Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, An Errant Knight!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Contents

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
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, 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Hinkle Amshak.jpgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hinkle Amshak.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Hinkle Amshak.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

1989 20:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

License problemEdit

If you add permission = http://trainweb.org/usarail/ "You are free to use my photos on my website. No permission is required." you would avoid these problems. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Wellesley Square station from above.JPGEdit

I'm not quite sure if this qualifies as am Amshack. Wellesley Square was an Inland Route Regional stop for a while, but the MBTA owns and presumably maintains the station. Do you know if the shelter was specifically built by Amtrak? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPGEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Sculpture at Salt Lake Central Station.JPG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Rocky Mount REA Express BuildingEdit

Just out of curiosity, why the removal of the two bus oriented categories from my images of the REA Express freight house at Rocky Mount (Amtrak station)? As far as I know, that part of the station is still where all the buses stop. ----DanTD (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Preserve comments about categoriesEdit

File:Middletown, CT - former Middlesex Theater 03.jpg and others: please look at the diffs of your recent edits here (and mine that follows). When there is a comment within a category link, it should be preserved. Typically, it is there so that future editors can know why that category is present (in this case, which building in a picture it refers to, often which person in a picture it refers to). Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Coolidge_(Amtrak_station)Edit

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories#Over-categorizationEdit

Hi User:An Errant Knight|An Errant Knight, you are doing a lot of categorization work right now. While I applaud a lot of it, I fear you may be succumbing to the "overcat" syndrome, the need to add more categories than is necessary to various images and categories. For example, recently you created Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah (southeastern), and made it a sub cat of over a dozen other categories, including Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah, Category:Interstate 70 in Utah, Category:U.S. Route 6 in Utah (Eastern Utah), Category:U.S. Route 50 in Utah, Category:Transport in San Juan County, Utah, Category:Transport in Grand County, Utah, Category:Transport in Emery County, Utah, Category:Ashley National Forest, Category:Navajo Nation, Category:White Mesa, Utah, Category:Bluff, Utah, Category:Blanding, Utah, Category:Manti-La Sal National Forest, Category:Monticello, Utah, Category:Moab, Utah, Category:Crescent Junction, Utah, Category:Green River, Utah, and Category:Woodside, Utah. This is unnecessary and is not useful for the categorization system. While some of these categorizations are useful and follow the "tree" form of categorization, many are not. I will break down why I think this is incorrect or correct for each item:

Category:U.S. Route 191 in Utah...This is the most relevant and obvious: 191 in southeastern Utah is entirely part of 191 in Utah, so it should be a sub-cat of US 191 in Utah.
Category:Interstate 70 in Utah...I-70 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of I-70.
Category:U.S. Route 6 in Utah (Eastern Utah)...US 6 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of US 6.
Category:U.S. Route 50 in Utah...US 50 is not coextensive with 191 in southeastern Utah, they only overlap partially, and are otherwise independent; thus, US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a sub-cat of US 50.
Category:Transport in San Juan County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.
Category:Transport in Grand County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.
Category:Transport in Emery County, Utah...US 191 in southeastern Utah does form part of the transport network in San Juan County, so this is somewhat relevant and can stay.
Category:Ashley National Forest...US 191 just passes through Ashley National Forest and is otherwise unrelated to it as a forest, and large sections do not pass through the forest, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Ashley National Forest
Category:Navajo Nation...US 191 just passes through Navajo Nation and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the nation, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Navajo Nation
Category:White Mesa, Utah...US 191 just passes through White Mesa and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of White Mesa
Category:Bluff, Utah...US 191 just passes through Bluff and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Bluff
Category:Blanding, Utah...US 191 just passes through Blanding and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Blanding
Category:Manti-La Sal National Forest...US 191 just passes through Manti-La Sal National Forest and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the forest, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Manti-La Sal National Forest
Category:Monticello, Utah...US 191 just passes through Monticello and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Monticello
Category:Moab, Utah...US 191 just passes through Moab and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Moab
Category:Crescent Junction, Utah...US 191 just passes through Crescent Junction and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Crescent Junction
Category:Green River, Utah...US 191 just passes through Green River and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Green River
Category:Woodside, Utah...US 191 just passes through Woodside and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the town, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Woodside
Basically, this is what I'm trying to get at: Say you go to the Woodside, Utah category. Within it, you see "US Route 191 in southeastern Utah" as a subcat. You click on it, and then find that most of the files there have nothing to do with Woodside. Why would you then consider it a valid sub-cat? The idea of subcats is that the content is related to the cat directly above it. Famartin (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page... == Over-categorization & U.S. Route 191 ==
Several thoughts on the matter:
1) The primary focus of the over-categorization issue is listing images under general categories and then again in one or more subcategories of that general category.
2) "Category:Navajo Nation...US 191 just passes through Navajo Nation and is otherwise unrelated to it, and large sections do not pass through the nation, thus US 191 in southeastern Utah should not be a subcat of Navajo Nation." However, the route is a major component of the "transport network" within the Navajo Nation (there just isn't a "Transport in the Navajo Nation" sub-category, . . . yet).
3) Look it this way: "Say you go to the '[Populated places in Utah County, Utah]' category. Within it, you see '[Draper, Utah]' as a subcat. You click on it, and then find that most of the files there have nothing to do with [Utah County]. Why would you then consider it a valid sub-cat?" Because, even though nearly all of city of Draper is not located within Utah County, part of it is and therefore constitutes a part of the category "Populated places in Utah County, Utah".

