User talk:Ricky81682

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ricky81682!

Deletion requests[edit]

Howdy. Normally, when listing a deletion request manually you don't subst the {{Delete}} template like you appear to have done here.--Rockfang (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on Template talk:WikiProject United States[edit]

I can give you the code to fix that if you want. Reguyla (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW I just looked and that's not the only cat that's not right. There are several for that Task force that aren't right. Reguyla (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking? Are you talking about en:wiki? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. If I were to put the code to fix it in my sandbox here then someone could simply paste it there and fix the template. But there are certainly others, such as Redrose, that could do it as well. Its just a matter of how long you want to wait to fix the problem. Reguyla (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You're currently banned there so thanks but no thanks. It's already been fixed anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok no worries. BTW, there are a couple other problems they didn't fix. A couple of the other cats in that group are also wrong. If you look through them and compare it to the actual categories that exist you'll see which ones. Also, some of the cats need to be created, they do not currently exist. Good luck. Reguyla (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Indio categories[edit]

I noticed that you've created by-month-by-year categories for Indio - a rather small city. Such categories should only be made for states and countries; dividing images of small cities like that merely creates a lot of very small categories that don't actually help anyone. Given how few images of Indio we have other than Coachella, we don't need any date-based categories for the city more specific than by decade, and probably not at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: That seems like an odd categorization given the number of categories within Category:Months in the United States by city and the breath of categories like Category:June 2000 in the United States by city for each month. Now, Indio is a small town that only seems to have the month categories now but I'd say that's more a function of someone not moving files from the national category into states and then into cities as needed. I find a number of files if I spent more time searching Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
None of those by-month-by-year categories are needed at the city level - note how small they are even for the biggest cities - and certainly not for Indio. How does creating these categories - which bury images in several layers of subcategories, thus making them more difficult to find - help anyone? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. I think it's helpful when you see categories like Category:1933 in Tennessee separated into months and cities and the later years in states ones (even the US) are gigantic. If you think all the city categorization is excessive, then move for deletion but the problem is that they are underused at the moment as the yearly city ones are not navigable to me. I don't see the point of [year by city], [month and year by country] or [month and year by state] with thousands of pages and the city pages being equally crazy. Indio has shrunk because a number of those images were moved into the relevant festival year categories rather than month and year on their own. Otherwise it would have been a few dozen photos in each month category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me be more blunt and give you an admin warning: Stop creating these categories. In multiple discussions and CfDs, consensus has clearly been that intersection categories (categories that divide by unrelated elements, like both time period and location) should only be as detailed as absolutely necessary. No one ever has a use case of "I need an image from this city that has to be from this specific month", and certainly not for mid-sized cities in California. You are creating numerous one-image and one-subcategory categories that are useful to no one except you. If you continue to create these useless categories, I will seek a formal ban of you creating them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Any city by month and year category? I know that there's no equivalent of WP:SMALLCAT here (I've searched CFD and only saw a few discussions regarding vehicle designations) and Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips suggested it. I didn't see those discussions but if they exist, I will move and request deleting the categories myself.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The only cities where they could possibly be useful is a handful of large, very-frequently-photographed cities - those with hundreds of images per year (not including specific events with their own categories) even before this decade. Santa Monica, Indio, Oakland? Not a chance. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:2013 in Miami by month which contains a listing of numerous previous discussions that establish that intersection categories this specific should not be made. Pinging @Themightyquill, Mjrmtg: you've both been involved in previous discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion started in 2015 with a single !vote in 2017 closed in 2018? I think that's a bit much to argue a consensus of any sort. Especially when the other discussions haven't been closed at all. Even Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:16th April 2012 in Switzerland which is way more extreme has remained in place I'd suggest a larger discussion to confirm but I'll willing to talk about it more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I find it quite interesting that you chose not to ping User:Ardfern who had a differing opinion on the matter. Do you really think that's the best way for us to discuss this matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I did not realize Ardfern was active. Not only have you continued to create these useless categories, but you are making many blatant errors on the way. Go find something else to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Overcat?[edit]

I'm not saying [1] and others like it are exactly wrong, but the image is in Category:Seattle and the Orient, which in turn is in Category:1900 in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: You're right. I didn't see that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You may need to be a little more careful[edit]

I generally like what you are doing, but...

