User talk:Famartin

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

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images[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, Famartin!

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Abies sp.[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Famartin. You have new messages at MPF's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

MPF (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Moores Knob Pinus virginiana 1.jpg[edit]

What are your reasons, please? When I uploaded the photo, I did consider P. rigida, but came down in favour of P. virginiana on the basis of the slender cones, which don't fit the broad ovoid shape of closed P. rigida cones (see image notes, added on photo; then see at full resolution). - MPF (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:View from the northern end of the main ridgeline of the Independence Mountains in Nevada.jpg[edit]

Hello, looking at this morning, the new records kept on Wikipedia, I saw your eight photographs. I have assembled. Here is the result. I hope this is satisfactory. Cordially. (machine translation)

Bonjour, en regardant, ce matin, les nouveaux fichiers versés sur Wikipédia, j'ai vu vos huits photographies. Je les ai assemblées. Voici le résultat. J'espère que cela vous conviendra.Cordialement.François de Dijon (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_from_the_northern_end_of_the_main_ridgeline_of_the_Independence_Mountains_in_Nevada.jpg

Hello, I tried to create panoramas from your other photograhies. I'm sorry I have not been able to create assembly as successful with many photographs (there were defects created on parts). I will try another time. Cordially.François de Dijon (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama from the summit of Nevada's Matterhorn.jpg[edit]

Hello, here is the panorama created from your photographs. I hope this is satisfactory. Cordially. François de Dijon (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama from the summit of Nevada's Matterhorn.jpg

File:Panorama from the summit of Marys River Peak v01.jpg and File:Panorama from the summit of Marys River Peak v02.jpg[edit]

Here are the results with two different programs. They did not put in the same order and it changes the final views. Cordially. François de Dijon (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama from the summit of Marys River Peak v01.jpg File:Panorama from the summit of Marys River Peak v02.jpg


Category:Mercer County Route 546 (New Jersey)[edit]

--——Mr. Matté'pedia talk 02:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Weather-bureau13 and 24[edit]

Hi,

I see that you have realized that I have included those in a subcategory of "Airport meteorological equipment". In fact, I think this Airport category is quite redundant as most weather equipment are at airport. But I won't complain.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-09-22 14 31 34 Statue at the entrance to Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2013-09-22 14 31 34 Statue at the entrance to Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

NOAA Rain Gauge[edit]

Hi,

I'm working on a geography book and would like to use your rain gauge photo found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_4-inch_plastic_rain_gauge,_typical_of_those_used_by_the_CoCoRaHS_program.JPG

Please could you contact me and I'll send you full book details.

Thanks.

Jerry Marshall jerry(at)pictureresearching.com

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 01:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

Awesome photos bro!

Jrmichae (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-03-10 13 45 26 Cumulonimbus clouds in Elko, Nevada.JPG[edit]

Hi,

I had removed the category:cumulonimbus clouds because there is no way, but your word, to know this is such a cloud. There is no particular feature to put it in either of the sudcategories of the category and it serves no purpose to remain there. I'm thinking that it is better to be only in the Elko categegory.

Pierre cb (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kelly Ostler Horizon Hospice Memorial Rose Garden[edit]

Hello Famartin,
I just noticed your pictures of the Kelly Ostler Horizon Hospice Memorial Rose Garden and wanted to ask if the roses there are identified (some signs), as pictures of identified cultivars would be even more valuable (while there are quite a lot of rose pictures, most rose cultivars have no or only one or two pictures).
Best wishes,
Anna reg (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any signs identifying them... sorry. Famartin (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I feared that after seeing your general views of the rose garden. A pity, but nothing easily changed... thanks for your quick answer, Anna reg (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bristlecone signboards[edit]

Ooops, sorry, got the wrong forest! But they don't belong in Cat:Pinus longaeva either, because the photos don't show the species, only signboards about it. I've copied them to Cat:Tree signs in the United States. - MPF (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Filemover[edit]

Considering your overall experience and numerous good rename requests, I've made you a filemover. INeverCry

Cool, thanks! :) Famartin (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Marys River Peak photos[edit]

Hi again. It looks like when you changed the name of this file (and others), you didn't actually fix the spelling problem in "sumit". Jsayre64 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

doh.. missed that. thanksFamartin (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Close-ups of [species] flowers to [Species] flowers moves[edit]

Why are you moving the more specific "Close-ups of [species] flowers" format categories to the less specific "[Species] flowers"? Was there a discussion somewhere? There are dozens of flower close-up categories, if you think all should be renamed as you have done, it needs to be discussed. Reminder that not all photos of flowers are close-ups. --Pitke (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought there was redundancy between "(tree species) in flower" and "close ups of (tree species) flowers". Also, if you are entering a category, most people will naturally input the species name first, not thinking of "closeups" first... with the format "(species) (flowers)" for flower categories, they then show up as options, while "closeups" won't. If you want, I could go back and re-create the "closeups" within the "(tree species) (flowers)" categories. I'm more or less done with it anyway, I wasn't planning on doing any others, at least not any time soon. Famartin (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Identity[edit]

File:2014-10-03 15 41 41 Bush with yellow autumn foliage along the main ridgeline of the Diamond Mountains between Newark Summit and Diamond Peak, Nevada.JPG - surely Populus tremuloides? - MPF (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaves have too many little lobes, growth form isn't right. Its something that's always shrubby. I hadn't looked it up before but best guess right now, after looking through various native plants, is Ribes cereum Famartin (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Delete me.JPG[edit]

