User talk:Ingolfson/Archive 2009

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

Contents

Why the category move?[edit]

Please respond at Category talk:Narrow gauge railways. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pronunciation of China and others[edit]

Dear Ingolfson,

first of all thank you for your numerous contributions to the commons. Nevertheless I have to give you some comment to some of them:

You just recently changed Pronunciation of China from Category:China to Category:Languages of China, just the same with Papua New Guinea, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and maybe some others. To take the first example: This category just now containes one file in German (de), one in Hungarian (hu), one in Swedish (sv), and two in Jèrriais (jer and jer), none of those languages are a language of China. Only two of the files in this category are in Chinese (zh and zh). Similar is to be said to the others in Category:Pronunciation of countries.

Will you please keep in mind in future, that each [[Category:Pronunciation of Country]] should contain pronunciations of Country in any language of the world, if available, independantly wether those file are in one of the languages of the named country or not. So [[Category:Languages of Country]] obviously is incorrect, and [[Category:Country]] to be taken instead. Greetings, --ludger1961 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ludger - thanks for pointing out my mistake, but also allow me to partially disagree, and clarify why I did what I did. One of Commons overriding principles is going from generic to specialist subjects in the categorisation. A category that contains pronounciations is a very, very specific category. To keep this as a topcat in the "country" level - where only about a dozen+plus (15 at the moment) categories should normally exist (see Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions), makes little sense to me. Pronounciation is something to do with rhetorics, language, culture ... choose whatever applies best in your opinion. I have no issue if you disagree with me placing it in the "languages of" categories - however, I strongly believe that it should NOT be directly in the country topcat. Otherwise we would have a hard time keeping other very specialist subjects like (randomly chosen) "ethics of..." out of the top level category. So we may just have a disagrement on this here, and I am happy for you to propose what culture of other subcat this could be in. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ingolfson, what do you think about [[Category:Audio and pronunciation files of Country]]? Let us, please, explicitly name both audio and pronunciation in the category's name.
My arguments: I agree with you that the new category should contain the pronunciation files about the named country. Most (but not all) files in a pronunciation category are audio files. So in my eyes it is obvious that pronunciation files can be collected together with different audio files in one category. Files like File:Nl-België-article.ogg (now directly in Category:Belgium) and File:Nl-Filipijnen-article.ogg (now directly in Category:Philippines) can be categorised to Category:Audio and pronunciation files of Belgium and Category:Audio and pronunciation files of the Philippines respectively. Just now the Category:Netherlands directly contains more than a dozen of audio files waiting for being moved into the right subcategory during the diffusion of this category.
[[Category:Culture of Country]] seems inappropiate to me. What has Китай (ukrainian for China) and Chine (french for China) directly to do with the culture of China? What has Německo (Czech for Germany), Saksa (finnish for Germany), and Alemania (spanish for Germany) directly to do with the culture of Germany? My point of view: Nothing! It has more to do with the culture of the countries, where the named languages are spoken. To be continued endlously with the names in different languages for the different countries of the world. In opposite to this the name I propose for the new category directly names what it is for and in addition to this is open to contain numerous files which just now are directly in the different countries' main categories.
Additionally I propose a category Category:Pronunciation of chinese (File:En-us-Chinese.ogg, File:De-Chinesisch.ogg, and others would belong here) as a subcategory to this new category. This would also be a subcategory to [[Category:Pronunciation of languages]] and to [[Category:Pronunciation of country-related adjectives]] (subcategories to Category:Pronunciation by topic), for chinese (just like estonian, german, swedish, and others) can refer to the chinese language and to anything relating to China, which is represented differently in a number of languages.
Happily waiting for your response, but don't bother when I cannot answer again before next week. Kind regards --ludger1961 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ludger - thanks for the ideas. I have one issue with your proposed category - I still think it is relatively specialised, and thus not really appropriate as a top cat below "country". How about: Category:Audio and video files of XXX, with Category:Audio files of XXX and then Category:Pronounciation of XXX as subcats? Ingolfson (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: I am still searching for something that caputures "audio and video files" together (as in "non-static media" (i.e. not photos)). "Multimedia" sounds right, but isn't, because while a video file with sound is multimedia, a silent video or a sound files isn't. Frustrating. Ingolfson (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
After some time has passed by now: Any conclusion to help solve our problem?
Greetings from Germany --ludger1961 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No bright ideas, so I have decided to abandon my resistance to top category placement under "country" - until I or somebody else comes up with a fitting subcategory for those "multimedia" (but not) type of files. Ingolfson (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates in IMO[edit]

