User talk:Elgewen

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

File:Watergang drijvend droogdok.jpg[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Elgewen!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

Moros y Cristianos 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Beste Moros y Cristianos, Bedankt voor de opmerkingen en leerzame links. Ik ben nog nieuw bij Commons zodat ik de weg nog moet vinden. De categorien van mijn laatste serie zijn nog niet correct (te veel categorien) maar ik zal dat nog corrigeren. Met vriendelijke groet. --Elgewen (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your categorization rocks!. Cheers. Moros y Cristianos 09:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Cqdx (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right, most antennas are for “telecommunication” but we need some labels for the specific groups of radio (included TV) equipment, the antennas and the supporting constructions such a masts and towers so that it would be easy for everyone to place or to find a media.

When I was busy with replacing of media in the Categories:Radio and Aerials, I came up with the idea of splitting up the crowded category in two large groups: a. Radio and Television Broadcasting (one-way communication: from one point to everyone who's listening) and b. Telecommunication (one of two way communications between specific participants: GSM, CB-band, etc.) Of course there are more applications needing antennas, eg. radar, detection, navigation, remote controling of toys and missiles, etc. For the moment the separation of the “telecommunication antennas” could perhaps bring some air in the overcrowded categories Radio, Antennas and there subcat's. Some of the subcategeries of the “Antennas by function” could be placed in the new categorie “Telecommunication antennas” such as: Airplane, Ship, Amateur, CB, Militaiy. (Terestial television should be placed in the Broadcasting cat. in my opinion) Others items as the GPS, radar timesignals etc. should get a own categorie at a later stage in order to get a nice clear and short menu. Please note my little explanation on the page “Category:Radio” and some subsequent pages. I didn't replace all the possible media in case others might object against this line of thinking. --Elgewen (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps the wrong place for my answer, I've put a copy of this on the page Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01. --Elgewen (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly abstain from adding this category to other photos, while the discussion is ongoing. --Cqdx (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'am sorry, I had read a request not to empty a category under discussion, so I added some pictures. Please accept my apologise.--Elgewen (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think they wanted to say not to change during discussions, i.e. not to empty full categories, and not to fill empty categories. No problem. --Cqdx (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Roger --Elgewen (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Cqdx (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly abstain from adding this category to other photos, while the discussion is ongoing. --Cqdx (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, oké, no problem. It only was ment to show the kind of pictures we are talking about.--Elgewen (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem myself, but we have not yet started talking there. --Cqdx (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect categorization[edit]

Hi Elgewen. I noticed, you made many changes of categories of telecommunication towers. Unfortunately, many of your changes are incorrect and harmful.

  • you repeatedly moved images from a relevant category to any more general. ([1])
  • you repeatedly moved images from an existing category to one more specific but non-existing or not properly categorized one (which causes that the images disappeared from corresponding branch of categories)
  • you categorizes individual images instead of categorizing the whole category of any tower ([2])

Please stop your category changes until you understand basic principles of the categorization system on wiki projects. It is very dificcult to fix such extensive damage. Please try to rectify them all as soon as you will be able. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallo ŠJů, I'm sorry that I caused so much trouble. After some talks with Cqdx (archive "categories for discussion feb. 2010": Category:Television towers), some categories are closed and replaced by a new one "Category:Antenna towers and masts by country". After doing some recategorizations I noticed that there are more sophisticated people or BOT's are bussy with the conversion of the categories of telecom towers ect. so that I left the subject for the time being. About the example of the Telecom tower in Pardubice, it is now categorized as "Category:Antenna towers and masts in the Czech Republic" without the name of the place "Pardubice". I don't know why the place name is omitted. Perhaps it must be added manually?

