User talk:Pi.1415926535

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

Was File:Cable car in SF July 2007.jpg not taken on Hyde Street?[edit]

Pi.1415926535, was my photo File:Cable car in SF July 2007.jpg not taken on Hyde Street? I was pretty sure that it was. Would you mind checking the geocode and comparing it to what is in the picture? If it was indeed taken on Hyde Street, I'd like to add the category back; however, if it was taken on a different street, I'd like to correct the description and add that category (if one exists on Commons). Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: Don't worry, you're not wrong about the geocode - it is indeed on Hyde Street! I've been cleaning up the cable car categories over the last few days, and I'm still figuring out how the category scheme should go. Right now, your image is in Category:San Francisco cable car no. 22, which is in Category:Powell-Hyde and Powell-Mason cable car lines (because that car only runs on those lines), which is in Category:Hyde Street (San Francisco). I'm thinking of making Category:Cable cars on Hyde Street (San Francisco) or something similar, which would provide a more direct subcategory. If you have thoughts, I welcome them! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Pi.1415926535, I didn't trace the category hierarchy of Category:San Francisco cable car no. 22 up far enough to realize that it made Category:Hyde Street (San Francisco) redundant. My mistake. Sorry again for bothering you about this. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope, no bother at all! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, I can see where you are coming from here, but this approach creates a significant problem. It is mixing up two very different categorical statements ("a cable car on Hyde Street" vs. "a cable car assigned to a line that is named after Hyde Street") and leads to significant information loss by assuming one implies the other (we are no longer able to use the category system to find images of cable cars running on Hyde Street). BTW I think it's a frequent situation with geographical categories that one needs to make this kind of distinction - e.g. this file is in Category:Seymour, Wisconsin because the physical object is located there, but it is also the category of a city on another continent because it is about something named after that city. In any case, like Michael Barera and now myself, people are likely to keep adding the missing information back in years to come.
I like your suggestion above to create Category:Cable cars on Hyde Street (San Francisco) and have just done so. If you could help to restore the information by populating this new category with the files in question (example), that would be great.
PS: Same issue with California Street ([1] etc.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
PPS: Regarding the last example, it looks like the rationale stated in your revert was factually wrong anyway (at least I can't find such a subcategory of Category:California Street (San Francisco)). File:Cable cars SF6.jpg and Category:Mason Street (San Francisco) might form a better example for the analogous issue with other streets. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
PS4: And could you explain why you removed Category:Hyde Street (San Francisco) from this image, leaving it without any content categories? Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@HaeB: I apologize for some of my reverts being overly hasty, and thank you so much for your detailed comments. I'll act on them as soon as I'm back on a laptop (~24 hours) - trying to do categorization on mobile is nigh impossible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@HaeB: I've created categories for Hyde and Powell as well, and started to fill them properly. I will get around to populating them from the numbered categories as well (up to car #3 so far); feel free to help.

For now, I haven't added images of cable cars at the turntables to the by-street categories. I also haven't created a category for California Street - that line pretty much has a 1:1 correlation with the streets, unlike the complication of the Powell-Hyde-Mason system.

Again, I apologize for the overly-hasty reverts. You are entirely correct about both of those errors. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I have categorized everything (I think) from no. 27 and no. 28, and also created the categories for two other streets in the system (covering all except Taylor now). Personally I hope that Structured data could make a lot of these things easier in the future. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I stopped uploading random flickr models to Commons on 2 March. Sorry for the inconvenience.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm glad to hear. I understand you had the best of intentions in uploading them, so please don't take my comment to indicate I have anything but overall high regard for you as an editor. I also understand that I fall on the more deletionist side of Commons admins, and that many would have closed it differently. Regards, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. ...89793238...   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by obama[edit]

Hello Pi.1415926535, you did deleting the files. There was only one vote in the nomination. It was a keep. You wrote: "Deleted: per nomination". I do not understand? --DALIBRI (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@DALIBRI: Please note the following from COM:DR: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. COM:SCOPE is Commons policy; the files were personal images with no educational use. A limited number of vanity images are allowed for users who do contribute useful content and wish to have their userpage reflect themselves, but this was a user who has contributed zero useful content - only self-promotional userpages - across multiple projects. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Pi.1415926535, you and I know, there is a broad margin of discretion. OK, you are the admin. But you should know, there are people, who don't believe, that a doing like this, is the right way, to encourage other people to contribute to this community. --DALIBRI (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No, this isn't a matter of discretion - it is Commons policy: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. (emphasis mine) The user in question has never been an active participant on any project, and never showed any indication that they were here for anything other than to advertise themselves. If you wish to encourage newly registered users to actively participate, please do it in ways other than questioning admins when they delete spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible reason for deletion[edit]

