User talk:Joshbaumgartner

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive, 2019-2020 archive

Problem with Template:Aircraft cat, or something it calls[edit]

This template is putting a bad category on Category:Pilatus aircraft by operation. Could you see if you can figure out why? If you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested to know what you find because I'd like to know how to trouble-shoot things like that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks for alerting me to that one. The problem was that the category page was referencing the incorrect QID on Wikidata. I changed the 'mfr=' parameter to 'Q613254' (Wikidata item for Pilatus) and it seems to work correctly. I'm not sure if this was just a mistake made when editing the category, or if the Wikidata item was changed after the fact and no longer appropriate to be called. In any case, no changes made to the template/sub-templates, though it might be nice if there were a way to check the WD QID to make sure it is pointing to a valid instance type. Josh (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! Im afraid this template also broke how Category:Black aircraft (and similar categories) was sorted. The key for Category:Black vehicles should be | Aircraft]], with a space between | and aircraft, to avoid being sorted in vehicles together with brands. Adding the template broke this. Can you please take a look at this? Anders (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anders: Thanks for pointing this one out. In cases where a different sort key is appropriate, such as in this case, you can simply add the category manually with the correct sort key (as in my edit here) and as you can see, it now sorts per the norm for that category. Josh (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor digression on categories[edit]

I was going to post this as part of my response on Template talk:Aircraft mfr § Display option, but it's off-topic enough that here is probably better. Hopefully it's in your realm of interest :).

I'm currently rendering (if it'll ever finish) a 16-category deep graph of Cat:Cirrus aircraft's parent categories via w:Graphviz. While maybe not particularly helpful on that scale, I have to admit it can get some pretty fascinating graphics. (See m:User:Dapete/vCat#English or here for an example.)

Also a quick, equally unrelated question: are you aware of any tooling that indicates when a file or category is over-categorized? I've been running into a lot of situations where I've had to manually check, and I don't see anything that would automate this on COM:CAT. Perryprog (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is interesting for sure! As for a tool, Cat-a-Lot has a 'check over-categorization' function that will highlight files that are affected (you can select which files to test). It doesn't give any detail as to which cat is causing the violation and I don't know how deep it checks. It also isn't exactly automated, but maybe that will help. Josh (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah—I spent quite some time looking for that button, but apparently it's gated behind any of these permissions. Still, that does sound better than not being able to know at all without a bunch of "open in new tab" clicks on a file's categories. Perryprog (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Must be the autopatrol one? I only have that and template editor. Josh (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like it; it's probably to avoid newer users erroneously removing correctly overcategorized categories I'd guess. Perryprog (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:1_animal[edit]

Category discussion warning

1 animal 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!


MPF (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Artillery ammunition merges[edit]

Please rollback these merges and save me the trouble. This is nothing like a consensus-based merge! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you asking me to make edits contrary to a concluded CfD? See the talk page on that category for further information. Josh (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panzer VI -Tigers[edit]

Getting a bit of pushback on the moving/renaming of the subcats but mostly done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pushback? Interesting, not sure what was controversial about it, but if there is a discussion someone has opened, I would be interested to read what they have to say. Josh (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Two men in Bangladesh[edit]

Where is this CfD, please? I would like to see the reasoning behind this, if any. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: See Category talk:Groups. Josh (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I despair. It seems intersection categories have not been considered at all, e.g. "2 people with 2 cats". Is it one cat each or just two cats somewhere in the image. I doubt this is work that needed doing, bearing in mind that categories are intended to be definitions. Too late. I won't live long enough to see this come back and hit us in the face. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: The main gist of it the CfD was simply to standardize digital numbers ("2") vs. spelled-out numbers ("two"). The fact that CfDs are closed does not preclude new concerns or proposals being raised, however. Intersection categories are a minefield to be sure, as some make good sense, and others seem completely pointless (and users may have different pinions on where a particular one would fit). My approach is basically to be tolerant of their existence and just get them in compliance with the standards and structure we have in place for groups. I have been trying to develop some kind of framework for dissimilar subjects, but it is still a WiP right now. Josh (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"2 men" is poor English, and the lingua franca of Commons is English (yeah, I know that's Latin). The internationalization issue is, to me, a red herring, because it doesn't work for non-Latin alphabets such as Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic or Japanese. But it is possble via language selection, to view a category in one's own language if it's set up that way. That's why I think the whole exercise is unnecessary. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A fair point, to be sure, but not a complete red herring. While Western Arabic numerals are not automatically recognizable in all languages, they are for many, many languages, so non-English speakers amongst their populations will be helped. Even in languages such as Arabic and Japanese (I don't know enough about Chinese or Cyrillic to comment on those), use of WA numerals are in common use and many non-English speakers will still be readily able to recognize numbers in WA numerals, versus spelled-out English words. I do agree that most English style guides will tell you that "two cats" is better than "2 cats", and in prose that is the right choice, but there is also a balance in category names between proper English prose and pragmatic conciseness to consider--they should be neither unnecessarily elaborate nor cryptic. I would love it if Commons employed a better method of internationalization, but we'll be waiting forever if we wait for perfection. Josh (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Activities_by_country_of_location[edit]

