User talk:Auntof6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Auntof6Bot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Auntof6!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Delete. Thanks for the information. Regards, --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Calderdale and Kirklees articles[edit]

Hi, I see you are doing a lot of recategorising of West Yorkshire files, such as those in Category:Calderdale and Category:Kirklees, West Yorkshire. It's probably worth warning you that unless you remove the {{Check categories-Geograph}} then the next time the bot comes past it will probably put them back in the top level category, assuming it is no smarter than it is now of finding places in metropolitan counties. I'm trying to work through the Category:Kirklees, West Yorkshire articles, only 2.5k to go :( Scillystuff (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip! I wonder if that's how so many articles ended up in categories for multiple municipalities. I'm mostly working with the Calderdale stuff, but I was thinking of trying to work on the Kirklees stuff, too -- I'm glad to see I won't be the only one! I'll try to stick to Calderdale right now, though, so I won't conflict with what you're doing. I only got into this in the first place because I got interested in pub signs, which led to pubs, which led to buildings, and Calderdale and West Yorkshire are where I happened to end up! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Bradford vs City of Bradford[edit]

Hi, me again. I see you created Category:places in Bradford as a sub category of Category:Bradford, then moved it to a sub category of Category:City of Bradford. There have been some heated debates on [en:wikipedia] but I think the (current) outcome is that Bradford refers to the settlement of Bradford, given city status in 1897 and City of Bradford refers to the metropolitan county, which was also given city status in 1974. I guess this means if you want to put "places" such as Haworth or Baildon in the category, then it should be Category:Places in the City of Bradford but "places" such as Shearbridge or Lister Hills which are in the City ward of Bradford would be in Category:places in Bradford. I wonder if they have two Mayors... Scillystuff (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant for it to refer to the metropolitan county. I'll ask for it to be renamed. Thanks again! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Pub_signs_in_London_depicting_trains 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/− 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Congratulations! It has bot status now! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Now all I have to do is figure out why I stopped being able to log into Commons with AWB! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Districts in Lancashire[edit]

Hi, sorry to keep you waiting, I missed your message previously. I think it was deleted by a NUKE process, because there was a guy who created about 1000 categories, most of them being sub-sub-sub-sub-subcats of themselves, in insanely specific terms, such as "brain science in (small village)". It was just a waste of space so I nuked the lot. Unfortunately some possibly decent ones got caught in the crossfire. Please feel free to recreate. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Auntof6, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian Museums images uploaded by Vlas2000[edit]

Hello, On 3-April-2012, you moved using Cat-a-lot, a series of images from "Category:Images from Greece" to "Category:Greece". Could you please undo your action, because the uploader already listed "Category:Museums in Greece" which links up to "Category:Greece", making your move redundant. The two non-existing "Category:Images from Museum ... in ... Greece" and "Category:Images from Greece" listed by the uploader should be at minimum left alone, i.e. not created, or better deleted from the images, because they are bad choices. Thank you. Tango7174 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know about this. I am running my bot through everything under Category:Museums in Greece and removing Category:Greece. That will take care of the redundancy.
As far as the redlinked categories for specific museums, I'm not sure I understand the concern. Are you saying that there shouldn't be categories for those museums, or that the categories for those museums (if created) should be named differently, or something else? My take is that, if a category is needed, the category name should just be the name of the museum. If I understood the issue, I'd be glad to help take care of it. It would be easy to use Cat-a-lot to move files to different (new or existing) categories or just remove them from the redlinked categories altogether. Let me know how I can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having responded so swiftly to my request. What I meant by bad choices is their bad names, with the words "Images from", then the full listing of their location including city, region, country while these details should be parent categories. Ideally, a new category should be created for each one of those museums with just their name, and linked accordingly. Since there are close to 500 images and probably over 100 museums, this will be fastidious. A less demanding job is to create a museum category by Macedonian city, such as "Museums in Aiani", "Museums in Nymphaio", etc. and then use Cat-a-lot to move images from "Category: Museums in Greece". Which I'm ready to help doing, since I have a good idea of the geography of Greece; however it will take me a good while to complete, considering my time schedule. At the end, the non-existing "Category:Images from Museum ... in ... Greece" should still be deleted from the image files, for which you could help since you have the capability of mass deletion. Thank you. Tango7174 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC).