Dear Sir, Please be informed that also Hebster is working on a template, different from yours. I am not familiar with templates at all, the result of yours in the file itself looks good. So can you contact him to integrate the templates? And tell me how to use it. Best regards, --Stunteltje (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Railway station categories[edit]

Please note that train stations is considered incorrect usage in Britain, and therefore railway stations should be used instead. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/12/Categories of train stations where this ewas discussed, after which the categories were sorted to their current location. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why did you do a move for which there is no consensus. All en.wp articles on british stations are ...railway station, and so are all other british station categories. I am reverting your change. Please check before doing such a move in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for stepping on feet people, but Commons can be pretty dead at times, with no responses for months - I can't wait and discuss everything, especially as a rename request isn't the same as a move (I can't move stuff, I am not an admin / bot). So please don't take offence just because I am being bold in trying to sort out category structures. I accept your wish to retain these categories with their names, even if I disagree on consistency reasons. Ingolfson (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to sound accusing, I know commons can be dead, and in the past I have also stepped on a few toes to do what I think should be done, so i know how you feel. I figured you were responding to the move request rather than doing it off your own bat. I agree that in general it makes sense for categories to be universal, but to me it makes more sense to make sure categories match en.wp article names, and that they are done in the way that people adding photos find easy - ie in the local dialect. Thanks for understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
So far, the de facto standard worldwide clearly is train stations, while in the UK, it is railway station. I am trying to respect that (by filtering move requests), but I noticed that indeed, the exception is sometimes forgotten. That being said, a counter reaction move like this and this triggers other counter reactions and makes some people nervous and gets the ball (train) rolling and don't solve the problem neither. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood - and as I said, if local usage is that way, I have no problem. In regards to what you linked to Foroa - does this mean that "disused train stations" is now be moved back to "disused railway stations"? As I said, I disagree on consistency reasons - contrary to what Mattbuck says, only a small part of all categories uses "train stations" (except, of course, in the UK subcats). Ingolfson (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the move has been undone, and I think that I corrected all the move requests. "De facto" standard: train stations, exception: UK railway station. --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - sorry if I came across a bit ratty this morning. (I broke my own rule - never edit when you've in a bad mood!) Anyway, I'm glad this is sorted, and I've withdrawn my opposition to the Eritrean station renaming. It's a good idea to add the comments to the UK sub-categories. I can do this simply using AWB, but I'll have to leave it for a couple of days as I'm using AWB on en-wiki to update several hundred templates at present! – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mining rail transport[edit]

I hate to find myself second-guessing you again, because you generally do great work but...

Mining rail transport? They are en route to a mining district, but they are not in a mine. My guess is you skimmed the description and saw "mine" and "rail". - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to find myself second-guessing you again, - I'd rather be second-guessed like that than sneakily reversed ;-) Well, I did think a little bit more about it, and while they are in a rail vehicle (running on the rails, maybe that category should be added), you are right in that the sense of the cat probably isn't given. Ingolfson (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dordoy Bazaar[edit]

Dordoy Bazaar is no Container terminal (as in, a place to which containers continually arrive e.g. by truck to be shipped away e.g. by rail or boat, and vice versa). The containers at Dordoy aren't moving much more than mobile homes would be moving to or from a typical American mobile home park. They are just sitting there, being used as shops and warehouses (the bottom and top container, respectively, in the 2-stacked-container format). So I'd classify the place "container architecture" rather than "container terminals". Vmenkov (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you placed my talk page into the container terminals category by forgetting the extra ":" before the link (I have now edited it). "Container architecture"? I like the idea. I will see about fixing something up along that line... Ingolfson (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Comment requested"[edit]

Replied (sort of) on my talk page. I can't tell what you want my opinion on. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Move requests[edit]

Hi, it might be more efficient for all of us if obvious renaming requests (harmonisations, obvious moves such as "destruction" to "destruction (band)", singular/plural, capitalisation errors) are inserted straight into User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. This will make the "Move request" category more manageble too. Example use. --Foroa (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite know how this works, but I'll have a look at it next time. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