Category discussion warning

Activities by country of location 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!


Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aircraft_by_facing[edit]

Category discussion warning

Aircraft by facing 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!


Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template:modex[edit]

Hi Josh, I have recently been adding a lot of modex categories to aircraft files. Many of those also included USMC aircraft, so I think we should have the automatic categorisation differentiate between those two branches. Currently, all instances of template:modex are put into Category:United States Navy modex numbers, but we might want to sort those depending on the parent categories of the file. I think we could have a switch depending on a new series suffix that displays either "United States Navy modex numbers" or "Category:United States Marine Corps modex numbers" and categorises accordingly. Ideally, the article modex should also be linked by the template output. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I found a way to implement the categorisation for Marine modex numbers: User:De728631/workshop. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks good to me. It has been a while since I've dug into modex numbers, but as with all such things on USN/USMC aircraft, they are controlled by the same agency so theoretically there are not really 'USN modex' and 'USMC modex' numbers, but they just happen to be applied to an aircraft that is in one or the other service. However, in practice, it could be viable to sub cat them into the two services if there are enough to make that worth doing. If you want to implement the solution above and see how it goes, I have no objection. Josh (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. When I started to add the new template to some categories I encountered the problem that both services may issue the same modex numbers. So I tried to disambiguate the categories and the navbox display but I have a feeling this may get too messy and obscure in the category tree. So instead I opted to create a neutral Category:Modex numbers for all numbers where the subcategories that are currently in the Navy category can be upmerged. Unfortunately this may require a null edit for each of the 400something templated modex categories to get the recategorisation to work. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both services do issue the same numbers at times, and in fact at any time there are several aircraft in each service with the same number assigned to them, as they are really only unique within the carrier air group, marine air wing, or other such equivalent unit. Ostensibly, this could be the level to which they are split out into, but I thought that was way too granular for the amount of material I was looking at. I've responed to your note about leading zeroes, and I can't remember off hand whether all modexes are 3 digits, or if 2 digit numbers actually exist (or are just modex-ish numbers used in a similar manner). Let me know what you think and I'll see if I can make the template work to purpose. Josh (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Symbols by type[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, please can you add an explanation what does is it mean "by type" or giving some examples "Types of symbols are signs? icons? ideograms? insignias?..." Most of this is under main category symbols. So main question (for explaination): What is difference between Category:Symbols and Category:Symbols by type? Thx a lot! --W like wiki good to know 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Type can be a useful sorting criteria, but it needs better definition within the context of the subject. In this case, I would agree with an upmerge of Category:Symbols by type to Category:Symbols. Josh (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Tools_of_the_Netherlands[edit]

Category discussion warning

Tools of the Netherlands 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!


JopkeB (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

category:Images_by_text[edit]

Josh,

FYI, I see you mentioned in the history of this category - [1].

Best regards and thanks for your attention to this matter,

--Ooligan (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason for inventing just another subcategory[edit]

(Info @ Ardfern)

Is there any meaningful reason for inventing Category:Boeing aircraft by year of manufacture by model number as just another subcategory ?

This has never been discussed anywhere, so it once again is just one of your private matters of taste.