Hello. Why are you removing the metacat tag from metacats such as Category:Years in ice hockey? These are absolutely metacats. They are poorly named (they ought to be worded like most other year categories on Commons, e.g. "Ice hockey by year"), but poor naming does not change their function. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the poor names misled me, plus the fact that not all the "Years in" categories were tagged as metacategories. How about if I put in requests to have the names changed to "Foo by year", and put in proper metacat tags? (By "proper", I mean something like, for example, {{metacat|year|Spaceflight}} instead of {{metacat|years in|topic=years|topic2=spaceflight}}. At least, that's my understanding of how the tag should be coded.) --Auntof6 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be fantastic. These cats have been a mess for ages, so I was worried that removing the metacat tag was making a bad situation worse. Your suggested course of action is completely the right one. Let me know if I can help. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, the metacat tags are put back, and all "Years in" categories are now listed at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Now we wait for action/reaction. I'm wondering if there are templates that put thing into "Years in" categories; if so, those templates should probably be changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Church of the Transfiguration in Brzozów[edit]

Hello. I saw that you had removed subcategory Category:Churches in Subcarpathian Voivodeship by city from Category:Church of the Transfiguration in Brzozów ([1]). Can you explain this change? Brzozów is in Subcarpathian Voivodeship and according to Commons:By location category scheme "by city" categories may refer to any settlement as large as a megalopolis or as small as a village. -- Cheers, CLI (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because Category:Churches in Subcarpathian Voivodeship by city is a metacategory that should contain only other categories by city, not categories (or media) for individual churches. There is no category for churches in Brzozów. You could make one, but there isn't one currently. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, if you say so, let it be. ;) -- Cheers, CLI (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Arad - George Coșbuc - 2886.jpg - cat[edit]

Danke dir, ich war wohl gestern Abend schon etwas blind. --ST 08:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Personifications of nations[edit]

Hello. You make a very good point about nations versus states. However, the content of "Personification of nations" is made up of states. It may be a naming problem. Both countries should probably refer to countries, since that is the Commons norm. What do you think?

As for notifying people, I always do leave a note if it looks like it's a fundamental disagreement or a larger scope issue (i.e. involving numerous categories), or if there has been a previous history involving myself and the other editor in question and the category/ies. If it's a one-off, I usually just leave an edit summary explaining my thinking, because like most Commons editors, I am usually ploughing through a lot of maintenance work and work grinds to a halt if we leave a note for practically every edit we make. I do monitor my watchlist for such things, but we all have our own preferred ways of doing things. Since I now know that you prefer to receive a note in terms of keeping on top of issues, I am happy to leave you notes in the future. Hope that helps. --[[Us er:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Juan de Flandes - Saints Michael and Francis - WGA12043.jpg etc.[edit]

English: (by Google translator) Stigmatisation is when Francis receives the stigmata. There are hundreds, thousands of images representing the wounds Francisco.
Português: Estigmatização é quando Francisco recebe os estigmas. Há centenas, milhares de imagens representando Francisco com as chagas.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

English: OK, I understand. I'm sorry I put the category on some wrong images. Did you remove it from all of the ones I changed, or should I go back and check?
Português: OK, eu entendo. Me desculpe, eu colocar a categoria em algumas imagens erradas. Será que você removê-lo de todos os que eu alteradas, ou devo voltar e verificar?
--Auntof6 (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

VP naming discussion[edit]

Since you participated in the CfD that led to this, you may be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Mass_renaming_needed_for_.22d._.C3.84..22_articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Badzil (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Convert all interlaced JPGs[edit]

Hello, can you by any chance give a look at this bot work request? Thanks, Nemo 10:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Buildings in xxx" should be in the root category.[edit]

See User_talk:Foroa/archive_2012#Category:Buildings_in_Foo. --Foroa (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By "root category", do you mean the highest level (which I see as the country), or the lowest level? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Buildings in country" would be under both "country" and "Structures in country". So you'd have it in two places under the country, something like this:
country - buildings
country - structures - buildings
Since "Structures in country" is already under country, I don't understand why you'd need buildings directly under country as well. Wouldn't that be redundant? As for the architecture category, I don't really care much about that, but everyone seems to want the buildings under that architecture category, so I go along with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I reinserted Category:Buildings in xxx to its base category Category:xxx; don't expect people to find buildings via the weird geography, structures, culture or architecture building cats (or even via society in some cases).
OK, so you're saying buildings should be directly under the country (or city, etc.) so the category is easy to find. Could/should they also be at some other point in the category tree? It seems a natural fit to put them under structures, if there is a structures category for the country/city/whatever. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The ideal structure depends from what angle you look at the category tree. If you look at the conceptual level, one has to go via country - culture - architecture - structures to arrive at a building. If you look from the organisation perspective, then you have to go via country - city - quarters - streets/squares before you come to your building. If you look from the guy that brings a new picture (mostly of buildings, such as "wiki loves monuments"), you want city - buildings, no more. And yes, we have to think bottom up too. Many, if not most, towns and cities start with a first structural category "Buildings in ...". This is often the trigger for further category structural developments, why I always place it at the parent level in a systematic way at all levels. People need to see a consistent model that they can clone easily. You don't want people to create for each town a art, culture, architecture, structure or geography category before they can start building categories.
Right, and I wouldn't create those just to have the category structure. If they do exist, though, should the building categories be there in addition to being directly under the country/city/etc.? To me, that's messy, but I could work with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
German contributors used to set buildings always under architecture; they created consequently tens of Italian cities with the architecture/buildings/churches trees, often for one church, which created much confusion and bad categories. As stated, the top level visible part has to be easy to clone/replicate. And anyway, there is clearly no consensus if structure is part of architecture, and if architecture should be root, or part of art or culture, and if culture should be root or part of society ... --Foroa (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If Commons can still grow without too much pain (more than 2.66 million cats), it is thanks to category consistency and the fact that people can easily clone category structures.
Moreover, many people don't see structures as architecture; they reserve architecture for the artistic side of it, why many buildings are not necessarily considered as "architecture".
Yes, I'm probably one of those. As I said, I only kept architecture in there to be consistent with what already existed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I you look on the structure above the buildings in Portugal and Germany, they are completely different, but anyway, buildings is too deep as it serves as a categorisation model for the majority of villages and cities, especially in the beginning.
OK, but when you get to where you do have categories for architecture, structures, and buildings, what relationship, if any, should there be between them? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My view is buildings --> architecture, but some people will insert the structure between the two. --Foroa (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

