User talk:Ingolfson

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

Contents

File:Retired trolleybus.jpg[edit]

Hello!

Not "bus". Trolleybus. --Starscream (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Starscream - sorry, do not quite understand your comment? I am quite clear about the difference between trolleybuses and buses. However, according to both Wikipedia and Commons, they are a sub-type of bus. I would have no problem putting the file in a category "Trolleybuses in Wellington" - though that would, for now, have only 1 file... Ingolfson (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there's a few, so created that cat. Ingolfson (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am confused[edit]

hi there,

thank you for your message. Well the current format "Reichstag (dome) - Exterior" sounds odd, because there is no such thing as a dome that is called Reichstag, which is what "Reichstag (dome)" in the English language would imply. If anything, it has to be called "Reichstag dome" or "Dome of the Reichstag", see here [1]. The name of the category has to be at least grammatically correct. You can name it either "Exterior of the Reichstag dome" or "Exterior of the Reichstag building dome" or something like that, but "Reichstag (dome)" is definitely wrong. Gryffindor (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about that! But that makes me even more confused why you requested the moves TO these categories! Or am I missing / confusing something here? Ingolfson (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Libraries[edit]

Please see the discussion I started at Commons:Village pump#Category:Libraries, since it seems the key edit was yours. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Buildings and structures[edit]

Hello. Thanks for the note; that's helpful. Sorry for the confusion - that wouldn't have happened had I left an edit summary. You're right - it's worth having a wider discussion before any other changes are made. I just assumed structures were architecture, but I see your point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Plumbing, fountains, etc.[edit]

You might want to comment at User_talk:Infrogmation#Fountains.3F. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Grafitti on vehicles[edit]

Hi, thanks for the advice. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pubs & Hotels in Australia[edit]

Hi. You seem to have created a rather strange division in the Pubs and Hotels categories for Australia. You are probably aware that most pubs in Australia are called "X Hotel" and thus pubs are often called "Hotel" in Australia. Your changes have removed the vast majority of Australian pubs from the parent category. I suggest reversing all your changes and then starting a discussion somewhere to suggest how this obvious source of confusion can be addressed. Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matting - I understand the complication due to the Australian use of the word "pub". However, Australia also knows the word "hotel", exactly in the sense of en:Hotel (lots of hotels around in Australia which are absolutely not a pub, in other words), and has pubs which are simply en:Pubs, rather than accommodation for travellers too. Also, I have not created any confusion - the confusion was there when I found a category "hotels in X" which was located within a category called "pubs". So I ensured that the categories match - we now have to make sure that the content also fits.
Therefore, I consider the appropriate thing to do is to have BOTH categories - rather than revert anything and try to keep both meanings in one category, when there's clearly a difference. For those pubs/hotels in Australia for which both meanings apply, the solution is simple - keep them in both categories. 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I think we agree on the basics - places like the Golden Age Hotel is better categorised as a "pub" rather than a hotel. However, I don't think you understand my point. Your changes have left 99% of the images of Australian pubs outside the main "Pub" category tree. This is a rather severe disruption, no? You are still confused about the Australian term "Hotel" as this statement reveals "[Australia] has pubs which are simply en:Pubs, rather than accommodation for travellers too". There are plenty of pubs in Australia called "X Hotel" and locally called the "the Hotel" that do not offer accommodation to travellers so the categorisation scheme you suggest is not as straight forward as you think. Again, your changes should be reverted until an agreed solution to the problem is found following a wider discussion than the two of us. Then, all images and sub-categories should be moved to the new agreed scheme - not just the ones you have cherry-picked. Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 23:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have undone some of the changes and I completely understand what Mattinbgn is saying. In Wagga there are a few pubs which operate under a "Hotel name" even though they don't provide any accommodation (some have in the past or like a few of them, which never have). in Wagga Wagga the Victoria Hotel is a pub and a hotel, Black Swan Hotel (Muddy Duck) is just a pub then you have the Thomas Turvey Tavern which is just a pub. We do need a better categorisation but I feel the changes made it worse then it already was. Bidgee (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Also a lot of the times pubs which were or weren't "hotels" will keep the historical or well known name, so you will never see the Black Swan Pub, just doesn't sound right and historically wrong. Bidgee (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Look, accusations like "cherry picking" don't help - they assume that I am doing this out of some wish to push a personal agenda, out of stupidity, or to hassle you. Accept the fact that I had a good faith intention. And you seem to miss MY point. I do NOT have an objection with a specific place called "Something Hotel" being placed into a "pub" category, and in a pub category only, if that is the appropriate place for it. What I have a problem with is with places like this one or this one ending up in a category called "Pubs in Australia" or "Pubs in Surfers Paradise". Instead, reread the above: I am advocating that there should be different categories for what Wikipedia considers a hotel, and for what it considers a pub. NOTWITHSTANDING what the particular name of a pub/hotel/establishment is, it should then be placed into all that apply. Ingolfson (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, I realise now that the majority of all the contents of the "Hotels by state/territory" sub categories are indeed pubs in the Australian sense. So I guess the contents in these categories should be moved to a "pubs" category (because, as I said, it would be better if the Australian logic was acknowledged in the category NAME - i.e. have these files of Australian-sense pubs should be in a separate "pubs" structure - rather than placing them in a "hotel" structure and just assuming people will know. Ingolfson (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lifeboat categories[edit]

