User talk:Xnatedawgx

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Xnatedawgx!

--SieBot (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Interstate 5[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to create a Category:Interstate 5 in Seattle, Washington than to add Category:Roads in Seattle, Washington to so many images in Category:Interstate 5 in Washington (state)? - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Extremely long category names[edit]

Why create categories with names like "Achmun Creek Bridge, Spanning Achmun Creek at County Road 222, Ola, Yell County, AR HAER"? They're unhelpfully long, and there's no good reason to include HAER or HABS in the names: if someone uploads a non-HAER image of this bridge, it won't belong in the category, because the category name is specifically for HAER images. Why not simply "Achmun Creek Bridge", since it's far far shorter, and it's easier to use and interpret? Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we are not the Library of Congress: we can retain the original descriptions without creating categories with such long names. Do you honestly believe that Category:Charleroi-Monessen Bridge is a poorer name than Category:Charleroi-Monessen Bridge, Spanning Monongahela River at State Route 2018, North Charleroi, Washington County, PA HAER? Do you honestly believe that these categories should exclude non-HABS/HAER images of the same subjects? Our categories always use just the title needed to define the subject, and I will be requesting administrative assistance to fix your hundreds of category creations that fail to comply with this project-wide convention; it would help if you didn't create more work for us in the mean time. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop creating long category names as requested above. As Nyttend says, this is not the LoC and there is little reason to be so descriptive. Instead I recommend you use the file summary for this purpose. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so you disagree with the category redirects like this one. Like Nyttend, I'm not happy with your whole approach of long-winded category names and reverting the edits of two other users without explanations. The very least you could do is go to one of our talk pages and explain why you reverted. Please respond to the requests in this section, before engaging in any more reversions. For someone who has been editing for so many years, you seem to have been a very sparse user of talk pages, which is not necessarily a bad thing but where there is criticism you shouldn't ignore it. I'm going to wait for a response because dialogue is always better on wikis. Please do respond because the alternative is to restrict your editing to just your talk page, and I would prefer not to do that. Green Giant (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but I agree with Nyttend and Green Giant that these lengthy category names are not good. The (visible) category system is for helping users find pictures of what they're looking for. By and large, tracking which things came from which repository is the job of hidden categories. If you want to make the case for splitting up the big HABS and HAER categories based on state and survey, say, as hidden categories, I think that would be reasonable, but that information shouldn't be gunking up our user-facing categories.
It looks like you've been able to do your work here for the past several years without having to talk to other editors for any extended period. That's fine; this is a big place, with lots of uncontroversial things to do. But in a case like this, you really do have to stop what you're doing and engage in a sustained, back-and-forth discussion with other editors until consensus can be reached. Choess (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful post at my talk page! I was confused by your recent revert on Category:Achmun Creek Bridge, which seemed to be going back to excessive category names without discussion. I see that you have shortened the title somewhat, although I can't imagine there are any other Achmun Creek Bridges to distinguish it from.
I understand the case you're making for these union categories better now. You're right: categories like Year in State or the photographer are ones we wouldn't generally make hidden, and it is convenient to be able to apply them to a single category rather than 20 photographs. Here's the problem that I see with what this does to our category tree. We have many structures that are *at present* only documented by HABS/HAER photos, but which could be documented elsewhere. (With all the NARA images flowing in, for instance, it's perfectly plausible that we could get a batch of pictures of destroyed structures as well as surviving ones.) If we pre-emptively disambiguate the HAER photos (that is, creating a category Unusual Structure and subcategory Unusual Structure (HAER images)), we wind up with a lot of parent categories that are empty except for one subcategory, which slows down navigation. On the other hand, if we only create the Unusual Structure (HAER images) category, then any new photos of the Unusual Structure will have no place to go and may get mis-categorized.
So here's an idea: what if we made the parent category in each of these cases (Unusual Structure) non-diffusible with respect to HABS/HAER images? It could have subcategories (Unusual Structure (HAER images) and/or Unusual Structure (HAER drawings)), but the contents of each of those subcategories would also be in Unusual Structure. That way, people drilling down to Unusual Structure would immediately see a bunch of usable images, while people looking in the year categories would see a nice list of subcategories indicating which structures were photographed by the project in that year. Each photo would have two categories instead of one, plus categories specific to that particular image, but you'd still have most of the benefit of the union categories and the category hierarchy would be easy to browse for pictures. Curious to hear what people think of this. Choess (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Green Giant, Nyttend: Any thoughts? Choess (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "non-diffusable"? Commons:Categories doesn't use the term, except for references to things like {{CatDiffuse}} that are used when a category contains images that need to be moved to the subcategories. It sounds like you're suggesting putting images both in the parent and the child category, which is prohibited by the clear wording of the COM:OVERCAT policy, "Don't place an item into a category and its parent", and very different from the Angela Merkel exception. But anyway, unless a subject has an exceptionally large number of images from a specific source or of a certain type (e.g. Category:Diagrams of Old Economy Village), so many that they're impeding navigation, making a separate category for them is unhelpful and impedes navigation. And unless we're at that point, categories related to the images themselves must not have image-related categories like "Black and white photos", "Photos by insertphotographernamehere", "HABS photos", "June 1984", etc. — go back to COM:CAT and read the section that talks about glass spheres. These categories are only for placement on images. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is over my head. I would just like a solution to be made on how to categorize HABS/HAER images of individual structures. It appears that a Wikimedia Commons administrator needs to resolve this, but I don't know how to go about this. Xnatedawgx (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting administrator actions[edit]