Hi, on File:Delete me.JPG you wrote that this is a dupe, but TinEye doesn't find the dupe, and the photo is nice. How about rescuing it (license, rename, categories, new info)? At the moment it is in an odd Category:Non-standard deletion requests with 20 similar cases. If you insist on killing it, you could add it to Category:Test images, after all nobody can invent a license without your say so. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Be..anyone, its not a perfect duplicate, but its essentially identical to File:2014-06-22 12 18 09 View south along Nevada State Route 231 (Angel Lake Road) about 5.6 miles north of Angel Lake, Nevada.JPG Famartin (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I try a "conventional" DR :-)Be..anyone (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Those Pinus brutia photos[edit]

I remain sure they're Pinus brutia (a species I'm very familiar with), even despite the lack of decent quality photos (no cone shots, no clearer shot with the frost thawed or brushed off to show the needles better). They're only young trees, so may well not yet have experienced a winter severe enough to harm them. Pinus brutia can survive temperatures down to around -30°C, possibly lower where conditions are dry; what is the lowest recorded in Elko in the last 20 years or so? (what does "-21 Fahrenheit" mean?? - I, like most in the world, don't do that archaic cr@p ;-) They're certainly not any Nevada native pine, nor Pinus nigra, which is virtually the only other possible option. I do remain curious though - what's the point of uploading such a large series of photos of trees that you don't consider identifiable?? - MPF (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

MFP, do you have a source on them surviving -30C? I cannot find anything which suggest below -23C, and most I can find suggest -18C is the limit. -21F is about -30C, and they have definitely survived that with no problem. Elko is not Las Vegas or anything like it (believe it or not, Nevada is a very big state, and Las Vegas is only a very small part of it; most of Nevada is nothing like Las Vegas, and Elko is a cold place; average extreme temp range is about +37C to -24C in any given year. Anyway, I digress) While I'm sure P. brutia is planted in Las Vegas, the likelyhood of cultivation in Elko seems remote. Also, to answer your question, they were uploaded for the rime. Famartin (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Yep, I know how large Nevada is ;-) Possible that Elko may be unsuitable for long-term cultivation, but given a run of mild or average winters with nothing severe, it would be very easy for it to reach the size of those in your photos (and see my comments from google street view, below, too). References for its temperature tolerance: Nahal, I (1983), Le Pin Brutia (Pinus brutia Tenore). Forêt méditerranéenne 5 (2): 165-172; Weber, E. J. (1981), Pinus eldarica: a valuable resource for arid zones? Arid Lands Newsletter 13: 41-44. Nahal cites temperatures of -25°C within its native range (Bursa and Uşak, western Turkey: both in the warmer, western part of the species' range). Weber points out that its [P. eldarica, = Pinus brutia subsp. eldarica] cold-tolerance (and also its summer heat tolerance) is greater in dry climates (e.g. undamaged by -29°C in WA); the warmer limits you cite likely refer to losses incurred in more humid climates (Weber cites killed by -29°C in MI, KS, NY, OH, and by -23°C in RI).
I just did a check on google street view, and quickly found several more young P. brutia nearby, e.g. here and here, and plenty of older trees too, e.g. here and here in older parts of Elko. Clearly it is more reliable, and more commonly planted in Elko, than even I thought likely. - MPF (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
MFP, obviously whatever it is, its doing well, but how are you making the identification of P. brutia? Also, how are you determining "dry" versus more humid? While Elko is high desert, in winter (especially when it gets below zero) odds strongly favor snow on the ground, and freezing fog is not rare (hence the rime photos, though temps in that particular instance were no where near -30C). It just seems like another species that is more cold tolerant would make more sense. A ponderosa subspecies perhaps. Famartin (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Bark, branch structure, crown shape, needle length, cones (visible on a few of the streetview trees) and (in a couple of your pics) needle number countable. And what birders call 'jizz' - instant recognition developed from good experience. The old trees in the last street view link I gave are strikingly similar to the trees I studied in native forests in southwest Turkey. Definitely not any of the subspecies of P. ponderosa. Quite what influences hardiness is difficult to know; it is unfortunate that Weber didn't expand further on the topic, nor state where in WA his test was done. But the observations show that temperature range tolerance is greater where rainfall is low, and humidity (perhaps particularly in summer) is low; the species is very susceptible to fungal leaf diseases in high summer humidity, and that could possibly affect its ability to tolerate cold. Worth adding though, that in Turkey it also gets winter snow and fog (low cloud). - MPF (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
MFP, I return to Elko next week, and I'll take some more detailed photos along with make a visit to the local nurseries; given its apparent commonality, it is most likely continuing to be sold, so we'll see what they are identifying it as. Famartin (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! Close-up photos of cones would be the most useful. It may be sold under the names of 'afghan pine', 'mondell pine', 'eilar pine', or 'eldar pine' as well as by scientific name Pinus brutia or Pinus [brutia subsp.] eldarica. Best wishes for Christmas! - MPF (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately MFP, both nurseries I visited today had nearly completely cleared out their nursery stock for the winter, with no pines visible at either location. I am curious... after bringing up P. nigra, it occurred to me that it could be that species we're dealing with. But, you said you were certain it was not P. nigra... may I ask how? Famartin (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, been forgetting to reply - P. nigra is easily excluded by its branching structure, very different from these trees. - MPF (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
MFP, I don't know if branch structure is a good method for identification in this case, since many pines which typically grow in a rather irregular fashion in nature can grow much more orderly in a good cultivated environment. At least, that's been my experience. Anyway, I just (literally within the last half hour) took these photos... it was dark so hopefully they are adequate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_33_12_Closed_pine_cone_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_39_55_Pine_terminal_bud_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_34_23_Pine_bark_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_38_57_Opened_pine_cone_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_39_22_Pine_needles_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-01-08_19_42_57_Pine_needles_and_terminal_bud_in_Elko,_Nevada.JPG Hopefully this will yield an answer. Famartin (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Famatin - I revisited these, and discovered a very useful new photosphere pic of these pines. From this it is clear that there is one Pinus nigra (left tree), and two other pines with an unusual crown shape, which I can't identify with 100% certainty but may well be P. brutia. Your pics from the left hand tree (some of your first set from 2014-12-18, all of your second set from 2015-01-08), I've recategorised to Category:Pinus nigra (cultivated), the others (which are the ones that I queried originally) I've left in Category:Unidentified Pinus. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Please don't edit war.[1] I've reverted the category to the last stable version and protected it. I'll lift protection when a consensus on categorization is reached. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for adding pictures of fire towers, Kittatinny mountain, and Appalachian Trail locales. As I've been writing and preparing articles on the NJ Forest Fire Service, the mountain, and other local stuff, I've found your collection of photographs to be a quality resource. Your work is much appreciated! JackTheVicar (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-08-27 15 46 30 Sign describing the Mute Swan at the Hildick-Smith Dock at Wargo Pond in the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, New Jersey.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2014-08-27 15 46 30 Sign describing the Mute Swan at the Hildick-Smith Dock at Wargo Pond in the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, New Jersey.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fairview Township, York County, Pennsylvania[edit]