I'm sorry that I don't know more about antennas than wiki-languge. Nevertheless let me know if I can do a specific action in order to help you out of trouble, perhaps after some instructions. Friendly --Elgewen (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please read the first sentence of my last entry: "I'm sorry that I know more of antennas than of wiki-language." (As a matter of fact: the same applies to english-language.) --Elgewen (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Rosetta Barnstar.png The Rosetta Barnstar
For great work translating category descriptions. 99of9 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'am very happy with it. Kindly, --Elgewen (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much[edit]

Good work. Orrlingtalk 11:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much (hell of a job, hi) --Elgewen (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

description translation[edit]

Hi Elgegwen,

could you please use {{Multilingual description}} instead of {{Translation table}}. Particularly if it is allready used on that category like in the case of Category:Categories. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I used the wrong template, (if these things are called like that.) Of course, I will look to it and correct it, no problem. --Elgewen (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping order[edit]

Hi, when you edit meta-categories can you please remember always to keep the MetaCat-tag adjacent to the parent-cats, like here; and the usuage note / page explanation on top, like here. Also, "mind the gaps" as they say in London: spacing one line-down between page functions facilitates the work for everyone, and is more aesthetic. The order is:

  1. usage text,
  2. various templates,
  3. parents,
  4. interwikis.

All this is primarily to care for the next editor after you :o) but also this is generally the standard. Thankz, Orrlingtalk 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

.....Alsooo.. when using a "{{Multilingual description}}"-frame, rather than the "{{Translation table}}", you may want to consider putting a dot at the end, like here. Thanx Orrlingtalk 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpfull informations Orrling. I'm quite happy with them and I will certainly follow the advices and suggestions. --Elgewen (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Houtwerkgereedschap Mr. van Druten[edit]

Hallo Elgewen,

Ik zag dat je deze gereedschappen samen op een pagina aan het zetten bent. Dat is erg mooi. Is het een idee om alle gereedschappen samen in de categorie "Woodworking tools of Mr. Van Druten" te zetten? Mochten ze een goede vervangende categorie hebben dan kan de unidentified location in the Netherlands categorie eraf. Daarnaast zijn het geen rijksmonumenten (en het adrestemplate is ook vrij overbodig). Leuk in ieder geval om te zien dat ook dit deel van de rijksmonumentenfoto'scollectie opgepakt wordt.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Basvb, bedankt voor je reactie. Het leek me goed om de collectie bijelkaar te houden, door eerst een 'pagina' met toelichtingen van te maken (met Engels en met WP-linkjes, wel moeizaam gedoe, hi), en dan eventueel later nog eens per stuk gereedschap, naar een "categorie op soort." Ik bekijk het nog even, eerst nog maar wat Engelse termen zoeken. Ik had die template "Rijksmonument" nog niet eerder gezien. (De rijksmonumentenfotocolectie kende ik trouwens ook al niet, hi.)

De categoriën "Unidentified locations in the Netherlands" en "Images from RCE, unknown province" lijken - ik heb even gekeken bij RCE - toch vooral om vastgoed met een bepaalde locatie te gaan. Ergo: overbodige categoriën, maar ik blijf er maar liever vanaf. Vrg --Elgewen (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Basvb, Ik ben al om, een (desnoods voorlopig) eigen categorie "Woodworking tools of Mr. Van Druten" lijkt toch beter en werkt waarschijnlijk ook vlugger, en zo krijgen de files ook meteen een behoorlijke categorie naast die "Unidentified locations" en "Unknwon province". 'k ga dat nu doen. vgr --Elgewen (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Mooi, ik zal dan later de possible rijksmonumenten en unidentified locations erafhalen (99,9% van de collectie die geüpload wordt zijn gebouwen dus dit wordt automatisch toegevoegd). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Alle houtwerkgereedschappen van Van Druten staan nu in Category:Woodworking tools of Mr. Van Druten. Basvb (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja, ik zie het voor mijn verbaasde ogen. Is wel overzichtelijk en makkelijker om na te lopen voor vertalinkjes enzo. Mooi werk! Bespaart me nog een hoop geklepper op m'n toetsenbordje, hi. mvg --Elgewen (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Elgewen, Why are you creating male and female categories for Dutch artists? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