File:Construction of Cedar River Pipeline, 1900.jpg (and quite possibly others): not "in Seattle". I reverted you on this one and the other version of the same photo.

The Cedar & Tolt Rivers are the sources of Seattle's water, but most of the pipe is outside city limits; neither river actually reaches the city.

I'm guessing you might have made similar errors on files not on my watchlist. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll double check but I thought I had read that the construction was done in Seattle and ergo the picture was in Seattle. I'll be more careful in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It's part of the city's water infrastructure, but it's outside the city. Just like the old Brooklyn Waterworks on the border of Freeport and Baldwin, New York was 20km or so from Brooklyn, or (for another Seattle example) the massive hydroelectric system in the Skagit Valley is part of the city's electrical infrastructure, but is a good 120km from the city. Pretty common for big cities to have infrastructure that extends way into their hinterlands. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

small cats[edit]

What is the point of breaking up a category that had only 5 members in the first place? - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Honestly, I was looking at some other category at the time but I think I was working on expanding Category:1909 photographs of the United Kingdom and the other countries by looking through Category:1909 photographs. Maybe it's better to delete it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any strong opinion. The one U.S. photo there got there by way of {{Taken on}}. In general, for that era (really, for anything before about 1990) I've been avoiding adding the location parameter to that because there are usually so few photos known to be on a given day. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, I did that. Looking at Category:Photographs of the United States by date, it seems like others create categories anyways. Maybe I'll just flesh out the month categories instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, you are really pushing this too far. There is no good reason to break out the few Seattle photos from, say, 1909 where we know the month into Seatle-by-month categories. All it does is make it harder for people to get a sense of what is out there. In general, we haven't broken Seattle down to by-month before 2013; I could see pushing that back to 2006 or so, but these things from a century earlier? No way. The whole point of breaking things up by time smaller than a year within a geographic region is to keep the category sizes manageable so things are easily scanned, but when we break out a bunch of tiny categories it has the opposite effect. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm reverting it but remember that that was the year of the Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition in seattle and there's hundreds of pages that cover Seattle that particular year. There's a lot of pages where the month isn't noticed.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Having done categories for at least 500 A-Y-P and probably 100 other Seattle images from that year, I can say with confidence that not even 10% of these indicate what month they are. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:1953_in_Tanzania[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:1953_in_Tanzania 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!


čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: Indonesia photographs templates[edit]

Hi, I only replaced one category in the template. I made that edition so that the templates of Indonesia remain with the same organization as those of other countries I'm making, that have no problems, since in many templates I found that they were incomplete or with reference to another country.

I think your correction is right, apologies for not having it into consideration, the way the category of the day is under the Category:(Month & year) Indonesia photographs is way more accurate that Category:(Month & year) in Indonesia. Anyway, with my edition it was going to be under Photographs of Indonesia by date, so it was not going to remain completely separated of categories of photographs of Indonesia. Thanks.--Frodar (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatroller[edit]

I just gave you autopatroller rights in Commons. In my opinion your edits do not need patrolled anymore. Thank you for a lot of good work! Taivo (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Bear hunting Kodiak[edit]

Whatever is the point of creating one-entry categories? All you are doing is adding an extra layer for people to click through while removing the ability to quickly scan what is available or do any kind of visual search. Dankarl (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Which categories are you talking about? In the Indonesia structure, most of the time, there are a number of single categories already there so I'm just continuing them. At the same, given the tens of thousands of unsorted images there, I find that many get filled up as I progress. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

removed Category:Black and white photographs of Manhattan, New York City in the 2000s; added Category:Black and white photographs of New York City in the 2000s Tag: HotCat[edit]

Could you be patient? I'm going to get to creating those categories soon. Commons does not need another NYC category with 1000 images in it. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. But there was no NYC in the 2000s at all so the parent was needed anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Excess splitting?[edit]

