User talk:Joshbaumgartner

2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive, 2019-2020 archive

Problem with Template:Aircraft cat, or something it calls

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

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

Great, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Minor digression on categories

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

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

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

That is interesting for sure! As for a tool, Cat-a-Lot has a 'check over-categorization' function that will highlight files that are affected (you can select which files to test). It doesn't give any detail as to which cat is causing the violation and I don't know how deep it checks. It also isn't exactly automated, but maybe that will help. Josh (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah—I spent quite some time looking for that button, but apparently it's gated behind any of these permissions. Still, that does sound better than not being able to know at all without a bunch of "open in new tab" clicks on a file's categories. Perryprog (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Must be the autopatrol one? I only have that and template editor. Josh (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it; it's probably to avoid newer users erroneously removing correctly overcategorized categories I'd guess. Perryprog (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:1_animal

1 animal has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

MPF (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Artillery ammunition merges

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

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

Panzer VI -Tigers

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

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

Category:Two men in Bangladesh

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

@Rodhullandemu: See Category talk:Groups. Josh (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I despair. It seems intersection categories have not been considered at all, e.g. "2 people with 2 cats". Is it one cat each or just two cats somewhere in the image. I doubt this is work that needed doing, bearing in mind that categories are intended to be definitions. Too late. I won't live long enough to see this come back and hit us in the face. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: The main gist of it the CfD was simply to standardize digital numbers ("2") vs. spelled-out numbers ("two"). The fact that CfDs are closed does not preclude new concerns or proposals being raised, however. Intersection categories are a minefield to be sure, as some make good sense, and others seem completely pointless (and users may have different pinions on where a particular one would fit). My approach is basically to be tolerant of their existence and just get them in compliance with the standards and structure we have in place for groups. I have been trying to develop some kind of framework for dissimilar subjects, but it is still a WiP right now. Josh (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"2 men" is poor English, and the lingua franca of Commons is English (yeah, I know that's Latin). The internationalization issue is, to me, a red herring, because it doesn't work for non-Latin alphabets such as Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic or Japanese. But it is possble via language selection, to view a category in one's own language if it's set up that way. That's why I think the whole exercise is unnecessary. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A fair point, to be sure, but not a complete red herring. While Western Arabic numerals are not automatically recognizable in all languages, they are for many, many languages, so non-English speakers amongst their populations will be helped. Even in languages such as Arabic and Japanese (I don't know enough about Chinese or Cyrillic to comment on those), use of WA numerals are in common use and many non-English speakers will still be readily able to recognize numbers in WA numerals, versus spelled-out English words. I do agree that most English style guides will tell you that "two cats" is better than "2 cats", and in prose that is the right choice, but there is also a balance in category names between proper English prose and pragmatic conciseness to consider--they should be neither unnecessarily elaborate nor cryptic. I would love it if Commons employed a better method of internationalization, but we'll be waiting forever if we wait for perfection. Josh (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Activities_by_country_of_location

Activities by country of location has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Aircraft_by_facing

Aircraft by facing has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

template:modex

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

I think I found a way to implement the categorisation for Marine modex numbers: User:De728631/workshop. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It has been a while since I've dug into modex numbers, but as with all such things on USN/USMC aircraft, they are controlled by the same agency so theoretically there are not really 'USN modex' and 'USMC modex' numbers, but they just happen to be applied to an aircraft that is in one or the other service. However, in practice, it could be viable to sub cat them into the two services if there are enough to make that worth doing. If you want to implement the solution above and see how it goes, I have no objection. Josh (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. When I started to add the new template to some categories I encountered the problem that both services may issue the same modex numbers. So I tried to disambiguate the categories and the navbox display but I have a feeling this may get too messy and obscure in the category tree. So instead I opted to create a neutral Category:Modex numbers for all numbers where the subcategories that are currently in the Navy category can be upmerged. Unfortunately this may require a null edit for each of the 400something templated modex categories to get the recategorisation to work. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Both services do issue the same numbers at times, and in fact at any time there are several aircraft in each service with the same number assigned to them, as they are really only unique within the carrier air group, marine air wing, or other such equivalent unit. Ostensibly, this could be the level to which they are split out into, but I thought that was way too granular for the amount of material I was looking at. I've responed to your note about leading zeroes, and I can't remember off hand whether all modexes are 3 digits, or if 2 digit numbers actually exist (or are just modex-ish numbers used in a similar manner). Let me know what you think and I'll see if I can make the template work to purpose. Josh (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Symbols by type