hi Vincent Steenberg, Some categories are very crouded with media. There are so many artists that I looked for a way to got categories with less media in them for instance the cat 'Musicians'. So I thought splitting them up by gender is an easy way, but alo dividing 'by country' will work. I must say it is a lot of work to prepare the higher categories in a way that others easily can see how the system works. I hope that you dont have objections against to my way of working. I think it will work fine but, I'm not alone in this world, hi. Greatings, --Elgewen (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. Categories like Category:Painters are quite overcrowded. However, why didn't you use the existing category structure rather than creating a new key? I believe, like this you risk creating a spagghetti of subcategories. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, there is a certain danger of Spaghetti of cats, but that remains a limited one, while the lists of media are grouwing without limit. By using some options on top of a category such as by country, gender, by instrument etc. we can hold the list rather simple, I think. Hope you will agree. greatings --Elgewen (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about musicians, but my experience with visual artists is that categorization by country works fine. For example Category:Artists from the Netherlands and Category:Painters from the Netherlands look pretty neat and tidy, if I say so myself. Why would you want to change this? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There is not much to gain in the Dutch painters department, hi. But the list of names could use some clues about the kind of painters that are mentioned in the alphabetical list, would I say. Now there is only the option around the 'historic 1830 split' (and my silly male/female option 'in progress') and I think that the list could use some more options. Perhaps at a leter date. Besides all that, my idea spliting up the list in two lists 'male and female' (later to be the option 'painters by gender') is not only my idea, see the “Category:Female artists” that already has the 'female options': female painters, female sculptors etc. however the 'painters line' bleeds dead somehow. If we pick up the line at the Category:Painters we see the common order: some prelimimairy options by country, genre, technique etc, and also the male/female division. Yes, my contribution in order to make the connection to the Category:Painters from the Netherlands so that we get a continous line, male or female, from 'Category:Artists' to all following deeper categories. Looks good to my, but it is a lot of work sorting out by hand all mixed lists into separete lists, male and female. So, please let my know what you think about it. Greatings, --Elgewen (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry, but I strongly disagree. Say, you're looking for the artist Breitner, you look under the B of Breitner and you're there. Why go through Category:Male painters from the Netherlands or any other subcategory? I just don't see a need for that. Also more 'clues' are not to be desired I think, because they won't make it easier to find what you're looking for and they will become a nightmare to maintain. For example, if you create 4 clues, you will have to categorise each artist according to those 4 clues, otherwise they don't work. That means recategorising 600 Dutch painters, 792 Belgian painters, 2075 painters from France, etc. Why go through so much trouble for something that is in effect user-unfriendly. Sorry to put it like this, but that's what I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vincent Steenberg, well, I'm not looking for the creation of nightmares, so I won't go further with the separate categories for female and male. I'm going to un-do all previous cases where possible (many musician categories) but, as there are a lot of them, it will take some time. If you can do the job by pushing a button that would help enormously, if not, I'll do it by hand, no problem. Greetings --Elgewen (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Thanks very much for your understanding, but remember, I only have this experience with visual artists. It may wel be that Musicians need a different approach. I'll leave that to you. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Oké, thanks for your answer. I'll shall start with the visual artists first and see what to do with the others. Regards. --Elgewen (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Conductors and Conducting[edit]

Regarding your edits to the categories of Category:Conductors and Category:Conducting:

Looking for a straight division of the Category 'Musicians' in clear main groups, I came to Vocalists, Instrumentalists, Composers and the Conductors. That looked fine and easy for everone, but what to do with the 'bandleaders, choirmasters, drum majors,' and so on? Well, the existing Category 'Conducting' looked a better solution and it could be used for the various kinds of 'conducting musicians'. Subdivision is possible for the persons and the elements and accessories belonging to their art. I am sure they are all 'musicians' and therfore belong to the category with this name, but there are some more obvious categories conceivable. So am I not so enthusiastic about the category 'Classical music', I'd say the Category 'Music'. Please let me know wherther I should redo my steps. I'll do so without problems. --Elgewen (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not wait longer for a reply, so I have put the following categories back to the previous positions:
Thanks for that. (I must have overlooked your earlier response on my watchlist because I watched the Village pump during those days.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Dogad75 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Musicians sub-sub-subcategories by gender and other unneeded work[edit]