In addition, because U.S. Route 191 is the primary component of the "transport network" in White Mesa, therefore it should be included within that city. However, unlike Salt Lake City, which has multiple subcategories, over-categorization would occur if "U.S. Route 191 in Utah" were in the subcatgory "Roads in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "Transport in White Mesa, Utah", being a subcategory of "White Mesa, Utah". (It should be obvious to the intelligent, but uninformed Commons user that the entire U.S. Route 191 is not located within the community of White Mesa.)

An Errant Knight (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but it still doesn't follow the "tree" organization that is ideal for categories. To my way of thinking, any photos of US 191 in White Mesa would be tagged in both "US 191" and "White Mesa", instead of "US 191" being a subcat of "White Mesa". Example: You take a photo of US 191 in White Mesa. In your current philosophy, what category do you put this photo in? "US 191", or White Mesa? You CAN'T put it in both, because then you ARE violating the overcat rules. If you put it in either cat alone, potential of someone not finding what they might be looking for (a photo of US 191 in White Mesa) exists. So, the logical alternative is to NOT make "US 191" a subcat of "White Mesa", and instead tag the photo as being both "White Mesa" and "US 191". Photos can show multiple things and get multiple cats. If there were multiple photos of US 191 in White Mesa, then you'd be perfectly valid creating a category "US 191 in White Mesa", which would be a subcat of both "US 191" and "White Mesa". As far as US 191 obviously not being entirely within White Mesa to people... how is it obvious? They'd have to research it. There are plenty of highways which exist only in one town. Its *NOT* obvious without looking it up, which defeats the purpose. Anyway... point is, individual towns along a highway, or even wider areas, should not be cats above a highway cat which only partially travels through them. You can tag both a town and a highway in a photo, which is the ideal. Famartin (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:A short history of Laramie Depots, Oct 2011.jpgEdit

 
File:A short history of Laramie Depots, Oct 2011.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories of the United States by location and by stateEdit

Hello, Errant Knight. I noticed that you eliminated some US "by location" categories recently. I was wondering why you did that. Is there a problem with having the location categories?

I also noticed that you included some categories for US territories into "by state" categories. That is incorrect. The territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) are not states, they are territories. There are also a few smaller places owned by the US that are neither states nor territories. The options for this kind of thing are:

  1. Have a category such as "Foo in the United states by state or territory" that includes both states and territories. In fact, I've been thinking of starting a discussion to suggest changing all of the "by state" categories to this kind of name. This is similar to the way that categories for Canada are "by province or territory" and categories for Australia are "by state or territory".
  2. Have separate categories for "by state" and "by territory".
  3. Have a "by location" category that contains a "by state" category and all the individual territory categories, along with any others that fit such as by county, by city, etc.

I have recreated some of the "by location" categories that you eliminated so they can hold categories for different types of locations (by state, by city, etc.). Please don't delete them until/unless there is a better option than putting everything into a "by state" category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Coffeehouses / CafésEdit

Can you explain what you are doing in moving items from Category:Coffeehouses in Washington (state) to Category:Cafés in Washington (state)? At least in local usage here, "coffeehouse" is pretty specific: a place centered on espresso, possibly offering some other beverages (mainly, but not necessarily exclusively, non-alcoholic beverages; even if alcohol is available, serious drinking would be unwelcome), typically offering an assortment of pastries, possibly offering simple, light meals (soup, sandwich, maybe quiche, rarely anything more elaborate. "Café" is much vaguer: it can mean that, it can mean a restaurant, it can mean a bar. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • And Vashon Island Coffee Roasterie (one of the ones you removed from the "coffeehouses" category) is emphatically coffee-centered: they roast their own coffee, the sell roasted beans to go; if you look at the photos the character of the place is pretty clear. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • moved from User talk:Jmabel to keep conversation in one place - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Coffeehouses are probably a more common local term in the state of Washington for what is a cafés in the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries. Therefore, the standard term is more appropriate for the category. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The English-language Wikipedia makes the redirect in the opposite direction (en:Cafe redirects to en:Coffeehouse). Do you have any basis for your statement about "the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries"? - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Category:Coffee houses vs Category:Cafés, Category:Cafés by country, and Category:Cafés in the United States by state. Also keep in mind that categories in the "English" Wikipedia are just that, for English only. Categories on Commons apply to ALL languages as there is not an "English" Commons.An Errant Knight (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Right, but the category names are in English. Cognates in other languages can be somewhat relevant, but only somewhat. And Category:Coffee houses vs Category:Cafés shows what? It suggests that both are widely used terms; I don't see any demonstration there that "Coffeehouses are probably a more common local term in the state of Washington for what is a cafés in the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries." In particular, "Café" does not indicate an emphasis on espresso. It has a lot of different meanings in different places: in Connecticut, for example, it almost always means a bar. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to duck out of this and hand this off to a different administrator, since I feel you are choosing to falsely state that I did not read what you wrote instead of addressing my point. I'll post to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and request that someone else try to work with you on determining what would best be done here. - Jmabel ! talk