Greetings: I see you have reverted administrator actions several times recently. This is highly unrecommended. Please consider this your most friendly greeting and polite caution/warning that reverting administrator actions is not something to be done without discussion and consensus. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Invisible Children, movie flyer.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Brianhe (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Campgrounds in the United States[edit]

Note that this is a nomination to merge Category:Campgrounds in the United States into Category:Campsites in the United States.Davidwr (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fenwick Tower, rent banner.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Thekohser (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:AerialPhotoMontALSunset2.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:AerialPhotoMontALSunset2.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi. I rolled back one of your edits due to a mistake. "Sweet potato pies" are not all "Southern U.S. Cuisine". Just because some Southerner put them into a recipe book doesn't make them Southern. I baked that pie myself and I live in the Western United States. It is from a family recipe from New Jersey (state). Please do not make big assumptions and massive changes. There's nothing stopping you from leaving messages on the uploader's talk pages asking for information. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You should be aware that a discussion about this has been raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Overcategorization. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, your talk page was a bit long, so I've archived everything from 2014 and earlier to User talk:Xnatedawgx/Archive1. Hope this is ok with you. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just mirroring what I saw on WikimediaXnatedawgx (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The New Category of Shreveport skylines[edit]

Hey, I'm Replaced a New Category of the Shreveport, LA skylines from Shreveport, Louisiana skylines to Shreveport skylines, Old Category will be deleted and I'm have been Created a New Category calls Shreveport skylines today, thanks you

File:Steam_Locomotive_Dame_Ann.jpeg[edit]

I'm going to move File:Steam_Locomotive_Dame_Ann.jpeg back to Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_in_the_United_States. Category:Miniature_railways_in_the_United_States is for scale replicas. Dame Ann is a full-sized tank engine, not a scaled down version of a larger model. Thanks. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

YMCA in Everett[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Everett_-_old_YMCA_building.jpg&curid=5900787&diff=191604629&oldid=139473684: is this really a former YMCA? I thought this was still part of the Y there. If it's no longer part of the Y, any idea what it is now? - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Jmabel

Sorry, I saw 'old' and assumed it wasn't one anymore(was populating a new category). Xnatedawgx (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just the older of their two adjacent buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


END moved from User talk:Jmabel

Cat move[edit]

Hi Xnatedawgx, Just a heads up I've moved Category:Union Station Train Hall Pedestrian Bridge‎ but I've also moved Category:Views from Union Station Pedestrian Bridge‎ as I assumed you wanted that moved aswell, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your improvements and hard work on images from the DoD. :-) (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Light rail stops versus tram stops[edit]

Hey, I noticed you just created Category:Light rail stations in the United States and its architecture. 'Light rail' tends to be pretty poorly defined; there isn't a strict divide between streetcars and full-on light rail but rather a continuous spectrum (the MBTA Green Line, for example, goes from mixed-traffic segments to tunnels with full flyovers). It's also not as commonly used outside the US. Category:Tram stops in the United States has been around for a while already, and its naming scheme is consistent with categories used for other countries, and with 'tram' being the generic word used on all Commons categories and enwiki articles. I think it would be best to merge the light rail category structure into the existing tram category structure, lest we have a duplicate parallel structure. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it may be a duplicate of the other category, though there could be arguments for distinguishing between tram(streetcar) and light rail, and station and stop. There's a category for light rail so I figured there should be a subcategory for stations, not knowing or having forgotten there was a tram stop category. With this said, I'm not sure where to go from here. Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a tricky one, since as you point out the light rail category has been around since 2008. My gut says that there's no good way to have the two category structures without them frequently duplicating each other, since there's no clear divide but a continuous spectrum. A wider discussion might be appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

File:-VOTEROX banner, Coors Field 2016.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:-VOTEROX banner, Coors Field 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Objection to state highway category moves[edit]

In short, in many states, to call them "state routes" is flat out wrong. There is nothing here that needs to be fixed, nor should a change of this magnitude be done without a wider consultation and discussion. Imzadi 1979  23:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • +1 - Why on earth did you not get consensus for these moves ? .. I've just spent a whole hour moving tons of images and categories for nothing, Well I'm afraid if you both can't reach a consensus (or consensus with a wider audience) then I'm afraid you're going to have to move them all back, If it were a few cats fine but there's over 20 odd and they'd all taken an hour to move ... I certainly am not spending another hour (and sitting up till 1am) moving everything back so as I said Nate you both either need to get consensus or I'm afraid you're going to ave to move these back, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a lack of uniformity in category naming for the M1-5 State Route Signs. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices refers to these diagrams as State Route signs. For photos of route signs, categories can be named for what the individual states refer to these route signs. There could be a debate on whether they should be called shields instead of signs. Interstate and U.S. route signs look like a shield, but state route signs are rectangular. This began when I noticed that Colorado's category was poorly titled "Colorado road signs". From there I noticed a lack of uniformity among the diagrams for the State Route signs. So looking back, I should have gotten consensus before making the changes.Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:1800 Larimer St, NE side.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:1800 Larimer St, NE side.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sports_in_Seattle,_Washington[edit]

JesseW (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)