Regarding your reversal of my narrowing down of three images of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in York County, how do you know I wasn't preparing this for a future Fairview Township category? ----DanTD (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't, but why make a temporary change that you'll have to undo later? Just make the category and plop them in there. Famartin (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-05-01 15 16 27 Cumulonimbus clouds south of Elko, Nevada.jpg[edit]

Hi;

Cumulonimbus Category is a mother category and all files should be put into subcategories. While I beleive tour that is a cumulonimbus moving in, this picture has no characteristics permitting for the viewer to recognized it as this type of cloud. All we see is a dark base and a mass of cumuliform clouds. There is no anvil, arcus, wall cloud, etc... Since we have the location (Elko, Nevada), I have moved it the nearest best category: Category:Thunderstorms in Elko, Nevada.

What reason can you put to contradict this?

Pierre cb (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pierre cb,
1, who decided that "cumulonimbus" was a "mother category"?
2, since its already within "clouds in Elko, Nevada", "thunderstorms in Elko, Nevada" is partially redundant (and besides which, you can only see the cloud, not the rain or lightning or hail which would make it more appropriate for "thunderstorms in Elko, Nevada"
3, I'm telling you they are CB, so you should go with it. you're not the only meteorologist on this website, you know.
Sincerely, Famartin (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt what you say but nobody else can see any feature associated with cumulonimbus and thus it does not belong in this category, only in "clouds in Elko, Nevada". Pierre cb (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You are bind Pierre cb. The cirrus blow-off of the anvil is clearly visible toward the top of the photo. Your views are very limited. Famartin (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC).
Yes, there is cirrus blow off but nobody would recognized it for an anvil. Pierre cb (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is one Pierre cb. Last I checked, categories were for objects that ARE a certain item, not objects that "look like" a certain item. Famartin (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Nice shot, I am guessing the road dates to the late 20s or 30s as this was the time 20 foot twin slab roads were commonly contructed. By the 1950s secondary roads consisted mainly of asphalt and concrete was typically used on only devided highways like the PA turnpike Michael P Dickson (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael P Dickson, which shot?

File:2015-06-18 16 45 47 Clouds from an approaching severe thunderstorm on Tranquility Court in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Virginia.jpg[edit]

Hi:

On this image an two others, the shelf cloud formation is very clear and I added that category. Would you mind if I remove the cumulonimbus category as the shelf is the most proeminent feature?

Pierre cb (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pierre cb, ok

Excessive subcaterorisation[edit]

Hi Famartin - please stop dividing various conifer taxon categories up into multiple tiny subcategories. It results in the files being lost to access by automatic searching which uses the {{Taxonavigation}} template, and also destroys the value of the mapping facility provided by {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

MPF, no, I will not do as you ask. There are a lot of species categories which have been divided up by others in the way I have done, so I see no reason to do as you ask when others have done so in many instances already. Perhaps those tools need to be adjusted to be able to find the images better in the sub-cats.

PS - I was highly annoyed to see the other admin, User:AnRo0002, go through many of my photos with one variety of subcatting (based on location), and then see you come along, undo all of what he did, and then do another version of sub-catting as *you* saw fit (based on sub-species). Either version should be perfectly acceptable. Famartin (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-08-29 07 46 37 Morning Glory flowering along Tranquility Court in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Virginia.jpg and File:2015-08-29 07 46 37 Morning Glory flowering along Tranquility Court in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Virginia.jpg[edit]

Why did you rename these to add back the date and time stamp in the name. It is useless as it is already in the Wikimedia Commons meta data.