  • Since your reply only compared two of the FOUR categories in the previous reply, it is reasonable to believe that you MAY not have read the entire reply. IF you ignore the 81 country categories for Cafés and more than 29 state categories for Cafés, the response doesn't make much sense. An Errant Knight (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This case supports an additional reason for consistency in category titles. The navigational U.S. state template for Cafés in Foo includes a link to Category:Cafés in Washington (state) (as it does for 36 or more other states), but will not show a link to the (now deleted) category of Coffeehouses in Washington (state). An Errant Knight (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi I'm another admin who arrived here for a similar issue (see below). I read the foregoing. Jmabel has been rather pushed aside here. I'd like to request that all the "Café" entries be returned to Coffeehouses because Café with the accent isn't even an American English word and certainly isn't in common use for Coffeehouse all across the 50 states. "Cafe" can mean food, coffee, or a bar, it's not specific to Coffeehouses. Please return the structure to how you found it, the changes are not accurate. I have found this lack of accuracy in other actions, please see below, and I'm getting concerned that you have "category-itis" and are not listening to the admin/s who are now speaking to you. I do not think that you gave Jmabel any benefit of the doubt or considered COM:AGF. We do not need chaos in the categories, please return the structure to how you found it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone can decide that there is a consensus to rename the category back, the work can easily be done with the Delinker, using {{Move cat}}. But as the complainant, I don't think I should be the one to determine that such a consensus has been reached. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Using the US states templateEdit

Hi, AEK. You might not have known but this template has an option that will make all the states display, with the ones that don't have entries shown in red. It's common and helpful to use this parameter on the parent category (for example, Category:Log cabins in the United States by state) but not on the individual state pages. Please consider using the parameter when you create categories of the US by state.

Also, when you create any "by state" categories, or similar categories, be sure to include the {{Metacat}} template, and use a parameter that indicates what the grouping is. That would look like this: {{metacat|state}}.

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

California Fire DepartmentsEdit

Heya! I moved a couple pictures over to "Category:Volunteer fire departments in California" because their companies are not professional. Please take the 30 seconds to google the various companies before categorizing into the two sections you created. There really isn't (in my personal opinion) the need to separate professional and volunteer, but if you feel it's important, please try to accurately separate the photos. Thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The two categories were created as sub-categories of "Volunteer fire departments in the United States" and "Fire departments in the United States". Images were moved from their parent category to their sub-category, without any attempt to verify the distinction between the two. The moves were only an effort to assign them to the correct state (which would facilitate Ellin Beltz's recommendation). Anyone is welcome to improve the existing categorization. As for the need to separate the two department types, the distinction has been in use in Commons for some time. However, it is correct that it is often difficult to categorize many departments. For example, as an all volunteer department grows and begins employing one or more part-time and/or full-time staff, at what point is the department not longer considered "volunteer"? Notwithstanding, there are likely very strong opinions regarding the distinction within the firefighting community itself. There is also some question as to whether many images to belong to "Fire departments in..." or "Fire stations in..." categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Overcat?Edit

[1]: isn't Category:National parks of the United States redundant to Category:National parks of Washington (state)? - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Kind of... Since there is probably an insufficient number of national parks in the Unites States to warrant a "National parks of the United States by name" category, all national parks are included in "National parks of the United States" with "National parks in Washington (state)" being a sub-subcategory, which can be included in various Washington (state) categories such as "Protected areas in Washington (state)". This principle also applies to the National Forests (except that there are substantially more of them). An Errant Knight (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) It's definitely redundant. Nothing should be in both of those categories directly. We don't necessarily need a US national park by name category, but if you want one, I would think that 59 is certainly a big enough number (see the list on English Wikipedia), assuming we have categories for all of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And this: Former churches are not typically former buildings. Typically they are churches that have been repurposed, but are still buildings. (In fact, both buildings that are in this category are still standing.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • While many of the buildings in the multiple Former [building] in... categories still exist, there is not a consistent distinction (within the current, multiple Former [building] in... categories) between structures that still exist (and remain in use for other purposes), buildings that still exist (but are no longer in useful and/or repairable condition), and buildings that no longer exist (demolished, destroyed, etc.). Unless there is a better suggestion for grouping the multiple Former [building] in [state] categories, buildings that no longer exist should also be categorized with a category similar to "Demolished buildings in...". An Errant Knight (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Categories of the United States by stateEdit

Hello, An Errant Knight. I noticed that you have added categories to this category recently. When you create these categories, please include a {{Metacat}} template. The template would usually look like this:

{{metacat|state}}

Thanks, and feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Categories by county in UtahEdit

Hello, An Errant Knight. You're kindly warned not to create non-topical, useless and improperly named categories. They are completely out-of-scheme courrently adopted on Commons, not to mention that the synthiax used here is completely different from the (highly questionable) one adopted on en.wiki. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

10Edit

Some time ago, I used Category:10 (number) as the testing ground for possible dissimination of media items and subcategories so far heaped onto that category without rhyme or reason. It was satisfactory to see that not only it was possible to do so, but that the relatively small number of generic categories I created, once populated with material dissiminated from above, provided interesting opportunities for futher linking to other parent categories, improving the curation of Wikimedia Commons and its meta-content value.