Why is it useful to break down a category like Category:August 1918 in the United States that had only a couple of dozen photos to begin with? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: There's actually probably about more than a few dozen if you look at categories like Category:1918 in New York City and Category:1918 in Boston. Looking at various subcategories, very few of the pictures have their actual date of photography listed and less the month. Instead of pouring them all into the month, I'm going through the year, starting with picking out the images from the other cities in each state and then backtracking in the main category. Does the structure in Category:April 1918 in the United States seem unreasonable? There'll probably be about 20 in the main category, 40-50 in New York City, maybe 10-15 in two other states if I'm guessing right. I think that's more useful than NYC having over 300 and the states each having maybe 100 or so (and I haven't really looked at Category:Photographs taken on 1918-04-01 which is a chunk). The real work will be November as Category:World War I Armistice has plenty of photographs per country which I think would be a useful sort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think there are really enough to be worth it, fine, but I'd consider: if only a few subcategories will have more that half a dozen images, you might leave the rest in the main category. When I'm going through Seattle images for that era, if I can pin down the date I pretty much expect to have Seattle in YEAR, United States in MONTH YEAR, and it just seems so unlikely (1) that there will be any substantial number of non-Seattle images from Washington state, or (2) that that will be more than 10% of Seattle images from that era that can be pinned to any particular month. A few photographers whose archives we have kept great records, so we know, but even (for example) Frank H. Nowell, who was meticulous if he was documenting a construction project that clearly changed month-to-month rarely otherwise noted anything more specific than the year. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Oh, I agree. Most don't have much details. I spent quite a bit of time building up the Indonesia category structure and we were lucky to get months. Here, there's a ton of specific dates because of the war effort at that time. Most years are going to be pointless (especially sorting out Seattle) but this, the 1940s and the 2010s are the best for details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: your complaint about the autopatroller right make that point seem silly.[edit]

Because I misunderstood the mechanism to apply for the right on Wikimedia Commons. I thought the submission is a nomination, so I was disgusted. When someone submits an application for some one right for me, maybe Autopatrol, Patroller, File mover, License reviewer, or Administrator, I thought each applications are like the mechanism of Chinese Wikipedia, so I refused to apply and I refuse to be submited my application by others.

The reason is that I recognize the mechanism on the Chinese Wikipedia is: They are selected by voting, so I have seen many times of the political struggle. I am afraid of blame and criticism from them due to my negative personality. I will feel guilty if I am selected as an administrator on the Chinese Wikipedia.

Another reason is "my values". Because I think that I should not be for a purpose or for my own benefit. If I choose to do this, I will be blamed and criticized. I can't make myself a selfish person. Therefore, what keeps me pushing forward is a mission spurred by "selfless dedication".

All in all, if I didn’t feel guilty, then my selflessness would choose to accept them(which meant that I won't misunderstand the mechanism to apply for the right on Wikimedia Commons).--Kai3952 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: I don't understand. You feel guilty about being nominated and want, what, to be ignored? Either way, if you want it changed to require more, then the village pump is the way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

NARA tif files[edit]

FYI: .tif files from NARA with matching .jpg files should not be categorized - only the .jpg should be categorized. (See Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535:. Ok, should I then remove the Category:EPA photographs of Fitchburg, Massachusetts category from the corresponding .tif files? That would seem appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Clowing around with Z[edit]

Regarding File:Clowing Around with Z (5975877447).jpg, F10 says "personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions", though the speedy delete template I used omits "of", which seems like an oversight. Anyways, I think the image clearly fits the criteria. We have lots of good photos by that photographer (see Category:Photographs by Alan Levine), but a low-quality selfie of him and a young boy doesn't seem very useful. A DR seems like overkill. clpo13(talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Porn_Star_Karaoke_20050621[edit]

Category discussion warning

Porn Star Karaoke 20050621 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!


čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

FredWalsh (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Ricky81682, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch  español  English  français  русский  українська  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(台灣)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−

-- ~riley (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Built in Buffalo, New York by year categories[edit]

Assistance with AWB is appreciated but unnecessary. This is something that I rather enjoy doing manually, as strange as it may sound, and it tends to trip me up in my work when I unexpectedly encounter another user tackling the same task at the same time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Ok, will do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, regarding all the new "[year] in Buffalo" categories, it's premature to create new categories when we only have one item that belongs in them. The issue can be revisited when there's more to say about a given year than which buildings were constructed during that year. Please understand that Category:Buffalo and its subcategories, especially in the fields of history and architecture, are very well surveilled already. At some point, too many cooks in a kitchen create more problems than they solve, and there are many other categories of Commons that do need active maintenance and cleanup. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Ok, I'll leave them all be. I was only involved in the old Sanborn maps of Buffalo and that's why I have so much on my watchlist lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Creating categories[edit]

