "remote" and therefore I removed Category:Remote views of Ellis Island:
    • Photos that I believe a reasonable person would find "remote" and therefore I left them in Category:Remote views of Ellis Island as they were:

      • -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ellis Island 02A (9437374282).jpg doesn't seem any more or less remote than File:Ellis Island (hospital buildings) 03 (9437384990).jpg. I personally have a rule of thumb of not removing categories added by other experienced users -- especially to their own photos -- unless it is to further refine the category. Saves a lot of edit warring. I'm not going to revert you, but I think this is a bad way to do things. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Graves in <country> by name categories

      [edit]

      FYI, I just changed the metacat template in all these categories to the catcat template. The reason is that these are not metacategories. If they were, the subcategories would have names like "Graves in <country> of people named Robert Andrews".

      The "by name" categories can be confusing because they are used in two different ways, and one of those ways is as metacats where the other is not. For an example of a "by name" category that is a metacat, see Category:Hotels by name. Each subcategory there is for any and all hotels that have the specified name. An example is Category:Hotels named Central. The subcategories in the graves categories are each for only one specific person, so they are not metacategories. If you would like more information on this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States 2020 – Last day to enter!

      [edit]
      This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.
      Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2020}} to your userpage!
      Wiki Loves Monuments logo
      Wiki Loves Monuments logo

      Hi there! Kevin from Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States here. I know it's been a tough year for everyone, and I hope this message finds you well.

      You are receiving this message as a participant in last year's Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in the United States. First, a recap: We concluded with over 5,200 great photos of U.S. historical sites made possible by contributors like you. If you haven't yet seen, last year's U.S. winners are viewable here, and the international winners here (including multiple from the United States!).

      Second, as you may have seen from the banner notices on Wikipedia, this year's Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the United States has been running through October instead of September in consideration of the pandemic and the hectic start of the fall season. Despite the challenges of the year, we're thrilled that the United States has surpassed 5,000 photo contributions so far.

      October 31st is the last day to upload photos for the U.S. competition this year. If you've already contributed, thank you so much - and it's great to have you again this year! If you haven't yet contributed but are interested in participating again, you're invited to join us during these last couple days. Check out the United States event page for more information. Remember that you are welcome to upload and submit photos of historic sites that you've taken any time in the past, not just this month.

      As always, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020! Please help with this survey

      [edit]
      Wiki Loves Monuments logo
      Wiki Loves Monuments logo

      Dear DanielPenfield,

      Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.

      You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.

      Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.

      Kind regards,
      the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

      Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanielPenfield/Archives/2020&oldid=846932977"