World War I trench railways[edit]

Hi, I see you've set up a category structure for the Bundesarchiv trench railways photos.. do you think we maybe need to use explicit WWI-related category names for these, to avoid later confusion ? regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh, not quite sure what you mean? Could you give an example here of what you are thinking of? I thought that categorising as trench railway and as WWII rail transort would work, with subcategories for specific military railways when they did exist and the image can be traced back to a specific one? Ingolfson (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to say was : perhaps we should name the category "World War I trench railway" to make it clear that it covers the WWI war period. There may be trench railways in other conflicts. Hence I propose a category structure : World War I military transport, World War I military rail transport, World War I trench rail transport. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Mmmh, generally agree, though some other people have been touchy about expanding such structures when not enough files are in them (would you be willing to spend some time to populate those cats?). Also, there is a current discussion about a rail transport category scheme that should be concluded first, because of heated dispute over terms like "railways" vs. "rail lines/railway lines" and so on. See the link from directly below this topic on this talk page. Ingolfson (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railways[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Railways has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

The discussion involves its subcategories too. --ŠJů (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion[edit]

Thank you for consulting me, but the choice of using the grammar "(Palermo)" instead of ", Palermo", does not come from a decision of mine, but comes from the fact that for some reason, unknown to me, the Italian Wikipedia opted since before my joining the project for the grammar "Building (Palermo)" instead of "Building, Palermo". Now I have been trying to amalgamate in Commons the criteria along the whole of Italy (which was in a total and complete mess: when I put my hands in the Category:Cathedrals in Italy, there were no less than 10 different grammars to categorize cathedral churches, which I shrinked to two, apart a few exceptions in cases in which I did not want to dispute with contributors who were very enamoured of their very original and very unique creations in matter of categorisation grammars....) for years, and I am not surely going all the way back. In my opinion it is better to have some fixed criteria for everybody than having criteria that vary from town to town, and moment to moment. Since this one grammar was, thanks to god, a general criterion that all Italian Wikipedians were using, I sticked to it. This made, and makes, things much, much, much easier, and prevents me from having to fix all the categories that other Italian wikipedians are creating.

To me the matter is totally indifferent, but since this worked until now, I'd rather follow the rule: "If it works, don't fix it".

Thank you for your kind attention --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S: Of course I don't espect you to trust me just on my word, so please have a check on the Italian Wikipedia, please.

Mmmmh, I have no problem trusting you there - and neither do I want to tell the Italian Wikipedians how to name their articles/categories. That is their choice. But COMMONS is ONE project, not one of different languages and standards - so eventually, it should be fixed here - and that can be done even if the Italian Wikipedia keeps their different standard(s). However, since I have enough on my plate at the moment, I am not much into arguing for changes here on Commons on this specific matter if you feel it would be contentious. Eventually, in the long run, standardisation will win, I am quite certain. Ingolfson (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm this. I executed already thousands of move requests in Italy and the situation is enormously improved. When you look at the edit count of Giovanni, you will understand why he needs a category naming standard.
Although, myself I don't always like the "Italian" standard, the standard is not precise enough to impose one way or another. I don't think that the changes suggested by Ingolfson are defined in the standard, rather a coming (almost) "de facto" standard. And an Italian (sub)standard is better than a Italian spagetti in this case. --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The categorization of diagrams, charts, graphs and maps under illustrations[edit]

Hi, for now I have undone you recent changes, were the Category:Agricultural diagrams, - charts, - graphs and - maps were collected under Category:Agricultural illustrations.

I have explained myself at Category talk:Agricultural diagrams. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. Ingolfson (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Title cases[edit]

Hi Ingolfson, I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other (such as salon d'agriculture), until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unification of category names - train stations in the Czech Republic[edit]

The discussion about an unification of category names is opened at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Categories of train stations in the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Categorisation comment[edit]

I was only getting the Categories started until I could see what others would fit. Thanks for fixing the NZ category. Just was busy today (Last time I do a 30km+ with hill after hill). Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Harbours[edit]