Please see Category talk:Lifeboats. Thanks,Dankarl (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Refinery explosion, Japan 2011 earthquake.jpg[edit]

Hello! I've deleted this image (which previously was uploaded and deleted as File:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami refinery fire.jpg). For an explanation of why, please see this discussion. Thanks! —David Levy 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Fair enough. He shouldn't upload other people's stuff under a compliant license onto Flickr in such a case, though! 23:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this is entirely his fault. I just wanted to let you know the reason behind the deletion.  :) —David Levy 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pubs and hotels discussion[edit]

Your input at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Hotels in Australia would be most welcome. -- Mattinbgn/talk 00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

hi from Schwede[edit]

Hi Ingolfson, have just left you a message on you WP talk page, but I see that you welcome messages here, too. I don't really use my Commons talk page. My message was about a call for a helping hand to categorise NZHPT files. Schwede66 04:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see that I help a little bit here and there, but I am massively behind (500+ files!) in uploading my own photos from Auckland, so that will remain my main activity here for the forseeable future, sorry not to be able to commit more atm. Ingolfson (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
That's ok. XLerate has dealt with the Otago files, which was the bulk of it. I can easily cope with the remaining 50 files. Schwede66 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved maybe 20 or so myself by now. Had two or three where I wasn't sure about the Category I or II... Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you've put them into Category:NZHPT_register_in_the_Auckland_Region, which is great. I'll go through those and find them on the register. I also add a description to the files once I've found them along these lines: "New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I; register number {{NZHPT|3788|3788}}." Schwede66 21:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I defaced your property[edit]

I know, I'm such a vandal. I'm also very lazy. So scrolling all that way down to identify the author of a pic is exhausting for me. Ah yeah, silly me, I should have remembered : Uploader, that's THE Uploader, of course. Everyone should know that : Dots everywhere = Ingolfson's = no trespassers. Dots everywhere = Ingolfson's = no trespassers. Dots everywhere = Ingolfson's = no trespassers. OK, I think I got it. - Olybrius (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonder who is taking something way too seriously here. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:2004-2008_Ford_Territory_TX_wagon_(Windows_Mobile)_01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2004-2008_Ford_Territory_TX_wagon_(Windows_Mobile)_01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

Tryphon 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Contentious category changes[edit]

Ingolfson I've removed the request to change Category:American Civil War forts from delinker. It was a disruptive request, it would break incoming links en:Category:American Civil War forts, fr:Catégorie:Fort de la Guerre de Sécession, etc. You appear to be determined to use "X of Y" everywhere, but it is a problematic system, for example:

  1. Historians of France - Historians whose nationality is French, or historians who study France?
  2. Category:Aircraft of the air force of the United Kingdom is convoluted, rather than Royal Air Force aircraft
  3. Diplomats of the United States - Diplomats of the United States government, or diplomats whose nationality is American?