Hello, I've noticed you responded to my earlier deletion request. I'd like your opinion on a possible reason for deletion: In,_1983) there is some 100 images of one ship taking a turn on the sea (e.g.,_to_exit_through_the_Eastern_Gap,_2015_08_17_(53).JPG_-_panoramio.jpg), with negligible differences between each other. There is nothing wrong with any single image, but in my view such a high number is meaningless. I've seen numerous cases similar to this... JiriMatejicek (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek: I speedily deleted a number of the files as duplicates. They were uploaded from Panoramio by a bot, which lacked the ability to distinguish pictures taken in bursts. A number of the remaining files are not exact duplicates, but certainly overlap each other to not be educationally useful to keep both. If you nominate those superfluous files for deletion, let me know, as I will likely be voting delete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Category move request[edit]

Would you mind moving the Category:Westside Express Service to Category:WES Commuter Rail? I tried to do it, but it evidently requires an administrator, due presumably to the fact that a category redirect already exists at the latter name. Here is the reason I am suggesting this change (the following is what I typed out when trying to move the page): "the same reason that the Wikipedia article was moved (3 years ago): the long name, although official, has never come into common use, and even TriMet [almost always] calls the service 'WES Commuter Rail' now". I did not make that WP move, but supported it, because it's true that the service is seldom referred to by the spelled-out name anymore (and this has been the case for years), and – tipping the balance, IMO – not even by TriMet, in most of its forms of media and customer information. (For example, in a Google news search, "Westside Express Service" + TriMet finds 112 results, while pairing TriMet with "WES" finds 642 results.) I realize I could simply change the category-redirect page to a working cat, and change its parent cats and subcats accordingly, but I am guessing that a "move" is preferred (is it?). If not, let me know, and I'm willing to just do it it myself. Whether you want to change your newly created subcats or not is your choice, but I would support doing so. Thanks. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steve Morgan: ✓ Done Looks like the issue was a redirect created long ago. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. On a semi-related note, I moved the file "New WES Budd RDCs still in TRE Livery.jpg" into the Category:WES Commuter Rail diesel multiple units without creating a subcat for WES's RDCs because there's a problem with the category syntax, and I don't really want to spend time trying to sort it out or discuss with other editors how to handle it (since I have very little interest in commuter rail). The existing geographical RDC subcats are all in a "by operator" parent cat, as is the Category:WES Commuter Rail diesel multiple units that you recently created. The problem is that WES is not an "operator"; it is a [commuter rail] system, but TriMet is the operator (albeit contracted to Portland & Western for the literal operators/engineers). Steve Morgan (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"Operator" is a very flexible notion; for US systems, it is used to mean "the rail system that the public branding uses" (i.e. WES, though TriMET could also be used to name the category) rather than "the company actually running the trains" (which tends to be more confusing and less useful). Your move to the general category was just fine. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Flickr Files[edit]

I just talked to all of the users on Flickr to see if they are willing to change their licenses. One of them (the one who uploaded the picture of the ACS-64) has agreed to change the license and it has been done. We'll see if the other three are willing to do the same.--Davidng913 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to secure proper licenses. I've closed the others that now have Commons-compatible licenses. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and coincidences[edit]

My photograph, 1617 on 10 Sep 2017
Your photograph, 1650 on 10 Sep 2017
Muni 2230 on Heritage Weekend in September 2017

Thanks again and I just wanted to note the funny coincidence that we appear to have missed each other by no more than half an hour, according to the timestamp on these photographs. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering that a few weeks ago when I saw how similar the lighting was. Perhaps next time we'll actually meet! That roundhouse tour sounds incredibly cool by the way - can't wait to see the pictures! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've seen the SFMTA Photograph Archive, which I stumbled across today. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have! Despite the SFMTA's claims of copyright (from what I hear, a response to the Chronicle needlessly monetizing them), they should all be public domain under {{PD-CAGov}}. It might be a bit of time, but I'm hoping to convince their archivist to help with a curated transfer to Commons at some point. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hidden non-notable person categories[edit]