Dear Ingolfson, thank you for the correction. In Italian there is no separation between the two words, so that I can't even per4ceive the difference, even after I am explained. All ports/arbiours are shelters, and all of them are used to embark desembark goods... more or less. Furthermore the thing is not clear at all, since at en:Harbor the first illustration bears "Port Jackson"... However, since my task is merely having a uniform grammar through the whole category, in place of 1000 different ways to name the same thing, I'd appreciate if you could help by sorting ports from harbour here: Category:Ports and harbours in Italy, since I cannot still see the difference between the two words. :-)
As for the grammar, yes, I explained earlier I'm not going to change it again (that would be the third time, and it's too much for my tastes). I think it will suffice that throught Italian entries there is only one method rather than 100. Some day the work to change them all can be given to a bot, when and if it is deemed necessary. Now the most urgent thing is having a coherent method throught. Thank you for your help. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello G. dallorto - I agree that the definition is not easy to keep apart in some cases, especially as images may have been mixed up and the category not correctly set up to start with. As for explaining the difference, here are two examples of cases where the difference is clear:
The large open bay is in the middle is en:Wellington Harbour.
the wharves and quays of the Port of en:Wellington are located in en:Wellington Harbour, but are not a harbour itself (zoom out to compare).
The long open bay is in the middle is the en:Waitemata Harbour.
the wharves and quays are those of en:Ports of Auckland, which are located in en:Waitemata Harbour, but are not a harbour itself (zoom out to compare).
Many people confuse the two, and the definition for any specific harbour/port is not always as clear as in my examples even to people who know it. I am just saying that where you do know (from maps, or from personal knowledge) you should make the difference if possible. As a basic rule on Commons, a harbour is usually natural (a bay) while a port is manmade (quays, wharves, breakwaters...) Ingolfson (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Järnvägar[edit]

Hej! Category:Järnvägar kanske borde tömmas och avvecklas? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I had assumed you were Swedish, and it would need someone with knowledge of Swedish rail terminology and of the commons railroad category scheme to recategorize these images. "Järnväger" just means railroads, so this is a duplicate category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


File tagging File:Jiuquan_Satellite_Launch_Center_tower.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Jiuquan_Satellite_Launch_Center_tower.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

shizhao (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Badges of rank[edit]

Hallo, I would appreciate your military expertise (and helping hand) in Category talk:Badges of rank. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my experience with the military is simply what one learns as a reader of too many novels with military themes. And while I have a pedantic streak ;-), learning about military rank systems was always a bit too dry for me. So all I can offer is my comment on the rename proposal page. Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:IMO 9147368[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:IMO 9147368 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

--Stunteltje (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that I am not authorised to remove the deletion tag, otherwise I had already done so. Still not experienced enough to know whether or not you are the only person to remove the tag. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes stumble over the same questions of whether conventions are to be followed in a certain way. As "speedy" is actually a rather casual process (using speedy implies that it is clearly apparent why it should be deleted), anything like the fact that there are suddenly images again which are appropriate for a previously empty category, would logically make the "speedy" irrelevant, and should allow removal. My two cents - Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cycling infrastructure categorization[edit]

Hi Ingolfson, you have shown interest in this topic earlier: I have proposed a category tree scheme here: Category talk:Cycling infrastructure. I would like your comments. The goal is to minimise the chaos within this category tree. Nillerdk (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow - not hedging, but it is almost midnight here... Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:Driving railway coaches[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Driving railway coaches has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

And please have a look at Category:Railcars (self-propelled) and User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, for once, I have no opinion, since I am not an expert on either terminology. Ingolfson (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:Bicycle road signs[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Bicycle road signs has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:GZ Da Fu Shan Garden 大夫山森林公園 Rules of Bike Leasing.jpg[edit]

What's the problem with this picture? It was originally uploaded by the photographer, with the appropriate license, as the history of the image and other contribution of the user indicates. Why should he come back now and email OTRS?

As to the potential "derivative work" issue, freedom of panorama applies in China quite broadly; the image is tagged with a tag (FoP-China) explaining the situation. Vmenkov (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but I have no idea about any issues with this image, all I did was change the category. Ingolfson (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I've misread the edit history! Vmenkov (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves[edit]

A couple of comments.