Why don't you look to copy the well maintained and scrutinized system on En? Trying to run a different system on Commons to do the same job is needlessly disruptive. It's also a hinderance for non-English speakers, breaking the ability to lookup or copy/paste categories from En. Benchill (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Benchill, your comments seem to imply some agenda of mine, and worse, an agenda where I am determined to be "disruptive". Can you please dial that down? It's not helpful, I am not trying to piss anyone off, okay?
My "agenda" if there is any, is consistency on Commons. Regarding the :en patterns - well, as has been pointed out to me and others before, there IS no rule requiring adherence to Wikipedia. Commons is a different project (and just think of what will happen if one day we really get multi-language category support on Commons). If I could change Wikipedia's category system (and/or hamornise it with Commons), I would, but thanks, one struggle is enough for me.
Also, I am always keen to keep "seecat" links whenever a category is moved, so the "breaking links" argument need not apply either. Any simple search will also find the differently-named categories easily. But to return to the original starting point - consistency on Commons is most important for me, and the clear pattern here is already "X of Y".
Regarding your examples above, it only highlights the need for a consistent structure. It think it should be (for example, open to other comments, and admitting I am just doing these as I write it here) it should be "Historians from France" and "Historians of French History". "French Historians" - there is clear and extensive precedent on Commons that that isn't the way to go. Yes, it may sound a bit cumbersome at times - but Commons is not a work of prose, or art! It's a database. And consistent categorisation, with as little ambiguity as possible, should be the primary importance for a database, in my view.
Wikipedia and Commons and the general language all grew up with their particular little quirks and patterns. I hope we need not get into quarelling, even if we disagree. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

russavia (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gangs_(organized_crime)_in_art[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Gangs_(organized_crime)_in_art 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 | português | русский | +/−

Hold and wave (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Famous_people[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Famous_people 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 | português | русский | +/−

FA2010 (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun turret in Auckland[edit]

Hi there, do you have any info on where the turret came from & when ? Could be from HMNZS Canterbury, scrapped in 2005 ? The Canterbury Wiki page states "The turret of the frigate was removed and is to become part of the exhibits at a planned new navy museum in Auckland". If so, looks like the "museum" turned out to be a scrapyard. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the text of another photo of the gun, it's from HMNZS Taranaki. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I have no specific information, but I think a) that turret has been there for a while, and b) the navy museum is or has gone ahead, in Devonport. So probably not the Canterbury turret. cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Port operations[edit]

I disagree with separating freight loading and unloading from port operations. If a user wants a photo of a port derrick in operation or a forklift on a dock, port operations seems a reasonable place to look. Also the freight loading/unloading categories are larger and include images from all sorts of carriers. As more images accumulate, you could look at dividing port operation into into subcategories including ship servicing, loading, and unloading, with the latter two also in the freight category tree. Dankarl (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dankarl - I have no real issue with "loading / unloading" being seen as part of "port operations", BUT the problem with "port operations" as it stands is that the "loading / unloading" cats are not port-specific. You get stuff like airport unloading too, or even someone pulling milk crates out of a truck. How about we create subcategories that are something like "Unloading (ports)"? They could then be subcats for both parent cats? Ingolfson (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree. How about Category:Loading watercraft, etc?Dankarl (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiddencat[edit]

Hi, what's your opinion about that, that, use HIDDENCAT on years of birth and death categories etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I lean more towards your views - use "hiddencat" very sparingly. However, it seems we really need a way to define what is and what isn't a hidencat, rather than do it category by category... Ingolfson (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Education_buildings[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Education_buildings 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 | português | русский | +/−

NVO (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Users in New Zealand "add this" instruction .. not very clear[edit]

Hi:

The instruction .. for adding one's username to Users in NZ.. Isn't very clear .. to the untrained in HTML codes.? As.. I have discovered 9slowly) through persistant trial & error

The "instructions given" are actually WRONG.