When you create something like Category:Structures photographed in 1901, I would think you should also create the relevant parent categories, no? - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Oh, I forgot about the decades ones. I got caught up in a long post at the VP. For the Category:Architecture by year of photographing, it looks like it hasn't been created but I'll work on those as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bulk category moves[edit]

I know it's far too much to expect from editors at Commons, but bulk moves ought to be discussed, or at least notified to the creator of those categories, not simply done automatically by 'bots and listed as 'uncontroversial'. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Andy Dingley:. I did not mean to. Which moves are you talking about? The years in Kabul ones? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Schiphol airport / Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Schiphol is commonly known as "Schiphol". When this is a subcategory to categories already about Amsterdam, it is clearer as simply Schiphol than to re-state Amsterdam as a prefix.
This was renamed because MediaWiki somehow benefits from naming being consistent across categories and subcategories. This is untrue - MediaWiki just doesn't care about that. This is a regular misunderstanding on Commons and on WP, and it leads to all maner of impenetrably convoluted category names.
Mostly though, why was this rammed through as an uncontroversial and unchallenged 'bot move? There is at least some scope for discussion as to these category names, and there are tens of them. To make no attempt to discuss them, to flag this move before it's done, or to notify the category creator - that's just sheer arrogance as to the unimportance of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Are you talking about the various photographs subcategories? I didn't think it was controversial as the main category is at Category:Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the yearly categories follow that structure as well. If you use just "Schiphol Airport" with the current template, pages like Category:Photographs by Hugo van Gelderen at Schiphol Airport (1960) look for Category:1960 at Schiphol Airport versus Category:Photographs by Herbert Behrens at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (1953) looking for Category:1953 at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. (Even Category:Schiphol Airport is a redirect) It seems uncontroversial to rename the photographs category so that the images can be found by the year at the actual airport. If you think it's all wrong, I'd suggest you start with the main airport category being renamed to fit the photography subcategories rather than arguing from the various photography subcategories back up through the yearly categories and then the airport category. Either way, the categories will need to be adjusted one way or the other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that at Category:Photographs by van Duinen at Schiphol Airport (1951) you added the actual category so that it is connected but isn't it easier to just rename the category than keeping a red link and a blue one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of France[edit]

Hi, you seem to be creating a number of subcategories in Category:1883 photographs of France and Category:1884 photographs of France but they all seem empty to me. I don't want to list them for deletion but is there something I'm missing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I may see the problem. A number of images should have this template change done to move them into the month categories. Is that what you need done? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I see the problem, I will correct this. Gzen92 [discuter] 06:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries. I'm fixing as many as I can as well with AWB. Thanks for the uploads! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Undo[edit]

Do you have an overview which SVG the user has thrown out of the categories? We should undo this completely. See [2]. --Smial (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smial: No, I have no overview. I was just going through their edit history and it's a lot of separate categories and images. Luckily, they used hotcat so it's somewhat simple to figure out. Looks like it'll be an annoying manual task. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like they switched to just uploading new versions. However, since no one provides sources, it's impossible to tell whether these are helping or just an annoyance (plus these are no longer the last edits on pages so more work to do). See [3] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

AYDEED EN WP[edit]

Hello sir, I hope you're well in general. I'm here to kindly request an English article for AYDEED since we both think it's lacking existence in Wikipedia, we can work collectively to enrich the data. Thanks for your interest again. --Palaangelino (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

CfD[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the initiatives you have taken twice at the correct direction. I think you should also revert this edit. Please remember that CfDs take their time. Have a happy New Year, my best wishes for you. --E4024 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that CfDs take time. I figure organizing and getting the discussion prepped is the best way to calm things down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Herne Bay is not in Canterbury[edit]