And therefore, please STOP this IMMEDIATELY until there is a consensus ! --Uli Elch (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an actual substantive objection, or is this just more of your usual hounding? Josh (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the actual benefit or advantage of adding yet another intermediate category? If you should have any convincing reason, we could talk about it.
Just now it simply and only increases the workload when editing by adding the necessity of an additional click every time.
Yet another needless subcategory, higher workload > no benefit whatsoever. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an index/meta category, and I should think someone of your experience would already understand the purpose of such categories. If you find such categories useless, I'm not sure what to tell you then. That only makes them useless to you, not for everyone. Josh (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is just an additional, unnecessary intermediate category causing needlessly higher workload when editing. No consensus has yet been achieved. Please refrain from further changes until the matter has been resolved. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but there is strong consensus accepting the use of index/meta categories, even to the point of being covered in basic documentation. Josh (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you please provide the link(s) where this is "covered in basic documentation"? --Uli Elch (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Categories is a good place to start your research. Josh (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please include sort criterion on metacat templates[edit]

Hi, Josh. When you put a metacat template on a category, please remember to include the required sort criterion parameter. It's the first (unnamed) parameter. For example, on Category:Airbus A321neo by year of manufacture, you put this:

{{MetaCat|topic-cat=Airbus A321neo by year}}

It should have been this:

{{MetaCat|year of manufacture|topic-cat=Airbus A321neo by year}}

I just added the parameter to the 40 entries that were in Category:Metacats with no criterion parameter (because I could do it fast with AWB), but please remember to add it when you use the metacat template. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't aware that was causing an issue. I usually do include it, but I think the ones you are seeing is a particular situation, where I want it to sort a little differently than the template would normally do, so I was setting the sorting key by a separate Category:... line. Perhaps you know a better way to accomplish this? In any case, I'll make sure the sorting criterion is filled in even if I plan on overriding it. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving off the topic-cat parameter might help, if you hardcode that category instead (as you seem to be doing already). The topic-cat parameter isn't required, and it can even make category maintenance harder anyway. See if that does what you want. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, I will try that out. Josh (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(text)" cats vs "letter combination" cats[edit]

I think what you did with Category:Fe (text) is wrong. So far "(text)" cats has corresponded to actual words in any language, not generic letter combinations (which is a misnomer since we have separate BA and AB, but that’s another matter). Now seems that you want to conflate the two, leaving only at Category:FE letter combinations three audio files that are very much not letter combinations, but something we don’t seem to cover: Category:Fe (word). I strongly suggest you undo this unexpected change and lets work together at improving the system. -- Tuválkin 07:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is an interesting point. I do not see where there was ever a restriction on text categories being limited to words. Images of words is found in categories by language, such as Category:Images by English text, etc. Afterall, what is a word to one language is not a word to another. As for the letter combination categories, there was a proposal which was unopposed after a year to change those to text categories, but there may be some use for letter combinations beyond actual text depictions (e.g. country-level internet domains) of the letters, so for now I have not acted on that. To exclude non-words from the text category, we would essentially have to prove that a letter combination does not make a word in any language in the world, which would seem a tall order. Also, consider proper nouns, abbreviations, and colloquialisms, which may not be officially-recognized words in a given language, but are very much words in the generally recognized sense. When I pondered these I found it quite difficult to come up with an objective standard that could be applied, instead leaning to the only objective standard being whether or not it is the literal text depicted in the image. I'm certainly open to further refining this tree further and look forward to your thoughts on the matter. Josh (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aircraft cats[edit]

Hi Josh, thanks for dealing with the IWM museum aircraft category. Did you catch in the discussion that Category:Aircraft at RAF Museum Cosford by aircraft type has the same problem? The other category mentioned, Category:Aircraft by type by location, appears to be long standing, many sub cats created by different editors and appears to contain no museums so I don't object to it. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nimbus227: I missed the other linked category, so I'll take care of that as well. I know that there is a lot of backlog, so in the future if you need closure of a CfD, and don't feel appropriate doing it yourself, ping me or another regular CfD contributor (Themightyquill (talk · contribs) and Auntof6 (talk · contribs) are helpful and very experienced options) and we can help out. Thanks for contributing! Josh (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aircraft by registration[edit]

Hi Josh, can you explain what this accomplishes? Thanks! Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huntster: Well the '=' probably needs to be replaced by a space...the '04' is the number of digits in the number to be sorted, kind of a manual attempt to mimic what {{Numsort}} would do. It seems like a lot of numbers are not sorting correctly by number, so trying to fix those. Josh (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copy, was just curious. Thanks. I saw it here and here on my watchlist, so didn't know if it was part of a new sorting strategy. Huntster (t @ c) 00:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, I just noticed that it seems there are a few different types of keys being used for the same cat, so probably need to get that cleaned up. I think space is the best lead character (it matches what is used in several other 'by number' categories and seems to work well). Fine with going with something different if someone has a reason to do so. Josh (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Since there is no documentation for {{Aircraft built in year}}, how do I go about preventing Category:Boeing 767-400ER built in 1999 from being placed in Category:Boeing 767-400 built in 1999, which is a redirect back to the first category? --R'n'B (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