This: is not the correct method at all.?

Users living in New Zealand. To add yourself to this category, insert the following on your user page: (If you don't leave in the sort field on the end, your entry will end up being listed under "U" instead of the first letter of your user name)

Why? Well..

i did EXACTLY as instructed.. and ONLY replaced the PAGENAME -- with my username.

& got "editted" .. under?

{

Which as found .. { is a no-letter un-identifyable listing.. After "Z".

Why>? I had a look into YOUR own mainpage .. and ONLY when i selected "edit" .. to actually LOOK at ow you entered that..? Did I spot the problem.?

.. as there is NO need for the double squiggle openers - notr the double squiggle closers of the "SHIFTED" Backslash KEY {{ }} As those ARE NOT needed in or on the users name Thus -- I "cut 7 pasted' a copy of exactly HOW you did yours.. AND ONLY CHANGED YOUR USERNAME.. for MINE..(on my edit page)

Bingo...

Instead of being "lost" in a non letter category of Name starts with { I'm finally in -- Q = QUIX4U. sweet. Kiwi ingenuity wins again. QUIX4U (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the instructions can be misunderstood, rather than being 100% wrong. I think the "{{" brackets and the "substitute" part are related to the software that Commons runs under. The person writing the instructions obviously didn't think that users wouldn't know under which contexts it works and which it doesn't.... Ingolfson (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:New_Zealand_media_licenses[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:New_Zealand_media_licenses 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 | português | русский | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NZHPT[edit]

Hi there, can you please have a look at the NZHPT discussion? Please reply there to keep things in one place. Cheers! Schwede66 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Trilateral[edit]

Hello Ingolfson, I saw your category addition here. Can you tell me what is the trilateral symmetry in that image? Regards, Apdency (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The text description below the image states: The statue actually looks the same from three different angles, giving it a rotational symmetry of sorts.. That is all I based it on. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This image actually shows it a bit more. Ingolfson (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha, the original text description on Flickr. I didn't go there. Thanks for the explanation. Apdency (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It IS on the Commons file text too ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
WAS... Apdency (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fenders[edit]

Funny way of discussing. Better this way. No problem at all when a single tugboat or special shaped tugboat fenders are added to the fender category. But most tugboats have these fenders and I thought that it is not a good idea to add all big tugboats. That's all. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - And I wouldn't add images that are much further out / away from the tugboat than this one. As I noted, I felt that they were reasonably dominant here. Ingolfson (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Category:Artificial lakes[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Artificial lakes 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 | português | русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Past[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Past 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 | português | русский | +/−

Skinsmoke (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships_by_name_by_type[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Ships_by_name_by_type 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 | português | русский | +/−

Badzil (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Country category scheme[edit]