  • I don't want to interfere with the work of G.dallarto. Although I do not always agree with his naming style, at least he has a coherent approach which is futureproof (not trying to remove disambiguation terms all the time). I moved thousands of categories for him, and I don't want to redo that for a vague de-facto standard (which I support, but it is probably too early to really push it). At least, naming in Italy is pretty coherent, better than in most other countries.
  • SieBot does not move audio or video files, so if there are too many such files, I set a redirect on it so the move happens later by other bots.
  • Some of the pronounciation files have been moved to another destination (see redirects) as the plural form seems not correct/coherent in many cases. Potatos does not seem right neither. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realise those were G.dallarto's moves. Didn't know about the Siebot issue either. And missed the fact that you had changed the category names for the plural cases. Thanks, I'm learning new stuff all the time. Ingolfson (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Immune systems[edit]

I consider this to be vandalism. If you do something like that again I'm gonna report you for vandalism. Plus if you start something finish it. What about Category:Veterinary Pharmacology? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, mate. It is Category:Immune systems, because immune systems exist in plural (humans, animals, yours, mine). Therefore, the correct category name on Commons is plural. I requested the name change, and an administrator approved it. To rant at me and accuse me of vandalism is short-tempered, and means you need to take a breather and look at the category naming rules and established conventions.
As for "not finishing the job" - again, all I did was rename some category names that were wrongly capitalised, starting in veterinary medicine. I did not finish them all because I have a life, meaning I do not have endless time to put up requests on the DeLinker. If you want perfection, you would be correcting Commons until all infinity - it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. Again, calm down a little, and maybe help in getting it all sorted? Ingolfson (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking more closely, I don't even understand your comment re the Category:Veterinary Pharmacology representing unfinished business. All the category names within Category:Veterinary medicine DID get changed. Ingolfson (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism reported. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, sure. Ingolfson (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever asked yourself what happens to the links from our sisterprojects to commons when you delete a cat here? Rethorical question. Concerning the en:category:immune system: Go to the english wikipedia and convince them to change the name to plural. After they have changed it you can change it here as well. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know the reason why plural is incorrect. Because the category does not contain pictures that show individual "immune systems". --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your response shows me that you have some gaps in understanding how the Commons category system is set up. You may notice that Wikipedia uses the singular as a standard, we use the plural as a standard. We are not the same project, and not all rules are the same either.
And in fact I do see images and files in the category that depict quite a variety of immune systems. There's even one that shows two at the same time (mother and baby in the womb).
Also, the plural doesn't even refer to the individual files / images. It refers to the fact that we have multiple files.
And even after all these aspects, there is the fact that we do not create category names according to what is in them now - if I create a category called "White house", and put a single file with a single white house into it, I may be correct for that instant. But I would be creating the wrong category name, because just a few days later, someone will put a SECOND file into it. One that might show two white houses to boot. Ingolfson (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

wh Category:White House --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeeeeez. That is a en:proper name for a specific building. I am talking about a category like Category:White houses (or, since that does not exist yet, see Category:White buildings, which is NOT called Category:White building). Thanks for proving my point. Ingolfson (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
en:abstract noun --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that "Immune system" is a grammatically correct construct does not change the fact that "immune systems", which is also grammatically correct, is the correct term for Commons. You have also not answered or countered my arguments for the plural use (if I needed any, rather than just being able to point to the standard Commones nomenclature). Instead, you keep diverting from that by giving correct, but irrelevant examples. Ingolfson (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not the correct term since there are no pictures of "immune systems". There are also no pictures of biology that's why there is not cat category:Biologies. Start a renaming quest on en and look what happens. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You are on the wrong project, mate. Wikipedia rules don't apply. And biologies is a word, but rather rarely used. If the context made sense, it could be used, just as philosophy gives philosophies. Immune systems is an absolutely standard plural form, created by simply adding the s. I have explained already why there are multiple immune systems. Think of subcategories like Category:Animal immune systems. Ingolfson (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Protests against nuclear power[edit]

Hello,

Please see Category talk:Protests against nuclear power. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic English[edit]

Sorry if I might seem pedantic, but I am watching carefully the use of plural as defined in basic English grammar rules, so that it can be mastered by people that have only basic knowledge of English and to avoid endless discussions in the sense of google says this or that, or look overhere. This is normally not my style, but the only way to avoid non productive moves back and forwards. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no need to be sorry/apologise, we tend to have disagreements over maybe 5% or less of my name change requests. Though I do find usage important, I know that I have been sitting on both sides of that fence at times, so it's okay. Ingolfson (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Architecture by date and subcats[edit]