Perhaps you don't realise, but Herne Bay and Canterbury are completely different towns. Herne Bay Museum is in Herne Bay, which is a coastal town about 20 miles from Canterbury, which is an inland city. Canterbury holds the administration department (local council) for Herne Bay, but both towns would agree that they are different towns. So I am having to follow behind you and remove all those Canterbury categories. Please stop? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Storye book: I realize that. That's why there is a difference between Category:History of Canterbury (another town) and Category:History of the City of Canterbury. Herne Bay is still within the city of Canterbury even if not formally within the town of Canterbury. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope you don't plan on removing all the little towns and civil parishes and the like from Category:City of Canterbury because they aren't a part of Canterbury the town. At English, Herne Bay is categorized within the city as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Then you are misunderstanding the situation. Until around 1974, Herne Bay had its own council. Then the Government devolved the administration to Canterbury, but the two remained different towns. They are about 20 miles apart, and separated by countryside. They should not be categorised as the same town. The old postcards dated before 1974 should certainly not be categorised as Canterbury, however you wish to interpret the administration. Storye book (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: Well, until 1974, there were no counties at all for the most part (at least not the modern ones). I see that @Crouch, Swale: reverted and put the town back into the City subcategory (it really is a district subcategory more like Category:Dover District but nevertheless, here we are) . Pre-1944, the City of Canterbury falls into England (and not Kent). However, we still have Kent (and most counties before then) even though they didn't exist (the city templates put them into the historical counties). I don't understand what you want then as you removed Category:October 2008 in the City of Canterbury from File:Herne Bay Sorting Office.jpg even though the town in 2008 is a part of the 'city' at that time. Either way, do you think pre-1973 Herne Bay should just fall into Kent? (even though it technically wasn't around?) or England itself? File:3rd Herne Bay Pier 1928 005.jpg goes somewhere, right? I don't care if you want to be Category:1920s but it belongs somewhere to categorize by the decade. Do you think a separate Herne Bay category is warranted? It seems utterly minutia to me. And yes, they are different towns. That is why I haven't deleted or removed the Herne Bay categories and that's why all the other places in the City category remain. To me, this is all relatively nonsense as people have argued that technically Germany didn't exist in the 19th century or before but it becomes nonsense to not use Category:Germany in the 18th century even if some people want to fight about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's right, the "City of Canterbury" category is for the district which also includes 27 parishes and 3 unparished areas of which Herne Bay is one of the 3 unparished areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Storye book: Do you have any comment about the 2008 image at least? If you want to argue about pre-1974, fine but I think we can agree that at the very least it is a part of the city at some point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying may make sense in writing, but it makes no sense in reality. Administration is not the same as actual landscape and towns. You say that Kent did not exist until recently, when in fact Kent has existed since medieval times. Herne Bay has existed in its present form since the 18th or early 19th century..
Herne Bay is administered in different ways by Canterbury, Kent, London, England and so on, but it isn't in Canterbury or London. I think that the main problem is (as pointed out above) the category wording is confusing. If the category said "under Canterbury City Council" or "administered by Canterbury City Council" then that would be clear.
One of the difficulties that you wouldn't be aware of is that when Herne Bay council was devolved to Canterbury in 1974, Herne Bay people objected strongly, not wanting to be ruled by those who were not concerned with "little Herne Bay" as it was called in Canterbury. In 2010 when we were fighting for the survival of the museums in Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable, some Canterbury councillors sneered publicly at "little Herne Bay museum" which they insisted should bow to the priority of the Canterbury museums (two of which Canterbury Council has closed down since, although Herne Bay Historical Records Society has kept Herne Bay museum going). So you see, the category wording is objectionable. If you were to add the word "council" to City of Canterbury, then I would be happy for you to add that category to all post-1974 Herne Bay images. Why don't you call it "Canterbury City Council" when Canterbury City Council calls itself that? I hope that clarifies things a little. Storye book (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: Kent was a poor example. You are correct about that. Something like pre-1974 South Yorkshire makes more sense. If you wish to suggest renaming it to council, go ahead. The issue I see is that when categorizing images of England (by location), they are split into the counties and separately into cities. If you wish, we could also split England into town and parishes or other categories but the main categorization at the international level is "city" which in England is defined closer to district. In contrast, the US is categorized into states and cities without much county categorization. As I said, it's about minutia as we just want to organize things by their actual locations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for that. I now see what is happening. WP is trying to define the hierarchy of British locations as if those locations were in the US. That is certainly problematic. In the UK it is all about physical identity. In England a city is historically the seat (cathedra) of the local bishop. Thus Canterbury has the archbishop's cathedral in it, so it has always been a city. Herne Bay is a little town with no cathedral, so it is not a city. Thus Herne Bay is in the diocese of Canterbury, but Herne Bay is not in the city of Canterbury. Residents of Canterbury tend to define themselves by their home town, as do the people of Herne Bay, and none would accept the idea that they live in each other's town/city. In England, "city" does not primarily mean an administrative area. It primarily means the seat of a bishop, and all older cities will have a cathedral. Saying that Herne Bay is in Canterbury is like saying that Florida is in Georgia or vice versa because they are next to each other, or that all the US states are in Washington DC because DC is in certain respects the admin centre. I would suggest that you delegate a national rep for each country to decide the hierarchy of named swathes of land and the settlements within them. I also suggest that you differentiate clearly between administrative areas and geographical areas. Actually, I would guess that all that has been done already, and that there isn't really an existing problem, apart from some very unclear naming of categories, where you can't tell what is administrative and what is geographical. And please note that if you use the word "in", as in "Herne Bay is in Canterbury", In England that phrase has a geographical meaning only, and makes no sense when talking about admin ("Diocese" is treated differently as it is a parish of parishes). Storye book (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: That's probably true. There is a separate Herne Bay categorization which could be made and England by town or England by populated place could be done but I'm just working with what has been done until now. It would seem like overkill for every single parish and town to separate images into individual months and obviously you want some categorization but the middle is always the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
From here, on the ground, so to speak, regarding images of Herne Bay, it would seem simple to say "26 January 2021 in Kent" or "26 January 2021 in Herne Bay". whichever is easier for you. Kent would cover both Canterbury and Herne Bay. Regarding the city of Canterbury (town with cathedral, not admin/Council) "26 January 2021 in Kent" or "26 January 2021 in Canterbury". Does that help? I think that what is really driving me to make such a fuss (sorry I have put you through this) is that the images are all of the actual places, and none of the images are of admin or anything representing admin. If the pictures showed the council chambers, the mayor in his robes or the council coat of arms, then that would be a picture of admin. Storye book (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Leeds[edit]