You're causing enormously lot of work for others to fix the partial or incorrect sorting in the pages that you create. Many of these categories are also very redundant. Please follow my last changes and assimilate as much as you can. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message although it is bad news for me. Nevertheless I will comply with your request starting immediately. --Elgewen (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Please stop these "reaparative" edits that you're doing now , what you're now engaging in is the *opposite* of helpful; the entries that I've fixed after you are fine as I fixed them, and were made with much care. I now need to undo your last edits in the items that I've worked out. Orrlingtalk 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. It seemed best to me to step backwards so that we come at a point where we can decide which categories are desirable and should remain and which are redundant. At present it is unclear for me to see which points are a problem in the categories that I have made (male/female, classic, jazz etc.) Oké, I'll stop now. --Elgewen (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your attitude a lot. Your last series of modifications came as a reaction to my comment, but it was made after I had already settled much of these messy categories earlier today and last night (and deleted about 30 or 40... who counts) so what you were trying to do was practically your way to "take back" the redundant work from July, however it was obviously too late as I had sorted in and out the categories already, so by trying to pull down the pile altogether you were eroding a somewhat fragile array that had been put together somehow. My original point concerned the unnecessary division of sub-sub music genres to M/F and then by country, creating a category for each such mini-group which has no end and no point either. For example: "Male pianists" is fine, "Male medieval pianists from San Juan Province, Mexico" - not so fine.. :) Also starting "by country" categories when there's no more than two potential countries is unhelpful, and so is creating "by gender" categories for folk harpists... :) These general keys are the keys I employed during that work on the tree, being guided by the objective of saving readers extra uninteresting navigation. You could see I've left a few categories that have a substantial content, like Category:Female classical pianists from Russia, while others with little or nil prospect such as Category:Female classical pianists from Austria I dismantled, and each piece of the content received the discarded parent's-parents. The last thing I wanted was to confuse you. You're the best. Keep going. Orrlingtalk 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear explantions, they are most useful. I'll keep them in mind when I'am working on the diffusion of files the Category:Musicians (more than 2000 files) or files in other crowded categories such as the uncategorized ones. The relative small category 'Harpists' was a kind of pilot project in order to find out which possibilities for under division where useful. So I worked out a systematic line of linked categories top-down which are based on four obvious items as gender, genre, kind of musician and country. In this way a file in the top category 'Musicians', from which all four items are given or (or found on internet, wp, google), can be replaced from the top to the deepest category, like 'Male jazz pianists from the United States'. For files with missing (or problematic) items there is a place ready in one of the categories in the linked line, like 'Male pianists from Spain' or 'Male pianists' etc. In the pilot 'harpists' the whole top category was emptied this way, but indeed one of the results is: a lot of 'menu like categories' or empty categories. So I take it that I may continue, if I are careful not to start a new categories with a little number of files and placing files preferably in existing categories.

By the way, is it likewise undesirable to have a category for a person with only one or two files in it?