I can see your logic on these, but I'm not sure it's going to solve the problem. Eventually, someone is going to notice that they are orphan categories and add parents. Oh well, at least the discussions are closed (some after 6 years!). - Themightyquill (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any good solution to these. I'm hoping the hatnote will dissuade the addition of categories, but we shall see. I'm trying to go through and clean up the backlog in hopes that CfD can be relevant and useful again. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort. Feel free to tag me in any discussion where you're not sure what to do. I'm watching most but maybe not every discussion I've commented on. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

help me with the wombats[edit]

wombats deletions took out a lot of pics, the one I am looking at goes to the licence where it says (?) do what you want, use it. but now it's all gone. say, what ? Langford says go do , but because of a typo 'we' say 'no uh ah!' ? ...... Dave Rave (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot parse that whatsoever. Care to spend some time with Strunk & White and get back to me? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
whatsoever ? I've read it three times, and I unnastan it Dave Rave (talk)

Karon Doherty[edit]

Just wondering why you requested the deletion of an image in the Karon Doherty entry. The photo is of one of her sculptures. I own the sculpture and took the photo. I thought that it would add information to my story about her, as she was a visual artist. This is my first attempt at creating an entry on Wikipedia so perhaps don't understand all that I should. I'd be grateful if you could explain the situation to me. Thanks, Judithpcohn Judithpcohn (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Judithpcohn (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Judithpcohn: As I explained on the deletion request page, photographs of a copyrighted work - like your photograph of that sculpture - are derivative works of copyrighted art. It's similar to if you took a picture of your living room that focuses on your TV while it's on - even though you took the picture and own the copyright of the photo itself (just as if the TV was off in the photo), it's still a picture of someone else's work (the TV show). I know this may seem like a strange rule - it's not a piece of copyright law that's commonly enforced outside of Commons - but it's applied here to make sure that all images on Commons can be freely used.
P.S. When you leave a post on a talk page or discussion page, please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I've deleted the photos per your request. judithpcohnJudithpcohn (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lunar eclipse of 2018 July 27 in Uzbekistan[edit]

Why do you delete this category? The category is useful, because some people don't know geography fluently and think that Tashkent is in Russia. (because, maybe, the file is in Russian) :) --Brateevsky {talk} 10:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brateevsky: I did not move the file - I only deleted the category because it came up for speedy deletion as an empty category. I will happily restore it if there are several images, though there's no need for it as a single-image category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/2013/08/ Naming categories for individual naval and fishing ships[edit]

You just closed this, but it's not finished. A debate is just now in its final stages at en:wiki that has a direct bearing on it? Thank you. Broichmore (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I closed it because it was a five-year-old discussion that wasn't reaching any conclusions. A new CfD can be opened, if absolutely necessary, once the enwiki discussion is finished. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Village pump[edit]

I cannot correct typoes in my own posts? Please advise. -- Tuválkin 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Accidental rollback on the mobile editor - the watchlist often scrolls as I click [diff]. My apologies. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


This decision of yours is a disgrace. It reduces me to the awkward position of either to follow simple logic and recreate the category, as needed, incurring in some penalties, or to just not care and go ahead, leaving its childcat lacking its obvious parent nexus. -- Tuválkin 20:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can provide a compelling reason for this category to exist, and reasonable and consistent criteria for inclusion, then I have no objection to its recreation. But it was merely existing as a dumping ground for anything related to rail transport with "express" in the name, no matter how ludicrous. There were local commuter services, parcel shipping services - totally unrelated to actual express rail services. Even your subcategory contains a clearly unrelated airport shuttle and tourist tram with numerous stops, and probably should not exist either. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I pass. What I wanted to say is said and your bad faith is obvious. Cheers. -- Tuválkin 21:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to criticize me without providing any evidence why my actions were incorrect, much less deliberately so, fine. But please just do so first, rather than pretending to care about categorization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Guy, take a look at my contribution history: Does it look like I’m here for the curation of a media repository while trying to minimize contact with busybodies, or does it look like that I’m here only to pick up fights in assorted fora? My argumentation for this cat is transparent and well-meaning, and it was supported by YLSS with additional examples; the criticism by you and Mattbuck is anecdotical and rooted either in bad faith or in a very superficial understanding of categorization. And I’m here to engage neither. -- Tuválkin 22:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


I notice that the Shawsheen page has not been create yet. I will need help creating it. I will be going to the station today to get information and take pictures. Pilot0674 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pilot0674: Category:Shawsheen station already exists. I suggest you gain more experience editing existing articles before you attempt to create the article for this station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access from IP[edit]

Can you please revoke talk page access from as they are inappropriately using their talk page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Flickr Files that Might Have to Be Deleted[edit]

I have two files that I need to report. These were originally posted on Flickr.