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

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

Category:Tools_of_the_Netherlands

Tools of the Netherlands has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

JopkeB (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

category:Images_by_text

Josh,

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

Best regards and thanks for your attention to this matter,

--Ooligan (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Reason for inventing just another subcategory

(Info @ Ardfern)

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

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

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

Do you have an actual substantive objection, or is this just more of your usual hounding? Josh (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the actual benefit or advantage of adding yet another intermediate category? If you should have any convincing reason, we could talk about it.

Just now it simply and only increases the workload when editing by adding the necessity of an additional click every time.

Yet another needless subcategory, higher workload > no benefit whatsoever. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is an index/meta category, and I should think someone of your experience would already understand the purpose of such categories. If you find such categories useless, I'm not sure what to tell you then. That only makes them useless to you, not for everyone. Josh (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just an additional, unnecessary intermediate category causing needlessly higher workload when editing. No consensus has yet been achieved. Please refrain from further changes until the matter has been resolved. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but there is strong consensus accepting the use of index/meta categories, even to the point of being covered in basic documentation. Josh (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you please provide the link(s) where this is "covered in basic documentation"? --Uli Elch (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Categories is a good place to start your research. Josh (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Please include sort criterion on metacat templates

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

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

It should have been this:

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

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

@Auntof6: Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't aware that was causing an issue. I usually do include it, but I think the ones you are seeing is a particular situation, where I want it to sort a little differently than the template would normally do, so I was setting the sorting key by a separate Category:... line. Perhaps you know a better way to accomplish this? In any case, I'll make sure the sorting criterion is filled in even if I plan on overriding it. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Leaving off the topic-cat parameter might help, if you hardcode that category instead (as you seem to be doing already). The topic-cat parameter isn't required, and it can even make category maintenance harder anyway. See if that does what you want. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, I will try that out. Josh (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"(text)" cats vs "letter combination" cats

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

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

Aircraft cats

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

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

Great, thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft by registration

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

@Huntster: Well the '=' probably needs to be replaced by a space...the '04' is the number of digits in the number to be sorted, kind of a manual attempt to mimic what {{Numsort}} would do. It seems like a lot of numbers are not sorting correctly by number, so trying to fix those. Josh (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Copy, was just curious. Thanks. I saw it here and here on my watchlist, so didn't know if it was part of a new sorting strategy. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I just noticed that it seems there are a few different types of keys being used for the same cat, so probably need to get that cleaned up. I think space is the best lead character (it matches what is used in several other 'by number' categories and seems to work well). Fine with going with something different if someone has a reason to do so. Josh (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Question

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

R'n'B: See my edit here. The "-400" and "ER" needed to be in the same field, so that "Boeing 767" is by itself. This also eliminates the need for |nav=. Does that make sense? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@R'n'B and Huntster: The edit works. The nav parameter is useful in cases where a nav box may exist at a different level than that currently built up in the 'by year of manufacture' tree...it is kind of a work-around parameter. Huntster is right that in most cases it is not needed. My apologies for the lack of documentation, I need to go back and flesh out the docs on that series of templates. I am busy moving houses currently so can't really do that until a week or so from now, however. Josh (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Envelopes for elections in Spain

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

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

Please cancel this edit

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

Nope, Joshbaumgartner was undoubtedly justified in doing what he did. The discussion was not continuing, a full two weeks had passed if you wanted to express yourself. Joshbaumgartner's edit should be kept, because the discussion was settled. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: If a CfD is closed and changes made which you think are in error, or if there are further issues that did not get properly discussed, the correct method is to raise a new CfD and explain the remaining issues. This may result in restoring a previous state or making other further changes if that is the consensus. Closed CfD's should not be re-opened, but instead linked to by the new CfD. Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs) is correct that procedure was properly followed. Josh (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Manual ping

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

Category:Amaw_(text)

Category:Amaw_(text) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Numbers_on_discs

Numbers on discs has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Group2

Hello,

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

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

Template:Topic in country

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

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

Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Objects_of_Somaliland

Objects of Somaliland has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

82.135.80.150 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:SOKO_aircraft

SOKO aircraft has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Ma▀▄Ga 16:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Citybus Route

Categories "Category:Bus routes numbered 20" and others have been moved to "Category:Bus routes designated 20". Can you fix your template, please? Have a nice day :) Wieralee (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Helicopters_by_quantity

Helicopters by quantity 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!

Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Over-categorization

I point you to this: Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. Including two more categories even the one that already exists is categorised in the second one and the second category is categorised in the first one is exactly what this page tells you not to do. But from the talk about firearm cartridges I know that you are not a great Captain Care-A-Lot so you will probably don't change anything. --D-Kuru (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your decision to lead with ad hominems and not include examples of what you are talking about says volumes. Josh (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Geograph moves?

Can you please explain these edits? These categories should be removed, not replaced by another category that is being deleted. I was planning to use a bot for Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Geograph images by place and Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Geograph images by year to not have watchlist explosions. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: If you have a bot deletion ready to kick in, then great. Manually it was going to take a bit, so I was doing it in stages. Are you ready to start the bot process? Josh (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that can easily be done in a single edit. Maybe you can close Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Geograph images by year too so I can fire up the bot? Multichill (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: Actually was just closing that as you typed this. Leaving both implementations to you with the bot. Thanks! Josh (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Multichill (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry, I didn't know about the SD C2 template! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: No problem! Of course if there is a possibility of something being controversial, CfD is still the best answer, but hopefully this saves you a bit while doing cleanup. Josh (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course :-) thanks for your help. I've filled in a large number of photos for Wikishootme for my local area. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Redundant categories

I wonder if there is any reason you are adding redundant categories - for example adding "Unidentified human activities" to files in the "Human activities" category without removing the latter? Do you think there are two types of human activities in each of these cases, one unidentified, and a different one that is identified but cannot be specified with a more exact category? Similarly, images that depict BOTH advertising and unidentified advertising. Puzzled, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Unidentified X" categories are maintenance/admin categories, and it would be inappropriate to remove files from their topical category. Josh (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there have been a number of CfDs over the years regarding "unidentified" maintenance categories, and some users have questioned whether they are a redundancy. However, the consensus has generally been that such categories are useful to editors seeking to specifically improve categorization of certain topics and that the "unidentified" category tree should be retained as it has a fundamentally different function than standard topical categories. There also was concern about files getting 'lost' in maintenance categories by being removed from their main topical categories, thus the solution was to retain files in their topical category. Josh (talk)

I've been looking at and gradually working on files in the "unidentified human activities". A large number are already in a specific subcategory of human activity, and thus are NOT unidentifed. Arguably the "human activities" category in many cases was already redundant, and more helpfully could have been removed. (Others the category can IMO be very easily identified - eg eating, sitting, etc - by a quick look.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a starting point. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with a lot of files in main cats, including the ones you identified. I personally don't think "unidentified" is necessarily the greatest name for this tree, as it is more 'files needing categorization attention'. Identifying appropriate subs is the primary task, but sometimes it is just removing an overcat or even spotting a file that doesn't belong at all. Of course one issue is that we sub-cat on more than one basis and a lot of times a file will be sorted by say date, but not by location, type, color, etc. But at any rate, your help with the files is appreciated, thanks. Josh (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Why did you add "unidentified brands" to File:BullDurhamMural CollinsvilleIL.jpg? It seems very clearly identified! - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well it is now--thank you for doing so. This is exactly why I added it to Category:Unidentified brands so it could get that attention and now its categorization has been improved as a result. Again, thank you! Josh (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dix CFD close

Hello,

First off, I appreciate the work in closing CFDs on Commons. Clearly somebody has to do it and it doesn't appear to be a popular job, so this is appreciated.