Please have a look at this. Thanks! TomAlt (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point - but necessarily agree with what you seem to say. "Buildings" are just a (admittedly big) part of all architecture. There are also structures that are not buildings, architecturural events etc... So technically each "building by year of completion" cat could then sit under the corresponding "architecture by year" cat. Might need a cat header or a bot to do the sorting sanely, though. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your category move request[edit]

Hi. Regarding your category move request, how would you feel about Category:Companies based in Frankfurt am Main? That follows the company-by-city convention at en:Category:Companies of Germany and also some of the categories here. If you agree, I could move all of the Category:Companies of Germany by city categories here to keep them consistent. Wknight94 talk 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with consistency than with the difference (between the two variants you proposed), so feel free. Ingolfson (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ship parts[edit]

Very well grouped now. What about Category:Gangways (watercraft), Category:Decks (watercraft), Category:Bridges (nautical), Category:Capstan (nautical) and Category:Hull (watercraft), not ship parts? --Stunteltje (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gangways are ship-related but not necessarily ship parts - I don't think anyway. A gangway could be just from one area of a pier to another. But the rest could probably be moved. I think they match the enwiki article names now (or at least en:Capstan (nautical) does. Wknight94 talk 17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, come to think about it more, "watercraft" may be a better qualifier than most of the others, even "ship parts". Because many of these also apply to boats, which are watercraft, but not ships. Except that "watecraft parts would sound a little strange. Maybe have watercraft parts as the top cat, and "ship parts" and "boat parts" under it. Ingolfson (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lakers[edit]

I moved category:Lakers to category:Lakers (disambiguation) as this does not fill up so quickly with "lazy" categorised images. I meant to document that in the deletion edit summary, but I hit the wrong button by mistake. --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But will ANYBODY ever find that page now? The use of a disambig page is to be found first. Ingolfson (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Observing the (very incomplete) category:Non-empty disambiguation categories shows that people just drop files in the category that corresponds the closest to the names they have in their head. So these categories are just filling up and few people care to do the actual distribution. HotCat will find that category and replace it dynamically with the contained categories. When the category name Lakers does not exist, people are obliged to consider other variations on Lakers and will see that the names they want can have several meanings. This avoids the, what I call lazy categorisation: getting the first names that ressembles the wanted name. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand what you are trying to do - I simply consider that soon enough, it will ensure that people recreate Category:Lakers. Do you keep all cats you ever deleted on your watchlist? Or even all those that are likely to be recreated? What if one day you feel you've had it with Commons, and that watchlist is ignored? I feel there needs to be a better way. Though it may require a software change. Ingolfson (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
All deleted cats are watched, so each time I see a newly created category on my watchlist, I check if it is not again a redundant one or one that should be disambiguated. In the latter case, it is quick to rename it manually before it grows and get subcategories. I do agree with you; the solution is far from optimal and I consider it as the less bad solution. I think that we should have special software indeed, probably in a seperate documentation and search name space, to address disambiguation, multi-lingual search and documentation. But so far, I can see no real dynamic on the wiki software side. If even a proper display of crowded categories cannot be arranged, how could we imagine more important extensions ? --Foroa (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, it will happen. Commons is geeky enough to eventually attract someone who is happy to crack it. Ingolfson (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationale Volksarmee and whatever...[edit]

As you can see here, National People ... seems far too generic as name. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the Wikipedia article then? Oh well, if we rename them ALL, I am happy with the addition of "of the German Democratic Republic". Not "of the GDR" though, please. Ingolfson (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have little time now, your requests are executed very quickly nowadays and I have already seen too many moves forward and backwards between Volksarmee and People's Army. --Foroa (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It's alright. My apologies for being tetchy - just didn't feel nice having your stuff reverted three minutes after it was placed and we were still discussing. Ingolfson (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories Houses by country versus Housing by country[edit]

Any idea how to explain Commons:Village_pump#Categories_Houses_by_country_versus_Housing_by_country that here in three lines ? --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that we should have a look into this "creative" category naming. --Foroa (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Identified Maersk ship[edit]