File:Altamont Commuter Express at Pleasanton.jpg ( This file has been nominated for deletion for over a month now. Although the FlickreviewR states that the file is free, I checked the page and the license says "All Rights Reserved."

File:Disneyland Railroad EP Ripley a.jpg ( This is the most recent issue I came across. Despite the fact that the user released the file under a Creative Commons license, the license is for non commercial use.

Davidng913 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Often, flickr users change their licenses later. The successful flickr review represents proof that the image had a free license at some point, and Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Next time, you can just add {{flickr change of license}} rather than nominating for deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks.--Davidng913 (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


FYI, I've done a batch import of the Vermande images to Category:Unsorted files from Tim & Sherrie Vermande Flickr stream in light of the terms of service change at Flickr (they're not a PRO account). We'll probably wind up with dupes. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup[edit]

more cookies.all the best to Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I always get my categories and dates in a bit of a muddle, especially late at night thanks for tidying them up! Also I couldn't help but notice now they're categorized how little has changed between 2016 and 2018 (and how similar photos we took):

EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 08:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem - I've created so many MBTA-related categories that I imagine it gets a little confusing. And thanks for taking detailed update shots of the station construction - I'm only in Boston a few times a year so I haven't been able to get them myself. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm very confused[edit]

Assuming was appropriate, I suspect I may have wandered into something I don't understand. Why did you revert Evrik's response to my question? - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Just an accidental rollback thanks to a buggy mobile browser, I'm afraid. I've self-reverted, but thanks for checking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Same with Special:Diff/334555081? :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned MBTA stations[edit]

Can you see if you can find all the abandoned mbta stations that are still standing? Pilot0674 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I've photographed most of them, if that's what you're asking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...[edit]

I just did a search for Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4410, a category you deleted, to see whether its deletion was discussed anywhere.

I couldn't find a discussion.

There is something I regard as a mistake that, until now, I only saw inexperienced contributors do. Sometimes a contributor get a notion that an existing category name sucks, so they create a new category, a parallel category, with a name they prefer, and then they manually transfer all the elements from the old category, to the new category.

When no-one notices the old category generally gets deleted, because it is now empty. The existing WMF software is very weak at providing an administrator tools to see that an empty category was recently full of elements, and is only empty because someone had a notion the old name sucked, and usurped all its elements.

I think this process is a mistake:

  1. If I am not mistaken the policy compliant thing for a contributor to do, when they think an old name sucks, is to either initiate a discussion of the category name, or place a {{move}} template on it.
  2. Sometimes the notion of the contributor who had a concern, that the old name sucked, is wildly wrong. I remember an instance of a category for images of a river, in Asia. I created it using the name from several websites. The contributor with a notion, had come across a single website that used a different transliteration. I caught that one, prior to an administrator deleting it, as empty. The transliteration I used was much more common than the transliteration the other guy used, and it was the transliteration used on the government sites of that nation.
  3. Alternately, if the person who has a concern is actually correct, and their choice of category name is preferable, the person who chose the early, less preferable name never gets a heads-up. They never have a chance to realize they made a mistake, so they may go and repeat that same mistake, over and over.

I am sorry, but in the case of this category, it looks like you first moved images out of the category, so it was empty, and then deleted it, yourself, using the justification that it was empty, when it was only empty because you emptied it.

