User talk:Hdamm/Archives/2014/October

Mrigadayavan Palace

Hi. I just saw that you renamed Category:Mrigadayavan Palace. AFAIK the old name was correct according to Commons policy ("Category names should generally be in English"). Anyway, the new name is clearly incorrect. "Ratchawang" isn't a word in Thai. There's only wang (วัง) and phra ratchawang (พระราชวัง), and this palace in particular isn't referred to by either of those terms. It's known in Thai as พระราชนิเวศน์มฤคทายวัน, which is Phra Ratchaniwet Maruekkhathayawan according to the RTGS. But nobody calls it as such in English. The preferred name is simply "Mrigadayavan Palace". Please consider reverting the change, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Though I don't really know, what exactly you are talking about (why isn't "Ratchawang" a word in Thai - oh well, its the transcription of ราชวัง), I agree, that I treated the transcription of the original Cultural Heritage page of Thai Fine Art Department a bit too lightly. So I changed the name to Category:Phra Ratchaniwet Maruek Thayawan - I hope that's ok with you? BTW, I put a category redirect into the former Category:Mrigadayavan Palace, do you can find the new name more easily.

Regards --hdamm (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the transcription's still incorrect. If you insist on using RTGS, it should be Category:Phra Ratchaniwet Maruekkhathayawan. Since the name is composed of Pali/Sanskrit roots, there's an implied -a between the stems. (I personally still prefer Mrigadayavan Palace, though, since it seems to be used most often in official sources like this sign,[1] though there really isn't much consistency.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling. Let me think about the RTGS vs official spelling thing. I might start a discussion later. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. --hdamm (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Cat:Districts of Thailand

Hi again hdamm! Whenever I create a district category, I always it in both the province category as well as in Category:Districts of Thailand. I know that the province category is also a subcategory of "districts of Thailand" and therefore this would technically be COM:OVERCAT. The reason why I do this, is because this way there will be a complete overview of all district names on one category page. One could of course create Category:Districts of Thailand by name but this would lead to yet another layer. What do you think? Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I also try to put a district into both province and "districts of Thailand" categories (sorry that I forgot it in some cases). But there are more than 800 districts in Thailand. How you think that creating a "Category:Districts of Thailand by name" leads to a clearer arrangement?

I also think, that a certain amount of OVERCAT isn't disadvantageous, when it leads to better clarity.

Greetings --hdamm (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I thought that you didn't agree with this overcat system when I discovered a set that hadn't been categorised this way... ;-) That is why I suggested to introduce "Category:Districts of Thailand by name" as to avoid overcat and still have all districts in one category. Regards, Takeaway (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, its not that I disagree. Its only that I cannot exactly imagine what's in your mind. --hdamm (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the present system so all is fine. It's just that because you had forgotten to apply the dual categorisation with a set of districts, that I thought that you didn't agree with the systematic overcat. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

;-) hdamm (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

สก 956 นนทบุรี

Concerning this: I’m not going to enter an edit war, and I’m trying to assume good faith, but plese explain the following:

• I had restored Category:Calendars in Thailand and explained that «What’s about "Category:Calendars in Thailand" should be dissiminated into "Category:2555 (Thai Calendar)", when it exists.» Yet your reply, as you removed this category a 2nd time, was that «a license plate has nothing to do with calendars». This nōn sequitur: The number "2555" is on the windshield sticker, not on the license plate, and Category:Calendars in Thailand is indeed currently the best way to categorize the date on this windshield sticker — as we lack a more detailed category under this one. When a good categorization scheme for references to Thai calendar years will come into being, this photo will be found there to be dissiminated; if you remove the category, the reference is simply lost.
• You say that this photo «is nohing specific to Nonthaburi», yet the file page description informs us that «นนทบุรี means Nonthaburi province» — either this is a wrong statement, in which case I suggest you correct it along with the elimination of Category:Nonthaburi, or it is accurate and you are in the wrong.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 16:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tuválkin. You cannot really want to put all photographs with the numbers "2555" into the Category:Calendars in Thailand, do you? Likewise all photos with the text นนทบุรี? I think, a category must show something that's specific to the category - like "Category:Tuk-tuks in Thailand" and of course "Category:License plates of Thailand" for this specific photo. I also don't mind to have a "Category:Number 956 on vehicles" for this photo. Greetings --hdamm (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not want to put all photographs with the numbers "2555" into the Category:Calendars in Thailand, no, but I do want to categorize jointly all uses of 2555 as a year of the Thai calendar, just like, say, Category:2014 bags all references to the year 2014 A.D.
• As for all photos with the text นนทบุรี, yes they all obviously belong in Category:Nonthaburi — or in any subcategory of it, should their number warrant it (in this case it would be Category:Vehicular license places of Nonthaburi province).

Your view of categorization doesn’t seem to match actual practice. I will therefore restore my previous edit. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about mass deleting two categories

Hi there again hdamm. Perhaps you know that Weissbier requested the deletion of two categories containing holiday portraits, this one, and this one. I'm sure Weissbier meant to have all the images in them deleted, not only the category as per his own request here and here. One of the uploaders, Hartmann Linge is apparently okay with them being deleted (see User_talk:Hartmann_Linge#Urlaubsfotos). The problem now is, that to request a mass delete, means tagging 130-over images which is a lot of work. Do you know any administrators who can look into this without needing to tag all? The photos are really out of scope as Weissbier writes, and I think so too. The photos are also not unique, as the users have uploaded an immense amount of similar images but then without them posing in front of the camera. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I mostly ask User:JuTa for help, but if he can/will do it I don't know. --hdamm (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

hi Takeaway, you can do it with VisualFileChange. regards --JuTa 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! SG, - Takeaway (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)