There's regretably no policy (probably not yet) on what minimum number of entries justifies erecting a new category, however, I don't start a new category for less than three files, for the very most. It doesn't mean that I delete categories with one file in them, and they exist like shit, but categories of one or two items need to be of a highly-important personality, place or event (in other words: they can sure expect growing on with more files). Quite less tolerable is, however, making futile sub-divisions for categories by-subgenre-by-country-by-gender, all in one, as were many of your creations, such as "Female folk multi-instrumentalists from Canada". Such are rather (very) silly :) . It's not the quantity of the content in these cats, it's the fact that this kind of arrangement simply turns our media unfindable by the occasional user. -and is therefore counter-helpful. As you might see in my rework on your categorizations, every entry was re-parented with each of its parent's main components apart:
  1. Country;
  2. Gender;
  3. Musical sub-genre.
Any category that contains all the three assets in it, like "Category:Female jazz violinists from France", would most probably be very redundant and better avoided! Category:Violinists by gender is quite superfluous! :-) The current system is generally OK as it is, but I might find it useful to dismantle some more sub-subs. Creating new musician categories is OK when, for example, you discover that many specific instrumentalists from a certain country are still ungrouped, such would be "Category:Flutists from Albania" or "Category:Female musicians from Kenya". Since I'm more a categorist than a musician, I need to ask you what has made you determine on *some* personalities that they were *classical* pianists and not generally "pianists" – that is, what key is directing you in discerning a pianist as "classical" from one who remains just "pianist" (given that this isn't a jazz pianist)? These splits have been made in quite big numbers in the pianists tree, and I fear that they might be a bit random, so you may be correcting me. And finally, please avoid indexing subcategories with a double sortkey like "xxx| *", and avoid the "!"-mark. This has no reason and looks bad; start with "|*" and "| ", and when these two are taken, grouping with "|#" and "|+" is acceptable. Regardz. Orrlingtalk 19:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Orrling for your extra information and the guideline that, in general, a new category should contain no less than three files to start with. Your question 'how to determine a musical genre' has a simple answer: I use the information given in a biography (Google, Wikipedia or otherwise). Sometimes the information is quite tricky with respect to categorization, for exemple, when the musician is multi-talented and famous for several disciplines of music: composing, conducting and playing several instruments. Especially the number of genres in the pop scene are amazing, I must say. OK, I'd left the musicians department for some time, but I'm going back to see what I can do, now armed with your information. Thanks. --Elgewen (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Blacksmithing tools[edit]

It has been almost two years, but I replied at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Blacksmithing tools. I thought your comment there simply ignored points I made that I regard as significant. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read that you got the impression that I ignored the points your made. That is not the case, as you will see at my entry on the discussion page: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Blacksmithing tools. Regards --Elgewen (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Closeapple (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Closeapple, please see my comment about the "Category:Street_musicians_in_Kenosha" at "Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/02/Category:Street musicians in Kenosha". --Elgewen (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Keep up the great work with pronunciation!

~riley (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise, riley. Thanks a lot. --Elgewen (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Machine vices[edit]

Why have you renamed correctly-spelled categories ? Please explain at Commons:Village pump#COM:ENGVAR?. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, done, see Commons:Village pump#COM:ENGVAR?.

A building...[edit] not a meeting. The building is a place where meetings are held, not the meeting itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken, Thanks to you I discovered now the category:Meeting houses and the subcats. Among them the Category:Marlboro Town House which is the appropriate category for the file File:Marlboro Town (Meeting) House Marlboro Vermont.jpg. I have added a extra Category:Meeting houses in Vermont to the Category:Marlboro Town House if that is alright with you. --Elgewen (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


I'm grinning, thanks for categorizing my butter pecan cake photo as "art", though I daresay it looks anything as beautiful as the other photos in that category. ɱ (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a nice photo of a modern-day still-life. I've added an extra category 'Still-life photography', which still is a form of visual art, I think. --Elgewen (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pierre_Gencey[edit] 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Music schools in the Netherlands[edit]

Hi Elgewen,

I'm sorry I had to remove the category Music schools in the Netherlands from one of my photo's because only the roof of the music school in the photo can be seen. This file however, would be suitable for that category, as that's the music school. Whishing you a nice day from the Netherlands, Dqfn13 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sound of birds in music[edit]

Nice idea, but two critical remarks:

  1. Grammar is not uniform – note a supercategory “sounds of birds”. It is likely a systemic problem.
  2. You missed Music by subject. Do not overcategorize.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks You are right. I have repaired it. --Elgewen (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cmu building.jpg[edit]

I've looked at a few of your edits([3], [4]). In fact, the category you added is wrong.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction Kai3952 --Elgewen (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)