--Foroa (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See category:Buildings in Slovenia for yet another interpretation. --Foroa (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Bowling_Ball_Beach_California 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Archaeology_of_Crete 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Stegop (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"School" vs. "School building"[edit]

I don't really know what to say about this... a school is an institution, a building is a building, and they are valid distinct categories where photos are concerned. Why did you feel the need to do this? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point. I had several reasons:
  • There are/were notes on "school buildings" categories saying that they are not heavily used and that most media for the buildings is in the "school" categories. See here for an example.
  • Most of the media under "school" categories was already pictures of buildings. Plus, the "schools" categories are mostly under "buildings" categories.
  • With other kinds of things that are both institutions and physical buildings, we don't distinguish. In part, I think that's because it would be hard to have media that showed the aspects that make something an institution -- those things are less concrete and hard to have media for.
I hope that explains my thinking. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I'd like to think that architecture is a valid category branch that probably shouldn't be casually swept away (some people are interested in that stuff, believe it or not). I probably would have seen the problem as being the fact that "schools" were under "buildings" categories myself... even if they contain mostly pictures of buildings right now, they could potentially contain nearly anything... but I can see how that would be more work to address. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that architecture is a valid category branch. Since "schools" is under "buildings", I don't think we've lost that link. Images for specific schools can always be put under subcategories of architecture, like architectural styles or architectural elements, if they're of particular architectural interest. I just think that the fact that a particular building is a school isn't usually related to its architectural interest.
I have noticed that the university and college categories are not usually under building categories. I've never been sure why that is, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a parallax thing going on here, and I'm probably not the monkey to diplomatically sort it out, but I'll try to express a thing or two... If you've never been sure why universities aren't under building categories, you may want to pursue that avenue of inquiry, just for fun, and keep in mind that for many purposes a school is not a building, and a building is not a school. I'm tired and probably not making much sense, so I'll leave it at that. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue seems very much unresolved; for example Category:Bank buildings in Connecticut is part of a fairly comprehensive pair of parallel institutional and architectural cat trees, but the parental "Banks" categories usually have little or nothing in them except buildings. On the other hand we don't generally have parallel church and church building cats, even though a congregation is clearly distinct from the building they inhabit. Thus, I have no idea where to solicit a discussion by all who may have an opinion on the topic. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You could start a discussion at Commons:Village pump, but I don't know that the categorization is really much of an opinion topic, it's pretty well explained in Commons:Categories. How to coordinate efforts to actually fix the existing situation, on the other hand, is probably worth communicating about in some central location. My thought would be to start by removing categories that aren't only containers for media related to buildings out of buildings categories... they shouldn't be there. If a topic has a strong enough association with buildings ("churches", for instance) then there should absolutely be a separate "church buildings" branch, and no reason why a given photo couldn't be a member of both as long as neither was parent of the other (which shouldn't be the case). So, for instance, "Omaha, Nebraska" could contain "Churches in Omaha, Nebraska", which might very well have many pictures of buildings, among other things. Its sibling would be "Buildings in Omaha, Nebraska", which would be the correct parent for "Church buildings in Omaha, Nebraska", which could also be in "Church buildings in the United States" or whatever other appropriate topic parents existed, with no overcat conflicts (because they're distinct branches). I realize that things aren't always so cut-and-dried, and can get downright messy in some cases, but I think that's a good general concept to have as a starting point. Sorry for ranting on your talk page, @Auntof6, but you started it. :P --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong about part of that - the "Church buildings in X" cat probably should also be in the "Churches in X" cat... there would still be no overcat conflict. It's the "Church" type cats that shouldn't be in "Building" cats, basically. I think that's the root of the problem. Lazy use of language is how we get through the day (we all know what somebody means if they say "OMG Suzy burned down the school!"), but it's better to be a little more literal and correct with things that have to fit together with some logical consistency, I reckon. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So what would be in the "banks" (or "schools" or "churches") categories that wouldn't fit in the "bank buildings" categories (or "school buildings" or "church buildings")? Logos? Meetings of their executives? It seems to me that the non-building categories would need constant checking and maintenance, maybe more than it's worth to keep them separate. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Potentially anything could end up in those categories (the mind recoils!), the point being that buildings are a specific topic, and the appropriate subcats will exist wherever someone bothers to create them. The current contents (or lack thereof) of a "banks" category isn't the the thing to base structure around; the idea is to create a robust skeleton that can be fleshed out into the future without having to constantly break the bones to fit more closely to whatever flesh happens to be there at any given time... I hope that makes sense. I'm visually oriented and not always good at verbally explaining concepts that I grasp in a non-verbal way, but there are probably other people around here who could explain it better. As for the maintenance question, no, it's no different than any other category containing more specific categories... hopefully uploaders will add the most specific category (it helps if they already exist) but if not, the files eventually get diffused, which is what a lot of the work to be done around here consists of, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, obliterating category structures does create a lot of work, so please don't do that without discussion... things that already exist may have a reason to exist, even if it's not immediately obvious to any given person, and even if they're not currently situated in the best possible way. For what it's worth, the Category:Bank buildings in Connecticut situation mentioned above was fixed with two quick hotcats, one addition and one deletion, simply by making "banks" not a subcat of "buildings" which is ultimately how things will need to shuffle into place to not keep causing logical conflicts. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know anything could end up in there. I was trying to get an idea of what would belong there. But don't worry, I see your point now. I just had seen those notes on the building categories and thought that was a consensus of how to handle things. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for bearing with me... now I'm going to go poke around and see what kind of things do end up in bank categories while I finish digesting my (holiday weekend) belly full of food and beer... just out of morbid curiosity. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
1953 Tobacco Festival (2898495711).jpg
Ok, sorry, but this was far and away the most random thing I found, in answer to your question... must share, then sleep. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You moved everything that was in Category:School buildings in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state) which created a lot of photos with parent/redundant categories. Could you please fix these? Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad to fix them. Can you give me some specific examples so I know where to look? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Lake Park Elementary School.jpg was moved to Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state) but it is also in Category:Elementary schools in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Schools in Lowndes County, Georgia. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the example. I think I got them all. Let me know if you find any more. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Bank buildings[edit]