Secondly, since I was pinged on the close of Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Dix, New York... does Commons have a different sense of what "No consensus" means than Wikipedia? There was unanimous support for Keep other than the nominator, who laid out an exceptionally weak case IMO. On Wikipedia, such a discussion would surely close as "Keep" barring a belief by the closer that the Keep votes were deeply suspect or weak themselves, and if so, the closer would explain why the no consensus close despite the apparent overwhelming support for one side. "No consensus" with no explanation (implying that a future nomination on similar grounds would be unproblematic) is thus very strange to me. Was this really a "Keep" close, or do you believe that the Keep arguments are insufficient? If so, would you be willing to expand on your close and explain what exactly the problem is in your opinion? (Or is this a Commons vs. Wikipedia terminology mix-up?) SnowFire (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Thanks, I was really only trying to be humorous with my comment. I completely agree that the backlog of unfinished CfDs seems interminable. As for why I chose 'no consensus' though, what it really means is that there was no consensus to pursue the proposal (which was to delete the category). We don't really have  Keep as a CfD consensus, as it is the default if no consensus to change is reached. I guess for CfDs at least, 'no consensus' really means that the  Keep crowd won the day. I suppose we could say  Resolved by consensus to  Keep, and that would have the same real-world outcome. Part of it is in my experience dealing with similar discussions, I've found that if I say  Resolved by consensus to defeat the proposal but there is still an adamant (pun intended) supporter of the proposal, sometimes they object to the closure on the grounds that there is still opposition to such a resolution. On the other hand, closing it as  No consensus to proceed with the proposal, has the same real-world end effect, but they have less grounds to oppose the closure of the discussion. The fact is that a future nomination is always possible, and we don't really work on a jurisprudence system (unless something actually gets written into COM:CAT), so each new nomination has to be considered on its own merit. That said, I write each closed discussion into the record on the category talk pages, so if it is re-nominated, the previous discussions are there and the new discussion, if it presents the same proposal, will include previous opposition. For example, if the proposer for deletion of Dix were to re-nominate next month, all of the speedy keep votes and comments would be right there already, and even if nobody added any new comments after a period to allow for them, I would close again without deleting because I would automatically consider all of the previous comments to apply to the new nomination. (TLDR version: Yes, this was a 'keep' outcome.) Josh (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Addenda: Even if it were closed as  Resolved by consensus to  Keep, that would not preclude a new nomination on the same grounds next month. Also, either way, repeated re-nomination without new ideas would get a warning from some of the CfD regulars and if necessary a referral to the admins if someone was deemed to be abusing the CfD system. Josh (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Belated: Thanks for the reply. I would propose that I prefer the Wikipedia-style naming convention better, but if a new CFD immediately included the old discussion, then the problem is lessened. (And to be clear, repeated nomination of XFD despite a countervailing result is "technically" allowed on Wikipedia too, just if done without a good rationale for why things are different, another editor could speedy-close the repeat nomination.) SnowFire (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

CFD close request

Since you're offering, Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Paraduin needs closure. The original reason for discussion (only one file) has long ceased to exist. Happy days, Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Architectural elements

Hi Josh, everything inside Architectural elements by country of location should be moved to Architectural elements by country, and then the former category should be deleted. Also, it would be good to include key "elements" for national architectures ([[Category:Architecture of Country|Elements]]). I don't know how to fix it myself. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Sounds like a couple of different things here:

1. Moving from Category:Architectural elements by country of location to Category:Architectural elements by country: I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but wondering why exactly? The contents of the category are "architectural elements in country" which would indicate that 'by country of location' is the more precise index criteria. I know that architectural elements are not currently indexed by any other participles, so I guess the extra precision does not necessarily mean a whole lot, but still just wondering why bother removing instead of leaving it be.
2. Sorting key for national categories: I totally agree with your suggestion. I think I will need to modify the code a bit, but this should be doable. Give me a bit to figure out the details and implement this one.