Dear Ingolfson, I've been moving around lots of categories on countries, because many are overpopulated. Among them, I moved "Military of X" into "Politics of X" and "Organizations of X", because the military are a organization deeply linked with national politics. If you disagree with that change or any other I did, please tell me your views and let's discuss. See you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While there may be a certain seductive logic to that move, Military is not one of the categories that should be moved (and certainly not without prior discussion). It is a key category for many people searching for it, has been a top category for pretty much since inception of the category system on Commons, and is listed as a top category in the country category scheme (I will admit that the category schemes are not exactly the easiest things to be aware of, but they are there). Such a move should have been discussed at the top level of "military" or at least "military by country", and until it has agreement there, I will revert the changes. Nothing personal, but the country top level is pretty important, and changes there can really confuse things. Regards Ingolfson (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The 54 subcategories of Category:China confuse me a lot, so I'm bold and I change them. "I will admit that the category schemes are not exactly the easiest things to be aware of" - well, I just found it and it hasn't been changed or commented in two and a half year. The last discussion I found is this one, where people are complaining about the same proble I'm mentioning. The 15 subcats sound fine, but many categories are untypical, like "Valued images of X" and "Multilingual tags: Locations in X", and the number grows quickly. Do you want me to propose a new scheme at the Village pump? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the category schemes are badly linked into the whole thing, many users are not even aware of them. I have no problem with reducing 54 subcats - but I just wonder whether military which contains a huge amount of Common's files should be moved casually. I have started a discussion here for the specific military aspect: Category:Military by country. Feel free to discuss the grander issues at Village Pump. I am not too precious about a specific scheme, but I want a guideline to be accepted by all so we (i.e. Commons - not you & me) don't constantly have small or large disagreements over this, or over other valuable changes such as cleaning up Category:China. Happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I want a guideline that the community accepts and implements too. I mention the village pump because it's the discussion page with most traffic. See yoou! --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I will be away for the next couple days, please link me to the discussion once started. For something this size, I hope you agree that the discussion should be at least 2 weeks (same as for a humble "move" proposal of a single category). As we discussed, it would be good to frame the discussion not only in the sense of updating the country category scheme, but also making it more prominent (maybe with a header in every country category linking to it). Ingolfson (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons as a multilingual project: who to contact to handle a Polski DR?[edit]

Hello,

To find a contributor speaking another language to help us to translate statements or directly handle a DR, we've two solutions.

  • There are local village pumps, by language, where you can ask for a translation or launch an open call for participation ;
  • The administrators are in theory active members (as commons. has an inactivity policy), and another advantage is they virtually all have a babel box. The drawback is this method contributes to discourage other trusted users to participate in or close the DRs.

Administrators speaking Polski as native language and English[edit]

Source: Commons:List of administrators by language

List of the village pumps[edit]

Source: {{Lang-VP}}

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | українська | +/−

If you need further assistance, I'm at your disposal. --Dereckson (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Dodarak power plant, Nangarhar -f.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dodarak power plant, Nangarhar -f.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

-Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories of victims, fatalities, deaths[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Categories of victims, fatalities, deaths 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 | português | русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

russavia (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Category:Forest gardens (permaculture)[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Forest gardens (permaculture) 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, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Derelict_buildings[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Derelict_buildings 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 | português | русский | +/−

Ghouston (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Category:Weapon stations[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Weapon stations 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 | português | русский | +/−

-- Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Historical_Houses_Above_Onehunga.jpg et al[edit]

If the trees in question were the subject of the photograph, or even framed so as to be fully visible, or they were on a notable tree register (eg [2]) then I would put them in a tree category. I suppose to me it comes down to: is the tree mentioned in the filename or description? If not, then it has no cause to be in a tree category. I tried to identify the tree, best photo I could find is [3], but don't know what it is. Anyway the main category tree really is for categorising the subject of the image, but then the category system is thoroughly munted, and I have to admitt I seldom bother to tilt at that windwill anymore. In reality the only important bit is the file description :-). (as for categorising every photo with a road marking or sign post .... my brain will just implode if I contemplate the madness that lies there ;-). All the best with the photography :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Is that a fountain or a well by the path leading to the blockhouse?
PPS My best guess is that it is a "golden totara" perhaps up to 100 years old, of course the other big trees are norfolk pines, apparently a good place for Monarch butterflies. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
PPPS The fountain is a memorial fountain erected by Mr and Mrs R Buchanan in memory of "Uncle" Daniel Neilson, who died 21 August 1922". Also many trees have plaques to identify them. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"I suppose to me it comes down to: is the tree mentioned in the filename or description? If not, then it has no cause to be in a tree category."
I disagree with the statement. The three (naming, description, categories) should ideally work together as best as possible, but to use the absence of one as an argument for the removal of the other is really upside-down for me. Trees form a major backdrop for this image, and there is no rule that the tree has to be identified (species etc...) or be "notable" (which concept does not exist on Commons!) for the category to apply. Do I have to identify which ship or even type of ships it is to be allowed to use the "ships in new zealand" category? No.
It seems more a disagreement over how "dominant" something has to be to be worth categorising. And I don't think we will find common ground there, as I believe that all clearly identifiable elements make sense to be categorised - because sometimes one wants images of aspects in context, rather than dominant - whereas you obviously find that only the very few main elements apply. Ingolfson (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, I have reverted about half of your "trees in new zealand" category removals on my photos. The half where I have not reverted your changes, I (somewhat grudgingly in a few cases, I admit) accepted that most others would consider them over-categorised, so did not reinstate. Happy editing, and hope we do find some common ground... Ingolfson (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mackenzie_Basin[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Mackenzie_Basin 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 | português | русский | +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Leighton marshalling yard[edit]