Now, if the earlier category name was slanderous, I would agree with you making these changes on your sole judgement. But it wasn't slanderous, so, I am sorry, I think you made a mistake. And, fwiw, if you had deleted the old category for having a slanderous name, it would be better if the deletion log said that, not that it was deleted because it was empty. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay, I checked the deletion log, for June, and saw you deleted:
  1. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicles by number
  2. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4423
  3. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4432
  4. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4421
  5. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4419
  6. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4414
  7. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4410
  8. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4408
  9. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4407
  10. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4406
  11. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4406 in 2016
  12. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4405
  13. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4404
  14. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4404 in 2014
  15. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4403
  16. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4402
  17. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4402 in 2013
  18. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4422
  19. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4416
  20. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4401
  21. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4401 in 2016
  22. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4401 in 2013
  23. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicles by year
  24. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicles in 2016
  25. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4422 in 2016
  26. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4416 in 2016
  27. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4403 in 2016
  28. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicles in 2014
  29. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4403 in 2014
  30. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4400
  31. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4400 in 2017
  32. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4400 in 2012
  33. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4400 in 2014
  34. Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4423 in 2016
Over on I wrote an essay every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. It explains, in more detail, why I think it is important for contributors to explain themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I deleted these as part of a larger cleanup process wherein you had created two directly parallel category structures. These categories were ridiculous and actively harmful, and I believe that speedy deletion was the correct choice. (Not to mention, many of them had only one file to start with.) Subdividing rolling stock by individual number or by year is useless - and doubly subdividing even more so. Absolutely no one is ever going to need to find images of LRV #4422 in 2016, and by having that category, you made it much more difficult to find those images by looking at the top-level category - hence why they are actively harmful. Were you actually intending to create a category tree with individual categories for all 200+ LRVs that will eventually enter service?
Here's your teachable moment: do not create subdivide classes of rolling stock into individual vehicles, and do not subdivide by year below the city or transit agency level. The only likely exception is if an individual vehicle is independently notable - usually because of their preservation, or occasionally for other reasons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, it is not my intention to trigger an ego battle here.
  • I am going to remind you that, since you and I are both human, we are both subject to normal human fallibility.
  • I think I made an important point above, which you have not acknowledged. You put misleading entries in the deletion log. I think that, even if every other administrator would agree with you, once you explained yourself, putting misleading entries is a mistake to try to avoid, in future.
  • As above, we are all fallible, even if every other administrator would agree with you, good faith contributors want to learn from their mistakes, and should be able to look in the obvious places, like the deletion log, to see what mistakes others thought they made.
  • Even if every other administrator would agree with you, your description of my choices as "actively harmful", wasn't that a wild and unhelpful exagerration?
  • Many people who have trouble explaining themselves claim that the reasons for their actions were "so obvious as to not require explanation". I believe there is no such thing. If things are actually simple shouldn't they be simple to explain? My long experience is that, when people are asked to explain something they had a gut feeling was "obvious" they tend to react with anger, use insulting language.
  • You wrote "The only likely exception is..." It is an admission that explanations for the category structure are possible.

    As per above, you and I, and everyone else here is subject to normal human fallibility. Just because you can't imagine a convincing explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. I urge you to remember, anytime you can't imagine a convincing explanation, that this could be a simple failure of imagination, on your part.

  • There has been regular coverage of the delivery of these vehicles. Coverage changed from delighted anticipation to extreme frustration, as the manufacturer reported delay after delay, and reported revised delivery dates, that they were then not able to meet. 4400 and 4403 were the first two operational vehicles. Under the original schedule seven vehicles would have been delivered in 2013. Only three vehicles were operational by December 2014.

    Torontians love their streetcars, at least some of us do. Over 50,000 people traveled to the route the first vehicles ran on, on the day they were introduced, so they could experience riding one, on the first day.

    4401 and 4402, arrived early, were used for testing. Those tests showed that certain features, like the ramps that could be extended from the doors, to allow wheelchair riders to roll on board, had to be redesigned. 4401 and 4402 could still be seen, occasionally, continuing to serve as test prototypes, long after higher numbered vehicles gradually trickled in.

  • This is not the time, or place, for me to defend and explain the category choice I made. The time and place would have been when the categories first triggered your concern. I think I have established that the creation of these categories wasn't meaningless, and that the decision as to whether they should be kept, modified, or deleted, was, at least, open to debate, not an urgent matter that required first, speedy deletion on your sole judgement, followed, frankly, by obfuscatory entries in the deletion log.
  • As per above, we are all subject to normal human fallibility. Ideally, none of us should subject our fellow good faith contributors to any kind of fault-shaming, if we want the project to be one where decisions are made by consensus in a collegial atmosphere. Or, at least, sarcasm and fault-shaming should be reserved for when repeated attempts at good faith discussion have failed.
  • All the WMF projects call upon us to assume good faith on the part of those we disagree with. I think that one thing we can all do to encourage general good faith is to not only remember we are subject to normal human fallibility, but to openly acknowledge when we made a mistake. I make an effort to own up when I realize I made a mistake, and I think I do a pretty good job at that. I think those we choose to entrust with administrator authority should be setting an example of the kind of collegiality policies say we should all aim for. So far as I am concerned the obligation to set a good example should oblige administrators to set an example of owning up when they made a mistake.