Sadly, that work was left only partially done and nobody, nor even me, had the stamina to widen the project to other numbers. I see that you now took upon yourself the task to dismantle what I did, and put Category:10 (number) back in its original state of disarray and unusefulness. Understandably, I’m not wishing you well in this endeavour.

-- Tuválkin 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tuválkin, it is entirely unclear how eliminating the former Category:Number 10 on things and placing its former contents in its subcategory (Category:Number 10 on objects) had ANY direct effect on Category:10 (number). (By definition, an "object" is a "thing" with physical existence. Since any "thing" would have to have physical existence to have a number on it, ALL "things" with numbers on them are therefore, by definition, "objects". Therefore, the only possible items within the former category of Number 10 on things should actually belong in the subcategory of Number 10 on objects, thus making the category of Number 10 on things entirely unnecessary.) An Errant Knight (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Some “things” are not “objects” (in which cases the number “on” them is metaphorical), as you noticed yourself when you had to move up the category tree a few items that I had tagged as Category:Number 10 on things and which were not appropriate for Category:Number 10 on objects. -- Tuválkin 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Numbers on rail vehiclesEdit

You’re doing a good job here! -- Tuválkin 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tram_stops_in_the_United_States_by_stateEdit

Steve Morgan (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs inEdit

What do you think about a Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs in Florida and Category:Interchange Advance Guide signs in Georgia (U.S. state) since there are many in both of those states? --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Thank you for your work on correct categorization. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:LGBT in LousianaEdit

LGBT in Lousiana may be delete —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 104.243.164.41 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Signs_for_roads_numbered_420Edit

Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hoodriver history large.jpgEdit

 
File:Hoodriver history large.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Caliente Union Pacific Depot historical plaque.jpgEdit

 
File:Caliente Union Pacific Depot historical plaque.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Improvement?Edit

In what way is this edit helpful? -- Tuválkin 14:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Until about six months ago, the 1,200+ items in the various subcategories of the Ships by pennant number category were spread between the subcategories of the Integers, Numbers on vehicles, and Numbers on watercraft parent categories. (In most cases the Numbers on watercraft category did not exist, so the template caused the subcategory to be a subcategory of the respective Numbers on vehicles parent category, except in the rare cases where that category did not exist and then the default was the Integers parent category.) Now that ALL of the Ships by pennant number subcategories are a subcategory of their respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory, there is no longer a need for them to ever be assigned to either the Vehicles by number or Integers parent subcategories. (As a side note, despite how the template is/was supposed to work. In nearly all cases, the various subcategories of Ships by pennant number would indicate that they were a subcategory of the respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory and not the respective Vehicle by number parent subcategory. Despite this, they did NOT appear as a subcategory of the respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory, but DID appear in the corresponding Vehicle by number parent subcategory. The change to the template was part of the steps needed to correct this ongoing issue.) Hopefully that clarifies the issue and answers your question. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that you decided to cripple the parent cat autodetect function of that template based on two misguided notions:
  1. That numbers are a finite set («ALL of the Ships by pennant number subcategories are a subcategory of their respective Watercraft by number parent subcategory», really? And what happens when a new one is created?)
  2. That you haven’t noticed that template transclusion has a much higher latency time than regular, hardcoded page transclusion and therefore changes will not show immediately.
I suggest you undo your edit: Most of the time the if-clause will not be necessary, thanks mostly to your effort — but when it is necessary it will link to actual categories, not to redlinked would-be categories. -- Tuválkin 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, all the existing Ships by pennant number subcategories. . . . When new ones are created (which there will be, but by the nature of the category, it is unlikely that there will be very many) then the respective parent (redlinked) category should also be created, rather than default to a much less useful link to "a" category. This would prevent the perpetuation of the problem that took many hours to clean up.
As for the latency, in this case, it was not a matter of minutes or even hours, but days and weeks (at least). As previously mentioned, the parent category would appear almost immediately, but the subcategory would not appear for a very long time (if it actually ever did). The result was that a very large number of these subcategories defaulted to a much less useful parent, parent (or parent, parent, parent, parent) category instead of the proper one. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Trams, trains, and rail vehiclesEdit

Hi. I notice you have been putting a lot of Japanese train categories into "Number xxx on trams" categories, but could you perhaps have a look at the Tram article on Wikipedia, as "tram" is another name for "streetcar" and is not used for regular trains that run on regular tracks. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