R'n'B: See my edit here. The "-400" and "ER" needed to be in the same field, so that "Boeing 767" is by itself. This also eliminates the need for |nav=. Does that make sense? Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@R'n'B and Huntster: The edit works. The nav parameter is useful in cases where a nav box may exist at a different level than that currently built up in the 'by year of manufacture' tree...it is kind of a work-around parameter. Huntster is right that in most cases it is not needed. My apologies for the lack of documentation, I need to go back and flesh out the docs on that series of templates. I am busy moving houses currently so can't really do that until a week or so from now, however. Josh (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Envelopes for elections in Spain[edit]

Hi! I live and vote in Spain, so I'm quite familiar with envelopes used in elections in Spain. They are not for postal use, with very few exceptions. So I think the category doesn't have to be in "Postal envelopes". An explanation can be found in the category's discussion page. Some left over envelopes from elections are given "alternate" uses; maybe some end up with a stamp and posted, but I have never seen one used like that (yet)! B25es (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@B25es: Thank you for that information. If their primary purpose is to contain a ballot (we have a similar type of envelope in Oregon, which is also not a postal envelope), then perhaps a more descriptive name such as ballot envelopes should be used to differentiate it, and that can be added to the dab page. Josh (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please cancel this edit[edit]

Hey! Please cancel this edit. The discussion continues. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, Joshbaumgartner was undoubtedly justified in doing what he did. The discussion was not continuing, a full two weeks had passed if you wanted to express yourself. Joshbaumgartner's edit should be kept, because the discussion was settled. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: If a CfD is closed and changes made which you think are in error, or if there are further issues that did not get properly discussed, the correct method is to raise a new CfD and explain the remaining issues. This may result in restoring a previous state or making other further changes if that is the consensus. Closed CfD's should not be re-opened, but instead linked to by the new CfD. Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs) is correct that procedure was properly followed. Josh (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Heading Indicator with Airplane and Office on Round Rect Light Blue.svg[edit]

Hi Josh! Did you miss to mention Oona Räisänen in the credits of your picture, from seems to be derived from Heading indicator.svg File:Heading indicator.svg ? Pls correct i.a. and remove the {review} tag. Greetings, Autodromtaxler Andrij (talk)

It says it uses Heading indicator.svg; not sure what else is needed, perhaps a different license or whatever. Frankly, I'm not even close to an expert on license issues, so I have no problem with whatever modification is required to make it legal, or even deletion if that is what is required. Thanks! Josh (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manual ping[edit]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Scholars and academics. I didn't ping you as the system didn't recognize your sig due to discussing formatting, only noticed your nick after I saved the page. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Amaw_(text)[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Amaw_(text) 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!


Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Numbers_on_discs[edit]

Category discussion warning

Numbers on discs 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!


-- Tuválkin 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Group2[edit]

Hello,

Did I do right in writing up the parameter list for {{Group2}} in {{Group2/doc}}? And is there a way I can use that template to create, say, "Category:1 boy, 1 girl, 1 woman" or "Category:1 girl, 1 man, 1 woman" (both of which would go in Category:2 females with 1 male, while the former would go in Category:2 children with 1 woman)? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shāntián Tàiláng: It looks good at first glance. I am travelling this month a lot so I will look at it closer when I get back home in a couple of weeks. I think there is a way to exactly that with it...I know I was considering that functionality when writing the group templates...I just have to see how close it is to being able to work that way. Josh (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Topic in country[edit]

Hi, Josh. I wonder if you could take a look at this template that you created. It looks like it's adding a bad category on pages like Category:Architectural elements in Georgia. On that page, it's adding Category:Architectural elements of Georgia. The issue isn't that the category is redlinked, it's that it might not make sense to add "architectural elements of <foo>" to the "architectural elements in <foo>" category. What do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: I have added an ifexist statement to avoid adding the redlink category in these cases. Thanks for alerting me. Josh (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Objects_of_Somaliland[edit]

Category discussion warning

Objects of Somaliland 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!


82.135.80.150 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:SOKO_aircraft[edit]

Category discussion warning

SOKO 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!


MaGa 16:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]