Not sure I agree with this edit. I suppose that in some sense a bank branch is an office, but generally people don't think of it as such, and I think that putting it under "office buildings" rather than directly under "buildings" is likely to make it hard for anyone to find it by navigating down the hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right. I did it (and quite a few others) because I saw other cases where it had been done that way. Some of the things under "bank buildings" are probably what we'd think of as office buildings (such as their headquarters buildings), but most are probably branches as you say. In any case, I will change the ones for bank buildings in the US states, even the ones I didn't change. That won't change any for other places, but I've only been working with things in US states lately. Thanks for the note. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Early 20th century banks, churches, schools and gas station were architecturally distinctive. Just by looking, you knew what they were. Recent banks, no. When they are separate buildings, they look like small office buildings. In my crowded little island, most banking floors are at street level of an office building, same as a restaurant or retail store. Many old banks near me now serve as restaurants, churches and office buildings, but they still look like banks, just as the old churches and schools that have been converted to apartment houses still look like what they were. So, yes, modern bank buildings are office buildings. Alas, my mind boggles at the philosophical question of whether all banks are necessarily offices, regardless of whether the banking house is old and looks like a bank. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
& there is nothing to stop us from using both a "bank building" category and an "office building" category on buildings where both are appropriate.- Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Greenwich Village[edit]

Please note that the neighborhood of Manhattan is called "Greenwich Village" and not the "Village of Greenwich", and that there is not such things as the "Village of Greenwich Historic District", although there is a "Greenwich Village Historic District".