Domdomegg, please review the "Which files should be renamed?" section, as well as the "Which files should not be renamed?" section, given here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming#reasons Note which reason is given as #1 in the first section and #1 in the second section. Famartin (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong ID[edit]

Hello, Your picture called "2015-04-12 11 23 46 Marsh marigolds blooming on Terrace Boulevard in Ewing, New Jersey.jpg" is not Caltha palustris but Ranunculus ficaria. I've changed the category and description, but I think it would be better if you yourself would propose a new name for the file. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dwergenpaartje, actually it appears the name Ranunculus ficaria is considered a synonym of Ficaria verna on commons, so I moved them to that category. I've renamed the files. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I had no idea I was mis-identifying the plants for so long. Famartin (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you have pictures of NWS offices, including inside views. Are you working for the NWS?

Pierre cb (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I did a little bit of regrouping of your photos in Category:Weather in Sterling, Virginia into a new "NWS Forecast office Baltimore/Washington (Sterling, Virginia)" category. I hope this is OK with you.

File:2015-11-04 07 06 36 View east from the west end of Nevada State Route 573 (Craig Road) in Las Vegas, Nevada.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2015-11-04 07 06 36 View east from the west end of Nevada State Route 573 (Craig Road) in Las Vegas, Nevada.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Bporter28 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Washoe County[edit]

Thanks for fixing that. Don't know where my brain was with that edit. Face-blush.svg INeverCry 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Over-categorization & U.S. Route 191[edit]

Several thoughts on the matter:

1) The primary focus of the over-categorization issue is listing images under general categories and then again in one or more subcategories of that general category.

2) "Category:Navajo Nation...US 191 just passes through Navajo Nation and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the nation, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Navajo Nation." However, the route is a major component of the "transport network" within the Navajo Nation (there just isn't a "Transport in the Navajo Nation" sub-category, . . . yet).

3) Look it this way: "Say you go to the '[Populated places in Utah County, Utah]' category. Within it, you see '[Draper, Utah]' as a subcat. You click on it, and then find that most of the files there have nothing to do with [Utah County]. Why would you then consider it a valid sub-cat?" Because, even though nearly all of city of Draper is not located within Utah County, part of it is and therefore constitutes a part of the category "Populated places in Utah County, Utah". In addition, because U.S. Route 191 is the primary component of the "transport network" in White Mesa, therefore it should be included within that city. However, unlike Salt Lake City, which has multiple subcategories, over-categorization would occur if "U.S. Route 191 in Utah" were in the subcatgory "Roads in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "Transport in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "White Mesa, Utah". (It should be obvious to the intelligent, but uninformed Commons user that the entire U.S. Route 191 is not located within the community of White Mesa.)


An Errant Knight (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you're road tripping on the 1&9?[edit]

Howdy from another Jersey kid~ Iridona (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"welcome to NJ" sign[edit]

Re this: OK, I see you point. You should probably put that in the description. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-03-18 21 06 30 "Welcome to Salt Lake City International Airport" sign in Concourse B of Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake City, Utah.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2016-03-18 21 06 30 "Welcome to Salt Lake City International Airport" sign in Concourse B of Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake City, Utah.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ras67 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2015-04-13 23 22 38 Sign stating "Welcome to Salt Lake City International Airport" in Concourse B of Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2015-04-13 23 22 38 Sign stating "Welcome to Salt Lake City International Airport" in Concourse B of Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ras67 (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Piggly Wiggly along Florida State Route 97 in northern Escambia County, Florida[edit]

Yes, that is a retail store, but it's a retail store along Florida State Road 97. ----DanTD (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but are you really going to put all images of items located along highways in transport categories? That's silly. Famartin (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My maps' categories[edit]

Please note that if a map that I created doesn't have the associated highway as a category (for example File:VA 254 map.svg not having Category:Virginia State Route 254), it may just be commented out. At the time, I didn't want the red links to appear but now no longer use the comment marks to keep it from not displaying. Just an FYI for any future categories you create so that I don't have to go back and remove the redundant line of markup. —Mr. Matté - En. 'pedia talk 00:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder on my previous categorization of maps —Mr. Matté - En. 'pedia talk 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT[edit]

In these edits: [2], [3], you re-added an ancestor category which had been replaced with a descendant category (namely Category:Albany, New York which is an ancestor of Category:Road signs in Albany County, New York). Per COM:OVERCAT, "always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those". At well over 300 files, Category:Albany, New York needs diffusion, so I've tagged with with {{CatDiffuse}}. It would be more helpful to people trying to find photos if you followed COM:OVERCAT. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DanielPenfield, you don't seem to understand COM:OVERCAT as it pertains to this situation. Category:Albany County, New York is a larger geographic area than Category:Albany, New York and it includes locations which are not part of Albany - thus, COM:OVERCAT does not apply to this situation. If, for example, you created a category that was Category:Road signs in Albany, New York which was a sub-cat of both Category:Albany, New York and Category:Road signs in Albany County, New York, then COM:OVERCAT would apply, but you have not done this. Famartin (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you miscategorized those signs as being sited in the City of Albany, when they're in fact sited in the Town of Bethlehem (from the image location information, at [4] and [5]--Albany County GIS shows the city line starting north of NY 32 and these signs are well south of NY 32). Note that you correctly categorized and titled an image similar to the southernmost of the two back in November of 2015. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. So, what actually happened, is that you made the wrong point in your initial comment - the correct point you should have made initially was, "Why did you add those signs back to Category:Albany, New York? They aren't actually in Albany", in which case I would have double checked the location and then I would've agreed with you. Famartin (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Requiring other editors to "read your mind" is probably an unrealistic expectation. Furthermore it's fairly common for editors to place their own narrow interests ahead of the project's--by ensuring their own photos remain prominently placed, for example. Finally the photos in question are so obviously outside the city limits that I assumed that nobody in his right mind would place them in the city. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 80 in more Nevada counties[edit]