Happened to see a question on User talk:Stunteltje, asking what ship was represented in File:K Crane Visit ZPMC In Ports of Auckland III.jpg and File:K Crane Visit ZPMC In Ports of Auckland II.jpg. I'm good at guessing, and found it was the Maersk Radford, as seen here, down to the blue hull and unique-looking rust patterns on the fore. Cheers! Huntster (t@c) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

categories[edit]

hi;

sorry for the last line of mylast comment; it was the 3rd or 4th time i finished typing, hit save & got a conflict.

to be clear; i don't care about using slashes one way or the other, any segment marker will do. what i do care about is getting the items organized in a logical, searchable, easy to understand system. i'm doing rhyolite as a test, since it's small enough to be managable, & because i will be uploading a fair number of old pd pre 1923 images of the place; hopefully within the next few days. that is part of the reason for distinguishing sub-cats the way i have. the collection will include, for example, a picture of the second bottle house, as well as another school.

also; as conventions go, it is usual to order hierarchically left to right in english. i'm not clear on what the system actually is here; no offense but things generally seem pretty chaotic...

could you please point me to the relevant policy pages?

thanks & i appreciate your efforts to mediate

Lx 121 (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lx 121 - we appreciate you being willing to talk it over!
I think one of the things that confuses you is the nesting logic of Commons. Instead of using:

Category:Bigcountry/Someplace, Bigcountry/Mr Roger's Main school/Teacher's room,

Commons instead uses a system of multiple categories:

1. First, you create Category:Bigcountry (though it will usually exits already)

2. Then, under that, you create Category:Cities in Bigcountry (again, it will likely exist already) and place it WITHIN Category:Bigcountry

3. Then you create Category:Someplace, Bigcountry (because there is another "Someplace" located in Category:Smallcountry) and place it it WITHIN Category:Cities in Bigcountry

4. Then you create Category:Schools in Someplace, Bigcountry within...

5. Then you create Category:Mr Roger's Main School (let us assume that there exists, worldwide, only one such, so the "Someplace, Bigcountry" qualifier is NOT needed...) and place it within...

6. Then you create, Category:Teacher's room at Mr Roger's Main School, and place it within.

Now, why so complicated? Because in big categories, you would otherwise be left with hundreds or even thousands of subcategories and files in parallel. By chucking them into subcategories that collect them according to a certain logic (such as all "Someplace, Bigcountry" related files going into the subcat, all the schools files then into one below that etc... rather than all into "Bigcountry", we keep order. And you can also add Category:Janitor's room at Mr Roger's Main School at the lowest level without having to go through the whole process twice.

PS: You could probably ignore Step 4 of the above - for example, if "Someplace, Bigcountry" has only one school. But it is always good to be consistent right from the start, because somebody may have to insert that in-between cat between 3 and 5 later if you don't do it at the start.

PS:PS: Just read through the help -> categorisation pages for a more exhausting explanation: sorting As for me, I am too impatient to read them, I learned Commons categorisation by osmosis and lots of hard work (including being browbeaten by admins much less patient than Foroa ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Martial arts by country[edit]

Since you created Category:Martial arts by country, I figured I'd turn to you about sorting it out.

The issue is that there is a difference between martial arts of a country and in a country. For example, many people do karate in the United States or Aikido in Romania, but they are still martial arts of Japan.

Maybe we need two separate sets of categories, one for classifying martial arts by their country of origin, and the other that allows us to place individual photos in a category specific to where they were taken?

This arose because I really can't work out what to do with File:Sedro-Woolley - 824 Metcalf 02.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Category:Industrial rail transport[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Industrial rail transport has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plurals doesn't always make sense[edit]

Hi Ingolfson, although its Commons convention to use plurals, plurals don't always make sense or are appropriate e.g. Category:Air assaults, the ways the category is structured (read the intro), categorised and populated, the term air assault is used to describe a tactic i.e a way of doing something. To my reading "air assaults" is a more proper description for specific events, e.g. the airborne invasion of Crete, the landing at Pegasus bridge, Eben-Emael etc. Its not impossible or undesirable to have both (on first sight categories for specific events seem to be sorely lacking- and which I hope to rectify in time). To revive "air assault" for the technique, and to place specific campaigns in "air assults". KTo288 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your argument. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, will re-organise the catsonce I sort out daughter categories for air assaults.