I suggest you stop messing around with categories you know nothing about, and leave them to people who are familiar with the areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Village of Greenwich Historic District. There is a Wikipedia article about it and its NRHP reference number is 95001025. (The reference number for the Greenwich Village Historic District is 79001604.) I believe that this image belongs to the district I put it in and not the one you changed it to.
So it appears that I got the two mixed up and you did some work to fix it. For that I apologize, but there was no call for you to be rude about it. People are going to make mistakes here, and it's much better to help them learn than to tell them not to edit. I would have been happy to undo my own changes if you had only asked. Along those same lines, I ask that you fix the mistakes that you created: correct the NRHP reference number in Category:Greenwich Village Historic District and take the image I linked to out of the category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ken, your comment was uncalled for. You make mistakes all the time, as do all editors. Please assume good faith and be civil. Comments like the one you left above reflect badly on you, not Auntof6. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Questionable category changes[edit]

Dear Auntof6; I have reverted your changes of location category to pictures in Humboldt County, California. There is no apparent reason for your changes which are not in line with the norms and standards of how to categorize images on Commons. Please refrain from more changes of this type. If you are seeking a Commons project, I can offer you several where dedicated contribution would be most welcome. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me. It doesn't make sense to me to have the individual files in these categories, but I accept your statement that that is how it is done. I won't categorize files that way, but I won't remove any more of them, either. I would be glad to know of other projects that need to be done. Thanks again. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cat wrangling to do[edit]

I'm writing out some ideas for projects, complete with links etc. and will be back to you in a day or so; I'm having dental surgury and my brains are mash, so this is taking longer than it should, so sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Easy for us New Yorkers to see, Category:Brooklyn, New York City could sure use some diffusion. Of course, some pix will require local geofamiliarity but many are labelled by neighborhood, year, street etc. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Jim. I did some work there. A lot of it was just removing the category from images that were already in subcategories! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of sloppy work in the past like that is waiting, mostly in large categories, for someone to inspect and clean up. On the other hand many thousands of files are uploaded every month (day?) by automatic processes and are categorized only by source. For example Category:NYPL maps is huge and many of the maps may prove valuable once sorted by continent, city, century, theme, maker, etc. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that working closest to home is probably best for diffusion and/or sorting into categories. I did all the dot maps on cities in California, found a pile of NARA images of the local counties and etc. about 1.5 years ago. It was a great experience, I spent a lot of time on Google maps and Wikipedia getting the towns/cities in their correct counties and the NARA images better identified. Also something the project can always use help with is deletion nominations. There are thousands of images that arrive every day and far too few eyes looking at them. I should be back to normal by about next week Tuesday and am still thinking about you! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim, you ought to know I just created a new category for Bergen Beach, Brooklyn. I even attached the Flatlands, Brooklyn category to it, just in case something from Bergen Beach is incorrectly categorized as being in Flatlands, and if I'm not mistaken, there might be some Belt Parkway images we could add to it. ----DanTD (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Dan. I'd seen the files for Bergen Beach, but didn't know if it was a neighborhood or what. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Alternately, if you want an excuse to venture down bewildering and unfamiliar rabbit holes that can't reasonably be left to "locals", you could seek out the generic cat names that need disambiguating rather than diffusing (how to deliberately find them might be an interesting problem in itself). As an example, a bunch of these were "tagged" with Category:Riverside by the uploader. Upon diving into that category for what I thought would be some routine diffusion, I was struck with the epiphany that anyone in the world with a local thing known as "Riverside" probably thinks of their Riverside as the Riverside... the weirdest things were the many classic car photos (a museum in Glasgow, in that case), and pictures where it was used simply as a descriptive tag, with no placename involved. It occurred to me at the time that there were probably more of these categories out there, in need of a more dedicated soul than myself, so I'm just adding it to the discussion. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
And there is always Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention. Far too few of us are working on this. What is very difficult for one may be the low-hanging fruit for another. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, everyone! @Jmabel:, for the media needing categories, do you think it's worth adding categories if the only ones I can determine are things like "blue cars", or should I leave those for someone who could determine something more specific (like what country or city the car was in, or what specific model of car it is)? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Add what you can; only remove the tag about needing categories if you think you've added enough relevant ones that it no longer needs attention. Also, you will find that the subcats of Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention are a bit heavy with copyvios, etc.: it's useful to go through these and nominate the problematic ones for deletion, add appropriate templates about missing information, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sun streets[edit]

