User talk:Auntof6

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

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Auntof6!

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

Re:Category:Architecture in Abruzzo[edit]

Hello. First of all, I don't understand why you removed the artistic categorization in Category:Architecture of Italy. Then, regarding to the "Culture of..." categories, you're right in adding the category (even if it would be more understandable if you create and add the "Art of..." categories), but not substituting to the general one. To have only the category "Culture of..." is reductive, because architecture is not only an artistic branch (nor a generic branch of "culture"), but it can regard also urbanistic, engineering, and -most of all- the structure of the city itself. --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with architecture being under art. (I have a little problem with it because some things that go under architecture don't have the artistic aspect, but that's only a little problem -- remember that the architecture categories are for the concept, not specifically for what architects do when they design things.) I was working to make the categorization as consistent as possible. Some of the architecture categories were under art and some weren't (even where the art categories existed), so I made them consistent. I could have done it either way. I don't have a problem if you want to put them all under art -- I think there are art categories for all the regions of Italy. I'll even do it myself if you want, when I'm back on my main PC later. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Père Lachaise Cemetery[edit]

Hello Auntof6,

Thank your very much for your help Clin Pyb (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pyb: Are you being sincere or sarcastic? You sound sincere, but since you reverted so many of my edits, I don't understand why you would be thanking me. If you think there's something I don't understand about how the categories for that cemeteries are managed, please feel free to explain it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I'm sincere. I'm happy that you have detected and corrected some of my mistakes.
I reverted some edits because there is a lot of homonymies in the cemetery. That's why now I add "(Père-Lachaise, division xx)" in the name of the category. Pyb (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat pointless sort keys?[edit]

I have noticed that you have been adding the sort key, "τ" Greek small letter tau, in your edits of various templates (example diff). If you are intending to sort templates into "T" as such edits do you can simply use that letter. I should also note some templates are the only pages in a category rendering such keys truly pointless. Regards. Allen4names (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I don't intend to sort templates under the letter T (tee). My understanding is that templates (and template categories) in non-template categories should be sorted with the tau sort key so that they stay together and separate from other things in the category. In the example you give, it's true that there are no other pages in the category, but in the future there could be gallery pages. I don't think it hurts to use the tau now in case that happens. I don't do mass changes to add the sort key; I only add it when I'm doing something else with the template. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe‎[edit]

Hello, you have changed Macedonia into Republic of Macedonia. I'm not sure if this is correct for countries (as opposed to states) and if "Republic of" should be part of a country (or state) name, but this is not my point. Changing the template makes disappear all Categories that have until now been in the list but only have "of Macedonia" as name. Would you be so kind and also move these categories to "of the Republic of Macedonia"? Thank you. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gürbetaler: I'd be glad to do that if you tell me which categories those are, and if they're really for the country. The categories for the country should already have "Republic of Macedonia" in their name (see Category:Republic of Macedonia). Any that have just "Macedonia" are probably for the region (see Category:Macedonia (region) and its subcategories). The ones for the region shouldn't be linked by the template, so we shouldn't change those. Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but all these seem to be for the Republic of Macedonia:

...just to mention a few...--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've done a few (marked as "done" above). I'm looking at the others. For some of them, it makes sense to me that they would be for the country and not for the region, but I'd want to be sure that everything in the category is specific to the country before I change them. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. For the five rail vehicle categories it's very obvious that they only deal with the republic of Macedonia as they only contain MŽ rolling stock.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Categorie by name[edit]

Hi Auntof6. Please can you explain me your reasons for removing the template by name in a lot of categories by name? Thank you. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was doing a couple of different things. In some cases, I changed the metacat template to the catcat template. In some cases, I removed or changed the "name" parameter in the metacat template. In those cases, I did so because, although the category names include "by name", they weren't actually meta categories, at least not for names. A metacat groups categories by a common characteristic. It can be by name, but not every category called "by name" is a meta category.
As an example of what I mean, look at Category:Cafés by name and Category:Churches by name.
  • Category:Churches by name is a meta category, because it has subcategories for churches that have the same names, or nearly the same. For example, Category:Elim churches is for any church named "Elim". Category:Wesley churches is for any church named "Wesley".
  • Category:Cafés by name is not a meta category, because it doesn't group things by shared names. It is more of a list of café categories. It would be a meta category if the subcategories were things like "Cafés named Corner Café", but that's not what it has.
So, among "by name" categories, some include things grouped by name, and others include categories for individual named things or people. I think only the former are meta categories, so in the latter I have been changing the metacat template to the catcat template. It's still valid to have only categories in those, even if they aren't meta categories.
In other cases, instead of removing the metacat template, I removed or changed the name parameter from it if it was still a meta category by virtue of another criterion. For example, Category:Hotels by name by country is a meta category because it groups by country, but not because of the name aspect because nothing is grouped by shared names.
I hope that makes sense. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you made a bit of a mess when doing this. You merged Category:Monuments and memorials by city by name (which was essentially a flat category) into Category:Monuments and memorials by city, which was already divided into a set of by country categories. Now that by city category is clogged with redundant categories. I haven't looked at your other edits, but there may be similar cases. - Eureka Lott 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
That's the only one like that that I have done, but I'm not sure I'd agree it's a mess. Is the issue that some categories (for example, Category:Monuments and memorials in Aachen) are now in both Category:Monuments and memorials by city and in a category like Category:Monuments and memorials in Germany by city? In a category like "Foo by city", you expect to directly see subcategories like "Foo in City1", "Foo in City2", etc. Besides that, a category name like "Monuments and memorials by city by name" isn't clear as to whether "name" refers to names of monuments/memorials or names of cities.
What if we move the categories in question to a new category called something like "Monuments and memorials by city (flat list)"? To me, that would be clearer than "by city by name". What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you identified my main concern. If a category is in Category:Monuments and memorials in Germany by city, it shouldn't also be in Category:Monuments and memorials by city. As for the flat category, I don't know if there's a need to recreate it. Do you think it would be useful to have? - Eureka Lott 03:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think it would be useful. That's why I emptied it and asked for it to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

NR names[edit]

To give you a random example, consider The Chadwick in Indianapolis, listed in 1983 and delisted in 2011 after a fire. Refnum 83000061 will always apply to the place, unless they do some sort of major reorganisation of NRIS and change around (or abolish) refnums. A refnum does not cease to apply to a place just because it's been delisted, as you'll see if you go through the Access or Excel files that are available for download. It's not merely places that have been delisted recently; St. John's Lutheran Church, listed in 1982 and delisted in 1991, still appears with refnum 82000024. Although no longer listed, these places are still associated with the National Register in whatever place they are, so removing NR in Place is unhelpful — nobody would suggest that you remove the photo of a place from its county's NR list on en:wp just because the place got delisted, and in the same way, it still belongs in the county NR category. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)