You don't think that perhaps it's time to add something like Category:Interstate 80 in Franklin County, Nevada as well as others, in spite of the complaint from the message above? ----DanTD (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I do, but I just haven't gotten around to it. Famartin (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

File "LexingtonVA Downtown.jpg"
File "Winchester, Virginia - Stierch.jpg"

I'm concerned about what appears to be your over-categorization of some photos. The first example is "LexingtonVA Downtown.jpg". The photo had been in Category:Lexington, Virginia, and you removed it from that category and placed it into Category:Roads in Lexington, Virginia (which you created earlier this week). Commons:Categories states "the category name should be unambiguous." It also provides categorization tips, including "what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image?" My concern is that this image is not just of a road, or a group of buildings, or "lampposts in Virginia", or "females in shorts" or "red cars". This is a settlement in Virginia, which is why it was placed into the generic category "Lexington, Virginia". I noticed you did the same at "Winchester, Virginia - Stierch.jpg", removing Category:Winchester, Virginia and adding instead Category:Roads in Winchester, Virginia. A look at the image shows this is not just a photo of a road; it is a photo of a community, which includes a road, some buildings, tourists looking into a shop window, and so forth. As for "Birchleaf, Virginia - panorama.jpg" and "Bee, Virginia.jpg", I appreciate and thank you for creating individual categories for each of these settlements (in addition to adding them to the "roads" category). I truly appreciate your hard work, but I don't want to make it too hard for the users of the Commons to find what they are looking for. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677, your concern is noted, but incorrect. There are many photos in each category where you appear to prefer your images to be, which show specific buildings, people, object, schematics, etc. Other than being within the aforementioned city, they don't really depict the city in question. Both photos you speak of are centered on a road, which now has a specific category. If someone wants a view of Main Street or a street in any city, they would naturally think "oh, roads in such and such city, that makes sense, I'll look there". The reality is that most of the photos in both city categories should be subcategorized. The only photos in the main category should be photos or other media depicting the ENTIRE settlement. Your photos do not do that. If you wish, you could create a "downtown" sub-category, which would be a natural place for your photos to go IN ADDITION to the roads category. Famartin (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Your explanation differs from the sections of Commons:Categories I mentioned above, nor have I seen a consensus that what is centered in the image should define the category placement of the image (and in the case of Lexington and Winchester, the only category placement). The users of Wikipedia and of the Commons are not going to these photos to look at roads, they are going to these photos to look at the community these roads pass through. Of course, Wikipedia should not define the categorization we use on the Commons, but w:Lexington, Virginia has that image as its infobox photo, and the caption is not "a road in Lexingon, Virginia". This photo is mostly of a stealth fighter, though I would suggest most of those who have viewed this photo did so to look at the people in the photo, not the big plane. Likewise, it would be awkward to add Category:Floors in the United States to this photo, though most of the photo is of a big concrete floor. I don't want to bicker over this. I just wanted to make my point. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Magnolia677, First off, you are misinterpreting the commons categories explanation. This is the rule that applies, quoted directly here: "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." Since it is centered on a road, it belongs within the roads category that now exists. Second, you are making an assumption of what commons users are going to look for. The truth is that most people will probably just use the search function first, and then use the categories after that. So, since your photos are named for the specific city for which you wish them to be found under, there is little change. Third, the only reason that photo is used on Wikipedia is that you put it there. Its a cute argument, but invalid. In truth, the caption on Wikipedia should read "xxx street in Lexington" since it does not depict the whole city. Fourth, that photo you used still is catted as that type of aircraft, the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. Fifth, that last photo you use is actually a parking lot lol. Famartin (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Roads_in_Virginia_by_county-level_jurisdiction[edit]

Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh? Why is that Nyttend? Famartin (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorization has nothing to do with tagging[edit]

Hi Famartin,

categorization means, that you can say for all files (F) in a category named A: "F is an instance of A". This tornado shelter signs are related to tornado shelters, but not shelters by themselves.--Sascha GPD (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Sascha GPD I'm aware of that, thank you. Since, however, there was no "tornado shelter signs" category, until just now, it was appropriate to categorize the photos under Tornado Shelters, among other things. A sign indicating a thing is relevant to that thing and can, if a more appropriate category does not exist otherwise, can be categorized under that thing. Thank you for taking the next logical step instead of simply reverting. Famartin (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Now I've noticed, that you are an avid user of the category system, even more than me. Both of us acted a little bit in the heat of the moment.--Sascha GPD (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sterling Field Support Center[edit]

Hi:

I removed the images of this category from Meteorological equipment (a mother category) in meteorology category because that category is a sub-category of Weather stations in the US and thus a sub-category of Category:Meteorological equipment. I just wanted to explain my reasoning.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to Famartin[edit]

Please let me know the areas of the Commons you focus on so I can avoid categorizing any categorize images that fall into your areas of interest. I in no way want to add images that you may be interested in. I prefer to help those that appreciate my work. Kalbbes (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Despite your sarcastic comment Kalbbes, I'll give you a serious reply: Glance through here, it will help: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Famartin&ilshowall=1 Famartin (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Help:Cat-a-lot[edit]

look at the link above. Use it. It is much easier to use. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It could help next time you want to mass move categories. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fairfax County watersheds[edit]

Hello, I'm sorry for the inconsistency in the changes; I'm trying to reorganize the material on Drainage basins / drainage divides. I'm initially moving all the files focused on the body of water under "Category: maps of drainage basins", and all those focused on the dividing line or on the aminitrative subdivisions under "Category: Drainage divides". In a second moment I would like to move the files focused on administrative divisions under "Hydrographic maps", since many of these subdivisions are decided for the management of water resources. Of course, the file you re-edited (like others) also may easily stay in the category "Maps of dainage basin of North America", because a lot of drainage basins are here depicted (Pohick Creek, Sandy Run etc.), only this should have be the last phase of cataloging. --Ciaurlec (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Sincerely

Locations along roads?[edit]

Hi, Famartin. I just noticed you placed Category:Locations along Utah State Route 18 as a subcategory of Category:Utah State Route 18. It's not clear to me that's right --- for example, there are many photographs taken in the Category:Dixie National Forest that are not near Route 18. I like to use the Massviews tool which recursively finds popular photographs in a category. Right now, if I run the Massviews tool on Category:Utah State Route 18, I get Angel's Landing as the most popular photo, which doesn't seem right.

Perhaps the categories should be structured the other way around, where Category:Utah State Route 18 is a member of Category:Locations along Utah State Route 18, which could be a subcat of Category:Geography of Utah? What do you think?

(There are plenty of other "Locations along roads" categories, but I thought it would be helpful to just think about one of them, to be concrete). — hike395 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that tool. The prior organization (Route 18 being a subcat of Dixie National Forest and various cities and towns) also would not make sense however, given that there are many photos within which have nothing to do with the other categories. The ideal solution would be complete dissociation of the categories; any photos of both Utah Route 18 and Dixie National Forest would be tagged under both categories. However, there is a certain user who feels the categories are related enough to include one as a subcat of the other. That having all been said, technically the current language is correct... Dixie National Forest IS a location along Utah State Route 18. Famartin (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
hike395, thinking about it a little more, I think you may indeed be correct. I'm open to that organization, so long as the road category is the lead. Famartin (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of your points:
  1. Category:Utah State Route 18 should not be a subcategory of locations it runs through, and
  2. there should be a {{cat see also|Utah State Route 18}} in the lede of Category:Locations along Utah State Route 18.
I'll start to do some edits. Feel free to do them, also. — hike395 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Later --- I made Category:Locations along roads in Utah as a meta-category in order not to add clutter to Category:Geography of Utah. — hike395 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
hike395, looks like that certain someone disagreed with your thoughts... what do you want to do? Famartin (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Related note, might need to slow down the rush to move items to the "Locations along_____" categories. Below are several examples of items (that have been discovered so far) that should not have been moved:

Orem, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 52 as SR-52 is entirely within the city of Orem
Springville, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 75 as SR-75 is entirely within the city of Springville
Ogden, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 79 as SR-79 is entirely within the city of Ogden
Woods Cross, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 93 as SR-93 is entirely within the city of Woods Cross
Ogden, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 104 as SR-104 is entirely within the city of Ogden
Layton, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 109 as SR-109 is entirely within the city of Layton
Payson, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 178 as SR-178 is entirely within the city of Payson
Amrican Fork, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 180 as SR-180 is entirely within the city of American Fork
Farmington, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 225 as SR-225 is entirely within the city of Farmington
Farmington, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 227 as SR-227 is entirely within the city of Farmington
Ogden, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 285 as SR-285 is entirely within the city of Ogden
Salt Lake City, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 286 as SR-286 is entirely within the city of Ogden
Draper, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 287 as SR-287 is entirely within the city of Draper
Salt Lake City, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 291 as SR-291 is entirely within the city of Ogden
Hyrum, Utah is not a location along Utah State Route 304 as SR-304 is entirely within the city of Hyrum
An Errant Knight (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, An Errant Knight. As you can see from the discussion, above, both Famartin and I think of each of the "Location along ___" categories as being a supercategory of all locations that "touch" a road, including the road itself, any roads that intersect that road, and any towns that lie along the road. This seems to be the only consistent way of organizing "Location along ___" categories. Otherwise, you can get cycles of categories, where
  • State Route X is a parent of
  • Locations along State Route X is a parent of
  • State Route Y (because Y intersects X), which is a parent of
  • Locations along State Route Y which would be a parent of
  • State Route X (because X intersects Y)!
The way to fix this is by making "Location along ___" always a supercategory, not a subcategory of roads or towns. Thanks for your attention! — hike395 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