You did this and this, but you didn’t touch this one… Never mind now. -- Tuválkin 05:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Satellite/aerial photography[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you've been placing satellite photography categories as subcategories of aerial photography categories. You may want to reconsider that classification, because while the two formats produce similar results, they aren't really related in a hierarchical manner. The top-level categories on commons, Category:Aerial photographs and Category:Satellite pictures, each have the other listed as a see also category. That may be the best way to handle the subcategories of Category:Aerial photographs of the United States by state and Category:Satellite pictures of the United States. What do you think? - Eureka Lott 20:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did it after I saw it done that way in some places and it made a sort of sense. Of course, it makes sense the way you describe, too. I do try to follow the way the higher-level categories are organized, so I wouldn't mind changing them back. I think the only area where I was working when I did that was in United States categories, so I can probably find all those easily enough. Did you happen to notice it anywhere else? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked beyond the US categories, but I did encounter your work at both state-level and city-level categories. Are there other places we should examine? - Eureka Lott
Not that I can think of. Maybe I'll just use AWB to find all the categories under satellite photography that have an aerial photography category on them. That should find them all, even ones I didn't change. Does that sound good? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You can do this without AWB using this search string, making use of the shiny new "insource:" syntax:
insource:"[[Category:Aerial" prefix:Category:Satellite pictures
should tell you what you want to know, maybe more than you wanted to know... EDIT:that might pick up cats where "Category:Aerial" appears anywhere in the source (such as "see also", etc.); apparently the phrase matching ignores "[["... sorry, still figuring out the new search features ;) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That sounds cool, but where do I enter that string? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
In any search input field, it's part of the normal search syntax now (unless you've disabled "new search" in your preferences). See here for more info. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did have that disabled, but I enabled it and it looks like it worked. Thanks! I'll take care of everything that search found. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As an update, it looks like just making it a regex search (by enclosing the phrase in '/' characters) is enough to weed out the few false positives, like so:
insource:/"[[Category:Aerial"/ prefix:Category:Satellite pictures
The new search has some great features, and it will eventually be the only search, so I'm evangelizing it a little bit amongst people who I suspect may put it to good use. It's particularly nice for rounding things up on commons, where you want more control over exactly what shows up in the results. Happy searching! --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I definitely like to learn about stuff like that! While we're talking about the aerial and satellite photographs, maybe I can get your opinion (either of you or anyone else) on something else. I see these categories under "Geography" categories. I know that these pictures, especially the satellite ones, often show geographical features, but not all of them. The high-level categories aren't under geography categories. I think individual images could belong under geography, depending on what they show, but not the satellite/aerial categories themselves. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The exact intent behind the "Geography of..." cats isn't clear to me, so I don't mess with 'em myself, but I'm interested to see what others have to say. It sounds like you're relating it to natural features of land, which may be the intended purpose, but to my mind any image displaying a large enough area of land from a high enough angle of view is geographical in nature... exactly how large or how high, I couldn't say. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think most show geographical things, but not all. There are satellite pictures of airports, mines, schools, stadiums, and other things that aren't strictly geographical (see Category:Satellite pictures by topic‎). To me, a satellite image is not inherently geographical, it's just a picture taken from space. The field can be broad or narrow, focused on something small or something large. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you've identified a distinction between physical geography and human geography. Same subject, different branches. - Eureka Lott 02:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of Geography of X cats with extremely miscellaneous contents. IMO it should be a high-level container including: all maps, geographers & geographical organizations, geographical methods & instruments, landforms (containing rivers, mountains, &c.), and climatology. Most media to do with human geography, other than maps, would probably go better under such other cats as People, Culture, or Architecture of X. Satellite photos would mostly fit, insofar as they’re used for mapping, land-use assessment, &c., but aerial photos not so much. That said I don’t know the history of the decision-making process involved, or how much of the present state of affairs is by design, so have mostly tried to work with the categories that do make sense to me, ignoring some others.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed images in the aerial photo cats that are not photographs at all but Category:Pictorial maps. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen that, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. We have Category:Pictorial maps and Category:Bird's-eye view. Should the former be a subcategory of the latter? - Eureka Lott 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Then, every place that has many images from above would be in Birds Eye View of that place. Its subcats would include Pictorial Maps and might include Aerial Photographs. A big category for such photos, however, would be contrary to current practice that gives us Category:Eiffel Tower from above which has several views that are paintings and other non-photo images yet is a subcat of an aerial photo category. I am failing to understand why aerial views are handled contrary to the way of all other views. For just about any place in the world seen from any other angle, the category name is just the subject name, such as Category:Eiffel Tower which is mostly photos without saying so. Why do we single out photography, only when we're up in the sky? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now, Category:Bird's-eye view is under Category:Aerial photographs. I think that should be the other way around. Aerial photographs are one way of getting a bird's-eye view. Bird's-eye views are not necessarily photographs.
There's another issue you can see on Category:Satellite pictures of Tamil Nadu. It is in Category:Science and technology in Tamil Nadu. I've seen quite a few other satellite pictures categories under science and tech categories for the place depicted in the images. I don't think that's right, because the fact that a satellite photo was taken of a given place doesn't have anything to do with whatever science or technology the place might have. It certainly requires the technology of a satellite to get the satellite photos, but that technology doesn't necessarily belong to the place that was photographed.
I note that after I took Category:Satellite pictures of Tamil Nadu out of Category:Aerial photographs of Tamil Nadu, User:Roland zh put it back. I don't know that the general agreement in a discussion on a user talk page is enough to tell a user that he/she is wrong. I don't mind this discussion taking place on my talk page, but maybe it should be somewhere more general so that it can get wider participation. Maybe at the Village Pump, or at Category talk:Satellite pictures. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Handprints in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre[edit]