Move[edit]

Hi again, I think you have made a mistake with requesting a move and delete of Category:United States Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon to Category:Silent Drill Platoon ceremonies of the United States Marine Corps. In order to be valid such a move and delete must be replacing like with like which I do not believe is the case here.

The en:United States Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon is a particular single unit of the United States Marine Corps, and the original Commons category for this unit was categorised as such. However because of the nature of the unit, the pictures we have of this unit is of them doing "precision drill" (categorised here on Commons as "military drill") during ceremonial and promotional events. The drill itself is not a ceremony, perhaps a better wording would be "Precision drill of the United States Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon".

When categorising an image the old friends of "Who, What, Where, When, Why and How" are appropriate questions to ask. The original category concentrated on the "Who", your requested move created a category more focused on the "What" and "Why".

Of course there is more to a military unit then what they do or are doing, and the new category no longer reflects this. As the current category is both inaccurate and inadequate, I think it best that this move be reversed.KTo288 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the misunderstanding, which occurred while renaming a whole host of military categories that were plainy misnamed. In the bunch I casually missed this tiny detail and thought this referred to a ceremony, rather than a unit - I agree that this should be reversed. Though we need to sort out it's placement under Category:Ceremonies of the United States Marine Corps - because a military unit is obviously not a ceremony! What do you suggest for that (go ahead and request the move back in the meantime). Ingolfson (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As an aisde - why do you consider such a drill to NOT be a ceremony? The military applications are limited (even though I am aware of the overlap between "show drill" and actual military efficiency, especially in earlier times), and the actual application is entirely promotional and ceremonial, isn't it? Ingolfson (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


File tagging File:Waitemata_Auckland_Harbour_47.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Waitemata_Auckland_Harbour_47.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Martin H. (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons categories[edit]

Look at this discussion and give your opinion, please: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Process_engineering Just for curiosity: are you an engineer or what? --Aushulz (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories by country[edit]

Hello. I noticed You and Foroa prefer that separate categories by country aren't grouped primarily by continent, eventually to retain unassroted mixture of countries as paralel category beside the structure by continent. But neither You or Foroa stated a link to some discussion which given support to such anomaly. Please can You refer to anything like that? Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is initiated at Commons:Village pump#Categories "by country" vs. "by continent". --ŠJů (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Domesticated Animals[edit]

Hi Ingolfson. In ancient Egypt, all images are hieroglyphs. In the category of the hieroglyphs should only have very specific images. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Category:Railway lines[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Railway lines has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


File:Windbreaker_Adidas.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Windbreaker_Adidas.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)‎ | +/−

-- Mentifisto 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2009/12#Category:Air_tanker.2C_Category:Waterbomber_and_Category:Firefighting_aircraft[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Air tanker, Category:Waterbomber and Category:Firefighting aircraft has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Shacks[edit]

Shacks is a not an appropriate subcategory of sheds. Some shacks are sheds, but many shacks are not sheds. They are not the same thing. And shacks are by definition derelict buildings - the en wiki article specifically refers to disrepair. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Category renames[edit]

Hi Ingolfson,

FYI: Category talk:Double-decker buses in the United Kingdom. I did some of the ones on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. For the others, personally, I'd suggest to use {{move}}. Possibly someone else will do them though. -- User:Docu at 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Empty categories[edit]

All we wait for is new space on Commons. If Multichill does starts the upload now then servers will be full and all uploads to Commons will probably have to stop for a period.

Anyway I see no problems in having empty categories for a short period. So I hope you can live with it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough in terms of the uploads, and I'm not one to be contrarian to make a point. However, I do dislike having empty categories (and I think I remember there was an official rule against them too) so I usually have these "wrong" cats deleted. As I said, if you have a logical reason, I'll pipe down. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Alcove houses[edit]

You requested a move from Category:Laubenhäuser to Category:Alcove houses that was then done by Siebot. I cannot find any evidence that "alcove house" is the correct translation of "Laubenhaus". The "Laubenhaus"/"Löwinghuus" is a specific type of house common in the Mark of Brandenburg. Is "alcove house" really the correct technical term for this? (See also User talk:Foroa#Category:Alcove houses) --Slomox (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope to respond in a few days, need to do research first, and have only time for drive-bys in the meantime. Please proceed as you see fit if you think you can resolve it on your own. Ingolfson (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)