Josh (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the sort key should be working now. It will take waiting a bit for the update to filter through (or you can do a null edit if you want to accelerate it). See Category:Architecture of Afghanistan for example. Josh (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, regarding the first point, all categories X by country have listed countries (X in Afghanistan, etc.), so there's no need to add "of location" in this particular case. The reason why Architectural elements by country looks empty is that until few hours ago it included categories like Arches by country, Atriums by country and so on, which I recently separated into Architectural elements by country by name. That's how it should be, analogical example: if you open Buildings by country you have listed countries, not categories like schools by country. When you fix it I'll make null edits, just ping me. Regarding the second point, no problem, take your time. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh now I see, key already works, great. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I will look into it, but keep in mind a lot of index categories are a bit hap-hazard. For a long time people were just creating "X of country", "X in country", "X from country", etc. without much structure...basically whatever they thought was best at the time. In most it has more or less been okay, but in in several topics, there started to be confusion over what these different variations meant, what was supposed to be in them, and particularly how to arrange them in topics where more than one was used. Essentially, it boiled down that the index name should reflect the contents, and "X of country" categories would be under a "X by country" index, "X in country" categories under "X by country of location", and "X from country" categories under "X by country of origin". Also, when more than one is in use, "X of country" would be the parent with "X in country" and "X from country" as children. As I said it doesn't really matter much when (as with architectural elements) only one form is in use ("X in country" in this case). On a second note, I am not sure that 'by name' is really the right way to go with the new indices you are creating, as 'by name' typically indicates individual names or at least proper nouns. Instead it looks like you are grouping 'by type' so that would probably be the better index name. Of course, I am just happy something like Category:Arches by country is not directly under Category:Architectural elements by country, so I'm not really complaining, don't get me wrong. Josh (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware about the issue, considering I personally identified and arranged thousands of artworks to Art of Iran by city (250), Art in Iran by city (93), and Art from Iran by city (39). Italy also separates it into three different cats (of/in/from), most other countries do not. These three have very different meaning, so beware that template-related unification don't affect it. Of course, in some particular cases having categories by country of location is very useful, actually needed, like for paintings. As well as by depicted country and by country of origin (all three exist). But such separation IMHO ain't needed for architectural elements because country of location is implied per se. There are surely exceptions, like cases where German museums have Greek column capitals and so on, but still no need to make hundreds of duplicates (of location, of origin) due to such rare examples.

Regarding by name, it refers to all named elements, technically it's a list. I can not use by type since there is no any category called Architectural elements by type. But there's one additional way of separating: putting Arches by country under [[Category:Architectural structural elements by country| ]], and then again the latter under [[Category:Architectural elements by country by purpose|Structural]]. That's because we have Architectural elements by purpose. Solution with by name is also very useful for Architectural elements by century, because without it we would have two by-by cats, 25 centuries, and possible 200 particular architectural elements keyed in between. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Hackerspaces_by_country_of_location

Hackerspaces by country of location has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Usaf serial

I have run into a problem with Template:Usaf serial. The current US Army/Air Force serial number system was adopted in FY1922, which means that aircraft ordered in FY1922/23 will have the same prefix as those ordered in FY2022/23. This will lead to problems as the serial numbers are currently categorized by the last two digits of the FY. We will need to transition to categorization by the full FY in order to avoid conflicts for aircraft ordered a century apart. However, manually transitioning to this new system would be very tedious as Cat-a-lot cannot be used with categorization templates. Do you have any ideas about how to solve this problem? - ZLEA _T\^C 21:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I just learned that AutoWikiBrowser is available on Commons, so I've requested permission to use it. I think it may be the solution to the problem. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@ZLEA: That's an excellent point. I am not aware of anything before 38 existing under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number, but still probably best to come up with a good answer to this before some earlier serials are listed. Josh (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe I did upload an FY1922 or 1923 serialed aircraft from a museum, but I never created categories for it. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And here it is. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've created a new template, Template:USAF aircraft serial, based on your version. Feel free to fix any problems you find. Once all the existing categories are changed over, we can redirect your old template to the new one. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

DDR Kategorien

Ich habe gesehen, das Du der DDR zugehörige Kategorien (z.B. "Geodesy in the German Democratic Republic", "Geography of the German Democratic Republic") in der Staatenleiste unterbringst ("topic in country"), in der nur gegenwärtig existierende Staaten aufgelistet werden. Die DDR war aber nur 1949-1990 ein selbstständiger Staat, danach wieder ein Teil von Deutschland und sollte deshalb auch nur dort mit den einzelnen Kategorien eingeordnet werden. Ansonsten müßte man mit allen ehemaligen Staaten so verfahren (z.B. Preußen, Sowjetunion. Osmanisches Reich....).--79.214er (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"By country" listings are not restricted based on the status of a country. There can be other indices such as "by current country", "by former country", etc. where countries of a particular status can be specified. Users should not be required to know what the status of a country is as a prerequisite to successfully navigating to it in the category tree. And yes, the Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and German Democratic Republic, to name few, are well represented in a large number of "by country" listings without issue, and thus you are correct that if we have a category for say, geodesy in the Soviet Union, it should be listed in the geodesy by country index. Josh (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)