Good morning. I was a bit puzzled by this edit. How is it not a walk of fame? Maybe I am missing something - apologies if I am. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really a walk. I guess people can walk on it, but to me a walk of fame is something you walk along, like a sidewalk. I guess I don't feel strongly about it, though, so go ahead and put it back if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose, but I don't really see much of a difference between stars on a sidewalk and handprints on a sidewalk. Anyway, I'll add it back and we'll see if anyone else has an opinion. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. Sorry for the inconvenience. I seem to be doing a lot of things wrong lately. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologize. The more work one does, the more people complain. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:RM Moulis (tugboat, 1983)[edit]

Please stop defaultsorting of ship categories. I will ask a moderator to stop this activity. Please have a look at what you are doing with this tugboat as example. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some Cat Wrangling for you[edit]

Greetings again! I have found a category in need of your skills, please see Category:Mexican style restaurants in the United States. It would seem that a category could be made for each state as for the few already made, and the images in that category all moved to their state category. You do use Cat-a-Lot, don't you? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that. Yes, I do use Cat-a-lot. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Great job, thank you so much. Have you ever considered working on the project of Category:Images without source? Many of them were transferred from en:Wiki and really do have sources, but their templates are broken, or the source info is buried in the description. You can pick and choose which ones to work on, most of the old paintings can be sourced to "mechanical reproduction of 2D art", especially if they're in museum collections. Along the way, take a moment or two to look up the subject and wiki link it - perhaps expand the description... leaving a much higher quality file than was there before. Please let me know if this is something that appeals to you, we have nearly 60,000 of these images and more arriving daily and would certainly appreciate the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I haven't done anything with sources before. Can you point me to some that were fixed, so I can look at what was done? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing! Check this list for starters and of course you can look at my "contributions" for more. Go back about 150 or 200, I did a lot of deletion nominations lately. Sometimes it is as simple as a misplaced { or the close bracket or doubles of either start or close (usually on the description line) which causes the source to disappear. When I fix those, I mark them in the edit summary as "fix template to show source" or some such. If the edit summary says "Source!" that means it was there all along and all I did was rearrange things.

  • File:Arctic circle.svg User:Fae pointed out it was from the CIA World Fact book. Other maps are from the U.S. National Atlas, etc. Really old maps can be "mechanical reproductions...."

If you find things which are obviously wrong in passing (it happens), you can make a list on my talk page, add the "no source/no license/copyright violation" tag or nominate for deletion. If an image is too confusing, you can always just skip it. I do as much as I can until I get cross-eyed, and then I have to stop and do something else. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all help in considering becoming a rescuer of these no source images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will definitely look at that in the near future. Right now I am going to continue with something else I started working on -- diffusing Category:Bridges, and possible some of its subcategories. It's amazing how many of the files there are for bridges that already have their own categories! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate all your efforts on categorizing, sorting and maintaining! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I enjoy it. It's just a challenge to learn the different ways things are done here and in different Wikipedias. There are so many cases where it there are conflicting ways of categorizing that all make sense, I just have to figure out what the community wants. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hiya! I don't know if you ever saw this huge Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention, but that's another one I try to pick away at whenever possible... so far I've closed out three or four days from that list (neverending)... cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Anyone who does lots of work with cats, I first say thanks for the hard work for doing it so few do - here or on wp:en

However, I do as a Indonesiaphile take issue with allocating 'Oceania' to Indonesia - it reminds me of some endless arguments about what constitutes the seas and oceans in which Indonesia lie - some time got wasted there. Oceania - either in its definitions on wp:en or here - should coincide - and even if a small part of eastern Indonesia might be considered - the major proportion of insular south east asia - is considered asia. I am sure you might have some rejoinder - but it needs to be discussed - as most editors have shown on wp:en Java is either computer program or a coffee - the arguments have a cyclical sense over the last 7 years about every 2 to 3 someone tried obliterating Java the island (the source/primacl/historical/original) and putting the program first. For Oceania - I do not think it is appropriate to catalogue/categorise Indonesia as being in it... cheers sats (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. With the work I've been doing, I go by what is on the main category for the country. I see that you have removed the Oceania categories from Category:Indonesia, so when I check in the future I will see only Asia and categorize accordingly -- unless, of course, someone undoes your edits. You probably know that some Wikipedias' articles have Indonesia in Oceania (as well as Asia), at least in part, in the text, by categorizing, and/or in templates. However, all I go by here is the way it is categorized here. I hope that satisfies you. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
hahaha - in the old days people used to have intelligent discussions, and consensus might be approached and a resolved issue might see oceania being removed from Indonesian articles and templates across the wikis - but hey - Indonesia is in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean at the same time if you are a newbie - but if you try the IMO website - there are definitions of what starts where and what ends where. Anyone can edit, anyone can mess up - but there are indeed points of no return. My personal satisfaction has nothing to do with my editing - anyone can foul things quicker than you think. Just be thankful we can edit and get on with the job. sats (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