While you are correct, the term tram is used to refer to streetcars, as the article referenced clarifies, this use is in "North America". Further on in the article you will also notice that the term tram is a subcategory of light rail, which does included "regular trains that run on regular rails". Notwithstanding, there is not always a clear distinction between light rail and commuter rail. There is no argument that the Japanese train categories in question are not considered streetcars. According to your greater expertise, they should be categorized as "rail vehicles" instead of "trams". Thanks for this insight. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverted one of your edits because,Edit

A mailbox is not a house. Thank you for volunteering, please try to be more careful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct, but letter boxes often have house numbers on them. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
However in this case the place is not a house, but a business, therefore it's not a "house number" and was correct the first time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Partially correct, however. . .
While it would seem that "house numbers" should only apply to houses, the term house number actually refers to:
1.The single object or multiple objects attached to a building (or an object adjacent to it such as a mailbox or post) to display the street address assigned to that structure.
2. The street address numbers painted on a building (or an object such as a mailbox or post near the building), or painted on the curb of the street in front of the building. (Wiktionary)
Properly used, the term "house number" applies the number assigned to a business, residence, etc. that distinguishes it from other structures on the same street, road, etc. Though, it does not include letter box numbers that are often used in rural areas in some countries. The use of the House number category in Commons reflects this definition and, accordingly, includes many businesses and other none residential structures. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

CorrectionsEdit

In this edit, just like in countless hundred more in the past many months, you labeled an improvement of what I had edited previously as "Correction". Please acknowledge that what I did, when I did it, was not in any way incorrect and that, by recategorizing each of these categories to a more detailed parent category meanwhile created, you are performing an improvement, not in any way a correction. Thank you. -- Tuválkin 01:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Begin of route signs in TaiwanEdit

I've looked at your edits. I do not understand why you are writing "Tiawan".--Kai3952 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case it is so that the "Begin route signs in. . ." will list in alphabetical order by the country instead of being all listed under "B". An Errant Knight (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know...but I was asking why you are writing "Tiawan". Do you really know what I'm asking?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
With over 168,000 edits, typographical and minor spelling errors are bound to occur. Thanks for catching it! An Errant Knight (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So that's why it did not happen when you created the category(Category:Begin of route signs in Taiwan).--Kai3952 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

High-resolution TIFF images from the National Archives and Records AdministrationEdit

Hi, please don't add categories on files which are in the Category:High-resolution TIFF images from the National Archives and Records Administration: only the JPG images should be used for categorization. Thanks. Florn (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Items numbered ##Edit

Hello. I noticed that you recently created a number of categories named "Category:Items numbered 55" or similar. I'm failing to see the difference between the long-existing scheme of Category:Number 55 on objects and your new categories. I think though, "Items numbered ##" could be used as a parent category whereas "Number ## on objects" should then only be for images where the specific number is actually depicted. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

While there will be a substantial amount of overlap, as you have mentioned, there are may items (things) that are identified by number, but don't actually have a number on them. For example, a highway is most often numbered, but only the highway signs are numbered. In some cases there may not actually be any such signs (i.e., unsigned highways). Despite the lack of signs or numbers "on" the highway, it is still a numbered item (or an item by number). Another case is bridges which are, at least in parts of Europe, often numbered. However, they may not actually have the number "on" them. Unfortunately, only including "images where the specific number is actually depicted", doesn't work in many situations. An instance of this would be "Category:Fiat 500", which should be subcategory of "Category:Items numbered 500", as well as "Category:Number 500 on automobiles", even though not every image in the "Fiat 500" category would actually depict a "500".
Some additional thoughts. . .
Although not being the creator of the multiple and already existing "Items numberd ##" categories, the generation of the "Category:Items by number" was a way to group these existing, newly generated, and yet to be created categories.
While not clearly obvious, the "Items numberd ##" categories imply that they are used for things in that are part of a series. (For example, state highways, bus routes, or rooms in a building.) The "Number ## on objects" would fit often as a subcategory under the "Items numbred ##", but there are many cases where it would not be appropriate. For instance, a sign for Motel 6 (a well-known motel chain, at least in the United States). While certainly an example of something that fits in "Number 6 on signs" (a subcategory of "Number 6 on objects"), the sign itself is not "numbered", nor there is any expectation that there would be corresponding Motel 5 or Motel 7 signs.
Early on in the initial work on this "project", an image was discovered in which the number of the image depicted did not correspond to the actual number of the subject displayed. The case was an image of a section of a numbered highway, but the sign in the image was for a different highway.
Finally, overall (but much less so for lower numbers) the largest general category of images with numbers is numbers on objects, with the largest subcategory being signs for numbered roads (including highways). Because of this, it is fairly important to keep these items from being buried too far into subcategories. Hence, "Number ### on objects" is listed at the top of the "### (number)" categories, rather included in the alphanumeric listing. This is also why "Roads numbered ###" is listed directly within the "### (number) category" (with the corresponding subcategory "Signs for roads numbered ###", being only two levels deep), as well as the "Items numbered ###" subcategory.