There is a different way to fix the problem that makes much more sense. Making "Location along ___" always a super-category is not a good idea as it does not follow a natural thought process (it just an attempt to "fix" a problem that doesn't need fixing). Users look for the road first, and then related items, not the other way around. It would not be unlike making "United States" a subcategory of "Places in the United States".
The much better solution is only slightly complicated, but does require a bit of research on the road in question. Also, "intersecting" roads should not be subcategories of each other (with the exception of spurs of Interstates Highways and U.S. Routes--such spurs should be listed as a subcategory of their parent route, but not visa-versa). In addition, using a "See also category" for the road for every "Locations along ____" category is also a bad move that requires a lot of work (to again fix a problem that doesn't need fixing), since, according that the line of thinking previously suggested, the road will already be a subcategory of the "Locations along ____".
  • If applicable, each road should have a "Locations along _____" subcategory (not a super-category). Some State Routes will not need this subcategory, such as Utah State Route 320.
  • If the road is entirely within a city, then the road should be a subcategory of that city (as referenced earlier). Otherwise all cities (and similar populated places, sites, etc., but not "intersecting" roads) should be subcategories of the Locations along ____ subcategory. (The single exception to this involves the "Roads in Salt Lake City" category.)
  • As far as concurrencies, rather than being listed as subcategories of each other, this is a great opportunity to use of the "See also category" template, but requires some explanation in the description. For example, see Category:U.S. Route 50 in Utah. Since See also's can work both ways (and usually do), their use eliminates the issue of categories being sub‑subcategories of themselves. (This can also be assisted by using links within the descriptions.) Fortunately, the concurrencies are limited to Interstate Highways and U.S. Routes, since all concurrencies involving other State Routes having been eliminated from the State Highway System.
  • The issue of former roads (or sections thereof) that are now part of the current road should be able to be addressed in a combination of a manner similar to the concurrencies issue (with links and/or See also's) and with subcategories, depending on the relationship between the two roads.
  • Regarding another, yet unaddressed, matter involves former State Route of the same number. (These separate categories, which always include years, are not created for variations in existing routes, but for entirely different routes in different locations [but sometimes very close locations].) These separate categories should not be included in the "Locations along X" categories (because they are not locations along X, just roads with the same name). They should be listed at the top of the subcategories (just under the Locations along ____ subcategory) for subsequent State Routes of the same number. The reason for this is a user who is looking for State Route ## needs to be ensure that they are viewing the current route, not a former route (which may or may not be what they are actually searching for). The dates that are part of the category name make it obvious that these subcategories do not refer to the current route (with one very unique exception). If by chance the user is looking for a former route, it is highly unlikely that they will know the exact years of the former highway, but a search for "Utah State Highway ##" will quickly lead them to a link to "Utah State Route ## (####-####). (Keep in mind the subcategories are for things related to the parent category, not necessary a part thereof. A former State Route is certainly related to the subsequent State Route of the same number, even if it has a different location.) For example, Utah State Route 13 (1912-1962)‎ should be a subcategory of both State Route 13 and Utah State Route 13 (1962-1977)‎ because both of these highways came after the first. Utah State Route 13 (1962-1977)‎ should be a subcategory of State Route 13, but not Utah State Route 13 (1912-1962) because the later route came first.
  • In all cases, the placing a media in multiple categories (just not excessively) should continue as an option. For example, "File:Archway.JPG' (a photograph of the archway Brigham City sign over Utah State Route 13) should be subcategory of both "Brigham City, Utah" and "Utah State Route 13" because it shows a substantial section downtown Brigham City, as well as a specific feature of Utah State Route 13 (and a section of that road).
These issues are not limited just to State Routes, there are many other roads (non State Route highways, Scenic Byways, otherwise important roads, etc.) that that need similar treatment. An Errant Knight (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
@An Errant Knight, Famartin: I cannot support the hierarchy as currently used, because I think it doesn't follow Commons:Categorization. I have an alternative suggestion, however.

Commons:Categorization says that categories go from more general to more specific. The following category structure doesn't follow that:

I don't think there's any way that Dixie National Forest is more specific (or a subpart of) Utah State Route 18. Somehow Category:Utah State Route 18 and Category:Dixie National Forest must be sisters in some scheme, somehow. That is what Famartin and I started to work on.

What this tells me is that Category:Locations along Utah State Route 18 should not be a category, but a gallery: Locations along Utah State Route 18. It should list the towns, roads, forests, etc. that can be seen along the state route. And it can show representative photos of such locations.

What do you think? I think it is a good compromise which fulfills all of our goals. — hike395 (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@An Errant Knight, Hike395: I am OK with reversing the current design, going with, for example, UT Route 18 as a sub cat of Locations along UT Route 18. I am *NOT* in favor of deleting the locations categories, for this simple reason: Some people feel an incessent need to categorize items based on roads they are located along (I see it EVERYWHERE in Commons) even though the item might not really have anything to do with the actual road. Road categories should focus on the roadway itself, signs for the road, maps for the road, etc. Since there is this need among many editors to ping the road something is located along as being in the category, there needs to be a fallback for getting those files out of the main road category, but into something related. That's where the locations along roads categories come in as useful. At this point, I'm pretty much done with Utah, so if someone wants to reverse the order as Hike395 suggested a few days ago, they can have at it. Famartin (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@An Errant Knight, Famartin: Well, ok. I can see wanting to keep "Locations along ___" categories. But please let's not make them subcategories of the corresponding roads.
How about if Category:Locations along Utah State Route 18 has a mutual {{see also cat}} to Category:Utah State Route 18, but then contains everything else but the road? That might satisfy Errant Knight who finds the reverse categorization counterintuitive. I think this might make everyone content. — hike395 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Several more thoughts. . .