    You emptied a bunch of categories, then you deleted them, and the entries you put in the deletion log was that they were deleted because they were empty, not because you thought some moron created bad categories. Even if, for the sake of argument, every other administrator agreed with you, that they were bad categories, I still think leaving misleading explanation as to why they were deleted was a pretty serious mistake, and I would feel a lot better about your continuing to exercise administrator authority if you acknowledged that.

  • Category:Trams in Prague by registration number currently contains over 1300 subcategories. I hope you are not planning to first empty those categories, and then delete them, because they are empty, without first discussing your concerns with other contributors first. Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) @Pi.1415926535: You’re wrong, which is trivially bad in itself. To wrongheadedly undo what’s done (instead of just merely not doing what needs to be done) is much worse, however, and when done with the additional weight of being also an admin, it’s truely terrifying. -- Tuválkin 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Geo, if you wish to recreate useful categories, please go ahead. I suggest categorizing by useful ontology - perhaps grouping 4401 and 4402 together in a single category, with a short description at the top noting that they are mechanically different from other models - rather than by externally-meaningless characteristics like number. (I certainly disagree with those mass categories for European trams, and I may well file a CfD someday. However, at least they tend to be better scalable: categorizing by number grows linearly, while by number and year as you did grows quadratically and is far more difficult to maintain.) Similarly note that I intentionally left images in categories like Category:TTC Bombardier light rail vehicle 4400 on 2014 08 31, the first day of fare service and Category:Bombardier LRV in Toronto, during Door Open 2014 because they are useful to find images of a specific event.
Please note that I am not accusing you of any kind of bad faith here - to the contrary, your work adding and categorizing images of Toronto and beyond is admirable. (Side note: I can't remember what, but I've run into several very useful unrelated categories recently that I noted were created by you. I'll thank you when I refind them.) However, it's possible to create bad or harmful categories with perfectly good intentions. While trying to organize images, you inadvertently made them much harder to actually find. "Actively harmful" was an exaggeration and I apologize for saying that.
Had I not been an administrator, I would have moved the images to their parent category and then nominated the categories for speedy deletion. While I admit I should have checked with you first, I do not believe my sequence of actions was unreasonable. The categories became empty because I moved images to categories where they would be more findable (and in a number of cases, removed duplicate categories) - not because I moved them as a pretense to delete the categories. As a counterpoint, while I think categories like Category:Trams facing left are incredibly silly and unlikely to be useful, I would not remove images nor delete them without a discussion - that would be potentially destructive rather than janitorial in nature, as there would be a loss of information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Month/year in city[edit]

I've seen recent discussions regarding categories that are month/year in city. I agree that they should not be made especially when only 1 photo would be in a particular category. What should I do if I find such a category? Should I nominate it for deleation? (like Category:December 2011 in Detroit) --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files in Category:EMD FP45 locomotives of Amtrak[edit]


I really don't understand why you have requested the deletion of these 2 files.
You could have simply deleted the wrong category : Category:EMD FP45 locomotives of Amtrak and move the files to the upper category : Category:EMD FP45 locomotives. --Poudou99 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Indefblock for Slowking4 (review). This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mutale Sampa Paul[edit]

Hi, I don't think this is spamming. It is just a newbie confusing Wikimedia with social media. So I don't think it should be blocked, let alone permanently. A warning about Wikimedia Commons scope should be enough for now. Beside, you didn't give a message on the talk page. Could you unblock this user please? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: I don't read that as mistaking Commons for social media - the self-congratulatory phrases sound much more like someone trying to advertise themselves to get a job, which seems to be rather common here. If you disagree, feel free to unblock; otherwise I will add the appropriate template (which I forgot earlier). Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
IMO, he confused Commons with something like Linkedin, which is social media, and also a place to advertise oneself to get a job. May be, I am wrong, but then I would like to get more eyes on this. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No answer after one week. I unblocked this account. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Sounds good; hopefully he will be a useful contributor. My apologies for not replying to you - I forgot, and I was not intending to be rude. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

thanks for that[edit]

thanks - I do hope you reverted the item - there are indeed mistakes at times JarrahTree (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)