Hope you are staisfied now - The original name with North Fremantle in it was correct situation of the marshalling yard - maybe accurate as far as maps are concerned for the locality - but local usage in Perth equates the former marshalling yard and beach as having an existence separate from the official North Fremantle name on the map . sats (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Container-terminal_bremerhaven - pic rotation[edit]

First time that I felt a picture is not exactly levelled AND a looked up its version history.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Container-terminal_bremerhaven_hg.jpg

Your friendly remark of 5.11.2009: "Image was not level - corrected by 1.0 degrees. Hope you approve - Cheers."

One degree seems to be so small, that I rather cannot decide be view of plain eye (bei freiem Auge) even into what direction you did the turn.

You should tell the direction of turning, but so one has to go into the versions and find out.

Using the corner of a paper sheet I tested following 4 masts:

a. the dominating lattice mast, dark against the sky, near - little bit rigz of the center

b. left side: white mast

c. front: black mast

d. right: black mast

Scale:

s ... (prefix) somewhat, small, 50 %

L ... Left (= lies counterclockwise from vertical)

I ... vertical

R ... Right

Measurements / File Data:

a b c d version rotation sum pixel(area) File size

L sL I sL 05.11.2009 (yours) L + 2sL = 2 L 96 % 2.46 MB = 132 %

I I R R 26.12.2008 (orig.) R + R = 2 R 100 % 1.86 MB = 100 %

Results:

This semi-scientific work saya: It is at least difficult to decide what version is better levelled. But it confirms my first impression: The dominating middle mast (a.) hangs a little bit to the Left in the last version. And this because of your small rotation, which must have been to the Left.

A. Considering all 4 masts the picture (2008) better should have been rotated only by 0.5° to the left

B. Looking to the dominating mast only, the unrotated version of 2008 would be fine. Whith 2 extra benefits: Avoids the loss of 4 % of the pixels and the rise of 32 % in file size.

C. Let us go to Bremerhaven and have a look if this dominating mast stands really vertical there or not! --Helium4 (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Internal link of pic file address lead me to the technics of scrolling left-right to hift the masts to the windows frame. For 2008 version only one measurement has to be corrected: Mast c. is sR instead of I, reducing 2008 rotation sum to 1.5 L and my arguments a little bit. We need not to go to Bremerhaven so quick ... --Helium4 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Some people like their rotational theory and practice. Whatever floats your container terminal, mate. Go for it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:People_by_occupation_by_alphabet[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:People_by_occupation_by_alphabet 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 | português | русский | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:People_associated_with_people[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:People_associated_with_people 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 | português | русский | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:St_John_Ambulance,_Singapore[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:St_John_Ambulance,_Singapore 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 | português | русский | +/−

Proshob (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Printed_books[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Printed_books 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 | português | русский | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Those Poor Midgets, But Good Joke.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Those Poor Midgets, But Good Joke.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed_bridges[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Destroyed_bridges 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 | português | русский | +/−

Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2014 (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, such as a copyright issue.
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:


Yours sincerely, Krd 05:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this photo. :) Schwede66 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)