Category:Number_28955_on_objectsEdit

Mindmatrix 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Alpine Loop Scenic Byway (Utah)Edit

I removed Category:Mount Timpanogos because not all photographs taken on the Alpine Loop Scenic Byway will contain Timpanagos. For example: File:Alpine Scenic Highway, Utah - panoramio (3).jpg. You've re-added the category, may I remove it? — hike395 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

All photographs taken on the Alpine Scenic Byway may not include Mount Timpanogos, but the entire Byway is on or at the base of Mount Timpanogosn (depending on whether Roberts Horn is considered a peak on Mount Timpanogos, or a separate mountain).
It is more a question of how categories for roads should be handled. In this case, Mount Timpanogos and Alpine Scenic Byway are VERY much related, but it doesn't make sense to have Mount Timpanogas as a category of the Alpine Scenic Byway, since there is a whole lot of Mount Timpanogos that has nothing to do with the Byway. Just as Salt Lake City is a category of Interstate 15 in Utah, it is clearly understood that not all of I-15 is within Salt Lake City, but that I-15 is an important part of the transportation system of Salt Lake City. Every aspect of a sub-category does not have to fit into the parent category. For example, Ronald Regan is a sub-category of Presidents of the United States (via the President of the United States by name category). However, there are large number of images of Ronald Regan that have nothing to do with him as or being President of the United States (having previously been a very famous movie star).
In this particular case, you correctly added Utah State Route 92 as a category for the Byway, however, most of the images that are and will be in the Alpine Scenic Byway (Utah) category will not show or include SR-92 itself.
So to answer the question asked, for the reasons mentioned and more, the Byway should remain a category of Mount Timpanogos, as should the other categories added to the Byway. An Errant Knight (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You are the king of OvercatEdit

I'm am fixing your obsession with overcat. Stop overcatting! A road which passes through a town is not a subcat of the town. A subcat is for something which falls entirely within the designated higher cat. Meanwhile, all US highways and Interstates in Utah are under Utah DOT jurisdiction, and those main cats are now under Utah DOT. State highway cats are for STATE ROUTES, not US routes and Interstates. Famartin (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thank you.
Second, it would seem that any reasonable discussion regarding the matter is futile since you appear to have the entire highway network in Utah under your control and are doing your best to limit and discourage any group efforts to improve it. As you have been asked before by others, please advise what subjects you are working on, so others can avoid them. An Errant Knight (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I am making massive efforts to improve the Utah highway system. Don't you understand that when you see a subcategory, you expect it to be located within that category? Think about it from a user: You go to the subcat for some podunk town and see I-80 as a subcat, so you expect "Ok, must be pictures of that town in there", but voila, not to be found. It makes no sense. Now, at least, there is some sense to your categorizing all those roads as parts of towns. By overcat rules, I was within my rights to simply remove them all and let them float free, so be glad I actually AM improving it, versus completely reversing your work. Famartin (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
It has been said that it is better to let people think that you are _______, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt they may have previously had. Thank you for confirming the previous assertion.
If a time should ever come that you wish to collaborate with other editors (listen to input from them, rather than dictate to them) in YOUR "massive efforts", please advise because you do have many good ideas and obviously a lot of passion. However, just because you have good ideas regarding categorization, does not preclude others from from having them as well. For example, while initially the thought process behind the "Locations along . . " was not readily understandable, it did improve two issues: 1) it reduces a high number of subcategories that previously existed within many of the applicable categories and 2) it creates a distinction between items directly related to the road (i.e., bridges, interchanges, etc.) and items indirectly related to the road (i.e., building along the road, populated places through which it passes, etc.). As a side note regarding this matter, it would be great if an appropriate name for a similar sub-category could be concocted that would better distinguish between "locations along" (communities, landforms, etc) and items, things, etc. "located along" (buildings, geographic features, etc.).
Please do not put forth arguements in this forum that should be addressed with the Utah State Legislature.
One more item of consideration, just because have the "right" to do something, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea to to so. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Catgorizing photos of traffic signsEdit

Do you think that these two are well categorized at Category:D12-5 - Travel Info Call 511 or it’s better to keep in this kind of category only diagrammatic illustrations and keep photos elsewhere up or down the tree? -- Tuválkin 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good question Tuválkin.
The opinion of this editor is that, while including the photographs in this category is not ideal, given the likely number of actual items that are, or ever will be in question, it is probably the best category for such photographs. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Subcats in Category:Numbers on spacecraftEdit

Hello, An Errant Knight. It looks like you created most or all of the subcats here, such as Category:Number 1 on spacecraft. I think these may be misnamed. For example, if you look at Category:Number 1 on spacecraft, the subcats there seem to be for missions, not spacecraft. (The one file there is a spacecraft.) In most cases, I don't think the mission number is painted on the spacecraft. In the case of the Space Shuttle missions, where each vehicle was reused for multiple missions, the ID of the vehicle was its name, not the mission number.

I'm thinking the subcategories here should be renamed, maybe to something that would go under Category:Space missions by number. What do you think?