Did you have any sort of consensus for this edit? As far as I know, we have traditionally treated Puerto Rico as a country (as well a a U.S. territory) for this sort of categorization purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's confusing to figure out this kind of thing, and not just for Puerto Rico. In this case, it's covered under mosques in the US, so it shouldn't be needed. I could see including it in a category for mosques in Latin America or in the Caribbean, because the US as a whole wouldn't be in those categories.
Is there anything that documents how this kind of thing should be handled? I wonder if there would be support for renaming these categories so that non-country entities could be included without appearing to be outside the scope of the category: maybe something like "by country or territory" or just "by location". That would help keep people from assuming that everything in them is for an actual country. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Things like this are pretty ad hoc. There are so few colonial territories left in the world that it is a bit anomalous to go renaming broad categories (e.g. "mosques by country" to accomodate them. As I say, the usual ad hoc solution has been to treat Puerto Rico both as a country/nation and as a part of the U.S. Remember, we are not creating a taxonomy for legal purposes, we are creating a navigation aid that is likely to let people find things in the places they might look for them. And, as Steven Sondheim wrote over 50 years ago, "Nobody knows in America / Puerto Rico's in America." Not "nobody," of course, but enough to make "by country" a likely place for people to look. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Category Barnstar.png The Category Barnstar
As recognition of your untiring work in categorization. Keep it up! 99of9 (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! It's my favorite Wiki thing to do. I know I get some things wrong along the way, but usually someone helps straighten me out. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well deserved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

cats cats and more cats[edit]

Greetings again! I found that your edits on this page seem to have some logical inconsistencies. Please take another look at your work here. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also not seeing the logic in chucking a whole pile of historical stuff into Category:Ferndale, California when the entire town is not the historic district. You didn't do the same thing to Eureka, California which also has a historical district. BY doing what you're doing with these categories, you're also losing the entire category of historical markers in the county which deserve to be filed together rather than split up all over. I really have a problem with this "new cat scheme" just being dropped down on northern California without any discussion. We previously had a user who catted and recatted all our images until it was a nightmare, we just finished straightening it all out and now these edits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any changes I made to the page about the Northerner. Are you talking about making the subcategory for the cross monument? I see that I left the California Historical Landmark (CHL) category on the ship page, so I have taken it off. If that wasn't your concern, please explain further.
With Ferndale, you are right that the entire town is not the historic district. However, the website for the California Office of Historic Preservation shows more than one historic designation for Ferndale:
I agree that this is confusing. I didn't do the same thing with Eureka, because the only designation shown is the historic district.
For the change to the image of the gazebo showing the historical marker, it is true that the marker is there, but the marker is for the CHL that is the entire town. The marker has to go somewhere: it happens to be at the gazebo, but the gazebo itself is not the registered CHL.
I'm not sure that addresses all your concerns. Please let me know what concerns you still have. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

California Adobes[edit]

Just a heads up that I retained Category:California adobes as a redirect for now, since some people might be kind of attached to it... the term actually has a slightly nuanced meaning beyond "an adobe building in California", but I'm not sure how much anyone will care. It could always be reinstated as a subcat of "Adobe buildings in California" if there's noise about it. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I live in California, and I've never heard the term "California adobe" as having any special meaning. (Of course, that doesn't mean there is no such term.) I tried searching for it, but couldn't find anything. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't know that it has any "official" meaning, but in casual use tends to imply one of the historically significant buildings of the colonial era, often the main house of a former rancho or estate. Example of usage:[2]. In any case, probably no harm in keeping the redirect around... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Stirling (council area) vs Category:Stirling council area[edit]

Consensus was reached some months ago that the latter should be the correct nomenclature within the Scotland hierarchy, so I've reverted your moves. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops! OK, thanks for letting me know! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

California counties navigation template[edit]

I really like your California counties navigation template you created. Would you allow me to copy and modify the code you used to create a template for Georgia? --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course! You don't need my permission. :) I adapted it from the template {{US states}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Photographs_taken_on_2012-01-24_08:47 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Close-up_photography 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Gay actors from the United States[edit]

Category:LGBT actors from the United States is for actors and actresses, Category:Lesbian actresses from the United States is in Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:Actresses from the United States, so I put Category:Gay actors from the United States in Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:Actors from the United States Cathy Richards (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)