  • Commons:Categorization is more of an ideal than strict rules that often just don't make sense. Two examples:
A user looks up the category Trails in Wyoming and finds the subcategory of Oregon Trail. Within that subcategory the user finds the sub-sub category of Scotts Bluff National Monument‎.
Same uses looks up the category Louisiana Purchase and finds the subcategory of Lewis and Clark Expedition‎. Within that subcategory the user finds the sub-sub category of Columbia River Gorge‎.
In both these cases the pattern trends from general to specific, but have to follow "related" thinking, not just "hierarchal" thinking. While these subcategories DO make sense, there is no way that a national monument in Nebraska is a "sub-category" (in a strictly general to specific line of thinking) of Trails in Wyoming. Nor is there anyway that a river gorge in between the states of Washington and Oregon is a "sub-category" of a territory east of the Continental Divide. Trying to force a strictly hierarchal structure on categories and subcategories can often defeat the purpose of having the categories. Categories are a means of connecting related items, not an end unto themselves.
  • While a good thought, a gallery would only work well for items that would probably fit best under the category Road X and its subcategory Views from Road X. So it wouldn't really solve much. Sometimes categories provide more information regarding a subject that just the media therein. For example, the category Populated places in Carbon County, Utah contains the subcategory of Clear Creek, Utah and, for now, that subcategory only contains two maps of Carbon County that show, among many other things, the location of Clear Creek. While said maps provide little information that would not be otherwise found on a map of Carbon County, the existence of the subcategory itself provides additional information regarding the populated places in Carbon County.
  • As mentioned before, including all roads that connect with a road as subcategories of locations along that road won't work. While there really isn't a limit to the number of subcategories permitted within a category, there IS a fairly large, but limited number of categories a subcategory can be included within. {This editor discovered this the hard way, wasting a lot of time.) The number of intersecting roads and populated places along Interstate 15 in Utah will substantially exceed the number of categories of which it can be a subcategory. If a user wants to know all the intersecting routes, they should refer to the Wikipedia article. This, of course, does not apply to concurrent routes (I-80, I-84, US-89, etc.)
  • The Locations along _____ categories were already the compromise to reduce the subcategories of the Road X categories and to separate those related items that are not actually part of the road itself. While in a strictly hierarchal approach, Utah State Route 18 is one of the Locations along Utah State Route 18, having it as a subcategory of the same defies the search logic. Users don't look up "Places in the United States" to find out about the United States, they look up the United States, and then places therein.
  • While it probably doesn't apply in most other states, since 1977 (by state law) both Interstate Highways and U.S. Highways (Routes) ARE "state routes" within Utah and are very often treated as such. This was the focus of most of the state route renumbering in 1977. The point of this is that users looking for numbered routes in Utah may or may not know if the route number in question is a "state route" or a "U.S. Route". For example, a user sees this sign, "SR-89" Shield in Lehi and wants to view more media regarding what it depicts, "Utah State Route 89". (By the way this signage "error" is not isolated.) Now if they were in Wyoming or Arizona, and saw an equivalent sign, they would be looking for a state highway numbered 89 that is distinct from U.S. Route 89, but not so in Utah. These are just two of the reasons that, even though they already have their own category, Interstates and U.S. Routes should be listed on the State highways in Utah category.
  • Probably one of the most common ways a user gets to Commons (no pun intended) is via the Wikipedia pages (in multiple languages). While Wikipedia does NOT dictate the organization within Commons, you won't find an article titled "Locations along Utah State Route 18". However, the existing article will lead users to the Commons category of the same name, which will then link to Locations along Utah State Route 18.
  • The preference of this editor is to spend more time contributing images of the roads in question than disputing their categorization. Having said that, trying to correctly categorize images using system that defies logic makes that primary goal difficult. An Errant Knight (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming Fileː20150207 Skispringen Hinzenbach 4286.jpg[edit]

Could you rename 20150207 Skispringen Hinzenbach 4286.jpg to 20160207 Skispringen Hinzenbach 4286.jpg due to wrong year in the image title? PaskaSemmen113 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PaskaSemmen113: Done! Famartin (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Balsamroots are not mule's ears![edit]

I've noticed that a number of your photographs have misidentified Wyethia amplexicaulis as Balsamorhiza sagittata. I am in the process of changing the categories on these photos for you- but just a heads up. They both bloom at a similar time of the year and are similar sized and yellow, but Balsamroot have much furrier leaves and flower bracts, and few leaves going up the flower stems while mules ears have leaves and inflorescences that are glaberous and shiny in the right light, as well as having more leaves up the stem. Also Wyethia tends to grow in much more wetter environments like meadows, while Balsamroot is more of an upland shrub-steppe species, though there is overlap in the habitats. There is also a major difference in leaf shapes, but this often is not apparent in photos where the bases of the leaves aren't seen or if you were just glancing at a field of them.

2013-06-28 10 49 49 Wildflowers and a pond along Elko County Route 748 (Charleston-Jarbidge Road) in Copper Basin in Nevada

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThayneT (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)