User talk:Botteville

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

Read my UP.

But, I also have some comments on Massachusetts categories. I've been working on the ones for Essex County, but I soon found Massachusetts was linked in with it. Well, the task is starting to lead far afield. It is more than I can do. I'm concentrating on Essex County, but I have a few observations. It has not escaped me that I'm not alone on these categories. Thanks for the help. Now, in the case of particular persons and particular buildings, I found it far preferable to create a category for each of them. The names themselves of the pictures are often inadequate to identify the item or confusing. The category is so much easier to copy and identify, and there might be more than one picture of the item in it. But, now I find that even though the category exists the name of the picture is being used instead. This usage necessitates a replacement of the picture with its category! An unnecessary extra step. If you just use the category to begin with everything falls into place, numerous hours of work are avoided. Of course if an item does not have a category then one should be created for it. Then you can put that category anywhere. A second observation is that there is a discontinuity between the upper levels and the lower. This is caused by definitions that are not very tight at the upper levels. For example, I noticed a "Monuments and Memorials" at the lower levels that I liked and have been trying to carry through. But, at the upper levels, I found this category was considered "Architecture!" Similarly all buildings are architecture. If a building appears under a certain style, that I think is architecture. Just a list of buildings is not. And, what is the architecture of a fountain? I know fountains can be used as architectural elements, but that is not how they are categorized at the lower level. We don't find "public fountains", "indoor fountains" and the like, only fountains. So some thought and care to match the lower levels will go a long way to fix what is often a long and tedious mess. Thank you for your attention. I must now concentrate on Essex County so I will not be able to be of much further help for the rest of Massachusetts.Botteville (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Earl_M._Day[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Earl_M._Day 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 | +/−

Sanandros (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered, page cited.Botteville (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Johnson_House[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Johnson_House 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 | +/−

Fungus Guy (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered, page citedBotteville (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello. Why did you copy all the content from Category:People from Boston to Category:People from Massachusetts, such that now all of the copied content now violates COM:OVERCAT? Am I missing something? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are. The problem is obvious but I will detail it. Maybe we can cook up a solution.
  • I did not copy the content such that it violated "Overcat." It already violated "Overcat." It did that before I started any work at all.
  • Here's the problem. We have a list of people from Boston Massachusetts. We also have lists from other towns and cities. Each list is a category, "People from x, Massachusetts." Now, the towns and cities are gathered into counties. Each county has a list of towns and cities, all categories. Correspondingly there is a set of categories, "People from y County, Massachusetts." They contain only categories. So far so good. Now, the counties are gathered into a general category, "Massachusetts." Correspondingly there ought to be a category collecting the people of counties into massachusetts, and there is, "People of Massachusetts by County." Now, here is where the problem starts. There is ALSO a category, "People of Massachusetts by City", which ignores the counties and lists all the people by city. AND, there is also a category, "People of Massachusetts", which ignores both county and city and is just an alphabetic list of people in Massachusetts. This list is necessarily redundant. It MUST contain all the people in all the cities and towns of Massachusetts. And, it is twice redundant: It must contain all the people in all the cities and towns under "People of y County, Massachusetts." This is the system as I found it.
  • Now, here are some implications. Boston, Massachusetts, is in Massachusetts. Therefore, any person from Boston must be from Massachusetts. You cannot have a person from Boston who is not from Massachusetts. Therefore if you leave "People of Boston" out of "People of Massachusetts" you must logically leave out the people from all the other cities and towns of Massachusetts. "People of Massachusetts" would then have NO people except those who for one or another reason could not be located in a city or town. If you put them all in both "People from Massachusetts" and "People from x, Massachusetts:, then "People from Massachusetts" is necessarily redundant. That is the "overcat" violation.
  • Do you see the problem? I see you are supposed to be a Commons administrator. I must say I am totally surprised that you are asking about this obvious difficulty and only asking now. Even if you reverted everything I did you would still have the problem. Massachusetts and Boston are NOT mutually exclusive. My solution was to follow what everyone else was doing, only I did it more in bulk. I assumed that for some reason someone earlier on wanted these redundant lists of people of Massachusetts not only by town and city but also by state. Why are you contacting me on this? If there is one single person under "People of Boston" who also appears in "People of Massachusetts" then there is an "overcat" violation. I can only assume you wanted to confirm the problem and then come up with a belated solution. Your apparent finger-pointing approach is way out of line if that is what it is. You point the finger for making a little sin into a big one.
  • Be that as it may, since you brought it up, we ought to resolve it. There are a couple of different ways to go. 1) We can leave the system in place, deciding to accept "Overcat" as the price of getting a state-wide list of people. 2) We can abolish "People from Massachusetts" and "People from Massachusetts by City" leaving a single logical line, "People from Massachusetts by County", "People of y County, Massachusetts" and "People of x, Massachusetts" or in the case of Boston, "People of x" since it was decided in discussion to leave the Massachusetts off Boston. 3) We can put the issue up for discussion, beginning by copying this message to a discussion page.
  • I got no idea what brought you to this problem but I think now you are here we should resolve the issue in an appropriate manner. To me we either conform strictly to the policy and eliminate the categories I said or else we allow the previous overcat for the sake of getting a Massachusetts-wide list. One non-solution is to try to imagine a list of people from Boston not being in a list of People from Massachusetts. Well, I imagine there are other solutions; we could have "People from Boston" and "People from other cities and towns of Massachusetts than Boston." I don't like that solution because there is still redundance with the other cities and towns. Think it over, let me know soon.Botteville (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:Boston Harbor[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category talk:Boston Harbor has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category <pageinfo-talkpage>, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer provided on the page recommended. I will support whatever you do.Botteville (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Message received. I answered at the location given above. Bottom line: if they are copyright violations, they have to go! No two ways about it. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Woops! I thought of a point and have asked clarification.Botteville (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1940s[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1940s 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 | +/−

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1950s[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1950s 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 | +/−

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1960s[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1960s 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 | +/−

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1970s[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Westover_AFB_in_the_1970s 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 | +/−

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)