@Joshbaumgartner: pinging you because I just left you a related message. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks, I am not particularly involved in spacecraft categories, but I did apply Template:Number cat to Category:Space missions numbered 3 as a trial. I agree that almost all of the "Number # on spacecraft" categories should actually be "Space missions numbered #" as they rarely actually have the number depicted on the craft itself. Using Template:Number cat should make it easy to convert the existing "Number # on spacecraft" categories to a more correct name. I would recommend that the categories be renamed if they are to be retained. Josh (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The categories referenced were an expansion of existing categories that were (at the time) the closest existing category (as opposed to creating entirely new categories). This editor has no objection to the suggested improvements.
@Joshbaumgartner:@Auntof6: An Errant Knight (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities in Marion County, FloridaEdit

I already added the "Unincorporated communities in Marion County, Florida" category to Salt Springs, Florida, and others in Marion County. There's no need for the "Unincorporated communities in Florida" category. ----DanTD (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally, ALL communities within a state (city, town, census-designated places, etc.) are listed in the applicable state level category, as well as the appropriate county level, so yes there is a reason. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty redundant to me. At the same time, I'm glad you created a category for Holder, Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
One tip about Holder; there are no routes numbered "6900" there, or anywhere in Citrus County. ----DanTD (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 
It's just the start of a series of addresses, just like 7000
Thanks for the "local perspective" clarification! An Errant Knight (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Walton, New YorkEdit

I just added categories to your red-cat for Walton, New York, although admittedly, I wanted to have separate categories for the Town of Walton and Village of Walton. ----DanTD (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sanborn maps of SeattleEdit

I'm not sure what you are intending with categories related to the various Sanborn maps of Seattle, but your recent edits don't make sense to me. If Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Seattle, King County, Washington is, going by its parent categories, a specific 1893 of map (or, really, judging by the content, book of maps) then Category:Sanborn insurance maps of Seattle can hardly be a subcat of that: it contains some maps from 1893, but mostly 1904, and at least one as late as 1909. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: You are correct. . . The changed was an erroneous attempt to consolidate the Sanborn maps for Seattle, but as you have pointed out, it didn't really work as done. The current re-categorization should work a little better. Thank you for addressing this issue. An Errant Knight (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz catEdit

Thank you for moving all those images! SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Number_17_on_diceEdit

E4024 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

South WindowEdit

It’s singular. Not sure where in the world you got plural from. https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/maps.htm Famartin (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The singularity is a common misconception with which the United States Geological Survey (USGS) disagrees. Nothwithstanding, the USGS identifies the singular as a "variant name". An Errant Knight (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how there being one window is a misconception, except in the part of USGS, which is obviously wrong. NPS identification should take precedent regardless.Famartin (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The assertion that the "NPS identification should take precedent regardless" may sound valid, but it is, nevertheless, still mistaken. Furthermore, it directly contradicts the official National Park Service position on the matter. "Geographic feature names derive from USGS maps and conform to Board on Geographic Names standards, although discrepancies may exist. Check with the Board to confirm all spellings." (Sources & Accuracy for NPS Maps as published by the National Park Service. Note: The link within the quote is part of the original and refers back to the very webpage previously indicated.)
Does this mean that both the USGS and the NPS are "obviously wrong"? An Errant Knight (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You are seriously going to argue semantics on this? Fine, I'll go to a higher authority. Famartin (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sadly enough, that is almost exactly the type of response that was anticipated.
An assertion was made that appealed to an authority, but when that same authority disagrees with the original assertion, the matter will be taken to a "higher authority" (than the highest authority on the matter). Would that higher authority be the United States Congress?
Perhaps less time should be spent on arguing what the natural arch in question should be called, and more time on why the United States Board on Geographic Names has chosen what, very arguably, appears to be a counterintuitive name. 15:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In case you haven’t noticed, mistakes happen. I’m sure this is one of them. It would be far from their first. And by higher authority, I mean commons admins.Famartin (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
(talk page stalker) @Famartin, An Errant Knight: The GNIS database is known to contain errors. I'd like to point out the USGS 7.5' topo map where both North Window and South Window are singular. I would trust the USGS topo map names more than the database entries. — hike395 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not disputing that the database does contain errors, nor that the plural appears to be counterintuitive. Nonetheless, as mentioned before, the likelihood of the plural being an error (typo) would be much greater if the USGS did not specifically indicate the singular is a variant name.
What is the date of the referenced map? The 2017 USGS map specific to The Windows Section, UT, which appears to be more current than the one referenced, shows "South Windows" (in addition to several other features in the immediate area that not included in referenced map [i.e., the Nose Bridge, Jacks Mummy, Duck-on-the-Rock, etc.]).
As this editor is not specifically familiar with the natural feature in question, is there a possibility of an unknown factor being involved? In the case of the Turret Arch (singular), many of the images clearly show that feature with two openings (arches). Also, keep in mind that an opening is not required for a feature to be an "arch", as exemplified by The Great Arch in Arches sister national park, Zion. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To turn your phrase right back at you, sadly enough, that is almost exactly the type of response that was anticipated regarding your unfamiliarity with the feature. Perhaps you should stick to messing around with categories of items you have familiarity with... Famartin (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
WOW!. . ., but a fully expected comeback.
A valid question was asked, "Not sure where in the world you got plural from?". A reasonable, but obviously un-liked, reply (with substantial supporting evidence [not necessarily "proof"]) was given. When the evidence supporting the opposing assertion weakened, the personal attacks come out.
Nevertheless, Famartin's spirit is admirable (no sarcasm implied or intended), even though the expression of his passion is sometimes fanatical, dictatorial, impedes reasonable discussion, and (as so eloquently stated by him) discourages others from adding to this joyous cyber world of Wikimedia. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Its not an unreasonable request. You have OCD with categories, that much is obvious, since you spend so much time doing it. That's fine, but when someone tells you "hey, you're wrong" and then you throw some bueuracratic website full of errors back at them as your evidence, then don't be surprised if they get annoyed, especially since some of us have actually been there. Anyway, I'm done with you. Enjoy your errors, and glad I don't live anywhere near your turf anymore. Famartin (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Recency is not authoritative: the 2017 map you linked to looks digital, and very well may have been generated from GNIS. Instead, look at the history of the name in the QNIS query itself: the name was part of the Phase I of data compilation in 1979-1981, mostly taken from 1:24000 scale USGS maps. Let's look back at the old topo maps:

Neither the map edition before or just after the data compilation support the plural "South Windows". What I suspect happened is that the combined feature was converted from "North-South Window" to the more grammatical "North and South Windows", and then when the combined feature was split in GNIS, it got incorrectly converted to "North Window" and "South Windows".

For what it's worth, I've been there and there's only one "South Window". You can see from a photograph that there is one "North Window" and one "South Window". — hike395 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

hike395, thanks for the additional insight regarding the actual feature and your reasonable discourse on the matter (and for adding your information to the actual discussion page as well). Had this editor anticipated the (now obvious) resulting controversy brought on by the change (which was based upon what is generally accepted as a dependable reference), it would not have been made.
Your supposition regarding the transition of the name is most likely correct and the opinion is largely (but not entirely) shared by this editor as well. However, since solid references always take precedence over speculations, the verifiable and generally trustworthy source was relied upon. This line of thought was not previously suggested in this discussion, due to prior experience with the other editor involved. The appeal to images was also not included in the conversation in an attempt to prove a negative, because one cannot see what one cannot see and images do not show what they do not show.
Additional note, both of the previously referenced 2014 and 2017 maps (according to maps themselves) were generated from GNIS, 2013 & 2016, respectively. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Locations_along_roads_in_ColoradoEdit

Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stopEdit

I don't think every state highway in Michigan needs a category on Commons at this time. Most of them last images, and those that do probably already have all of their images on Wikipedia articles.

At best, even if you create all of them, please don't add them to the articles unless there's actually extra media for readers to see. If there's only the marker and the old map, that's not helpful. Imzadi 1979  02:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't add a Wikidata Infobox (and all the information that it contains) to a Commons category that does not exist. Furthermore, the best way to see that a category has little media, is to show what it does have. A non-existent category is an unknown, rather than a known lack of media. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I see that some of the categories are empty. Empty categories are subject to deletion. If there is no media in the category, then the Wikidata entry doesn't need a Commons category specified, and there's no need to create an empty category just to have a place to put the Wikidata infobox. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, the categories are only empty because items that belong in them have been removed. An Errant Knight (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Be more careful pleaseEdit

While you are doing some nice work with road cats, please watch out as far as erroneously removing categories. One got deleted because you removed the item within it. That shouldn't happen again to that particular category (I found more stuff to put in it), but still... please keep an eye out for these. Famartin (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If the category deletion in question is in reference to Virginia State Route 329 (SR 329), then the category was not "erroneously" removed.
SR 329 is located within the Virginia Correctional Center for Women. Although the facility is situated very close to the unincorporated community of Maidens (which has a ZIP Code of 23102), according to the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), the facility is located in the census-designated place (CFP) of Goochland (or at least uses Goochland and its ZIP Code of 23063 for its mailing address). The United States Postal Service affirms that the VDOC uses the correct address for the facility. Since areas outside of communities with defined boundaries often utilize the ZIP Code of the nearest (or a nearby) community, the fact that Goochland and its ZIP Code are used by the VDOC does not necessarily establish that the facility is actually located within the boundaries of the CDP. However, since the separate ZIP Code of Maidens is not used by the VDOVC, that does preclude the facility from being located within that community. Therefore, the Maidens category was intentionally removed, but, since the facility could not be confirmed to be within the boundaries of the CDP, SR 329 was left as a state highway in Virginia, numbered 329, and a road in Goochland County.
Glad that you were able to "rescue" the Maidens category through other means. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 01:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

PR-10Edit

Please do not remove roads from the Ponce, PR cat as you did here. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Florida I10wb Ochesee Landing Rd.jpgEdit

Why are you moving a lot of photos from Category:Views from Interstate 10 to Category:Interstate 10 in Florida? These photos already have a Category:Interstate 10 in Florida sub-category. This photo has the category Category:Interstate 10 in Jackson County, Florida. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing Views from X categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "An Errant Knight".