Re Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Built in Leeds by year categories, is Seattle just much better documented w/ photos, or we don't yet have the stuff for Leeds, or we don't have the Leeds stuff pinned to a year, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think Seattle is just better documented as it seems like the local newspapers published a lot of stuff. The UK areas are not even organized at the county or city level particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:1880s at Leeds Town Hall[edit]

Thank you for your category tidyup of each of the above set of election pictures. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Storye book: Anytime. It looks like all those images were on 10 April 1880 specifically. Between the architecture, individual Leeds categories and the issues with the historic counties for that time, it needed a wholesale cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Maggie's Centre, Kirkcaldy[edit]

The problem with adding a date even as general as a year to a whole category occurs when someone adds a later image. That category is then misleading about that image. Thoughts? Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: In England at least, people have created built in category for each county and even to the city level. See Category:Built in West Yorkshire in 1922. Maybe it's better to remove that. Most of the others I was doing were fairly old stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree, but "built in X" is different from "this image was taken in X". The former is invariant for each image in the category, and the latter isn't. Maybe it's just the category names that should be fixed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: That's fair. Let me remove it and see if Category:21st-century architecture in Scotland has enough to split it in to council areas or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories in series[edit]

Hi. Please do not nominate for deletion categories that are in a series. We should just put up with them being empty, and there is no value in deleting them to have them recreated later.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: That's new to me. A lot of the categories I create were deleted before because they were empty and a lot of categories on my watchlist become deleted when they are empty. I know C2 is "not useful" categories but I see your point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That is my don't blindly delete implementation. There is a blithe scramble at times to delete empty categories just because they are empty. If it is a chance to be populated or recreated due to a red link, then we either leave it, or fix the reason for the red link. In this case I do wonder about the value of some of the series itself, especially at their extremes, but hey! Probably due to get a 2020s modification to a 2000s rule.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Agreed. I think I may need to do more category redirects like with this massive series of oddities once we have some movement on the CFD discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
As a latent thought, if we have categories that a part of a series that are verging on ridiculous, we can amend the series and take them up a level. For example, get rid of per year, and do by decade, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)