Open main menu

Category:Exteriors of library buildingsEdit

I disagree strongly with your making this a meta-cat and removing files from it without any discussion. Many libraries will have several interior and exterior photographs -- very few will have a separate category for the two. This is clear from the fact that only two remain in the cat.

I count around 160 images removed from the cat, showing around 110 different libraries. Since 160 is a single page load, I see no particular urgency in breaking this category up. It might be logical to add a cats for each of the several libraries that have multiple images in the 160, but otherwise I will probably restore it to the way it was before you began. I would ordinarily ask you to do it, but I can use AWB and do it relatively quickly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, what the hell? Those were exteriors of libraries! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I should have linked the various discussions better. The history (at least my part of it), is as follows: I came across the category a few weeks ago and added a number of images to it. This led User:Skeezik1000 to remove one of the images I had added, and when I asked him about it, the resulting discussion convinced me that it would be better to treat it as a meta category. I marked the category as a meta-cat, and waited a few days to see if anyone objected, then went ahead and removed the images. I now realize I should have, at a minimum, linked the discussion on the category's talk page, and probably added a CfD entry, also. I have no objection to you re-adding the images. Again, sorry for the mis-communication. JesseW (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Beryl Ford CollectionEdit

I disagree with the interpretation that all images from the Beryl Ford Collection, now held by the Tulsa City County Library (TCCL) must be removed from Wikipedia. I am currently working on a response, which I expect to complete this weekend. I think the controversy around these images should be addressed by Wikipedia in more detail. Bruin2 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I hope that they can be kept, too. It's a matter of figuring out the details of how and when they were published, and how that interacts with public domain laws. I look foward to your response. JesseW (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Jesse, I have just posted a response in the Wikimedia Commons at User:Bruin2/Discussion. I hope the location is satisfactory to inform whoever in the Wikipedia organization that needs to read it.Bruin2 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The actual location was User_talk:Bruin2#Concern_about_Use_of_Beryl_Ford_Images_on_Wikipedia. I've copied it to the DR page, and responded there. JesseW (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Goats and blackberriesEdit

This change and others: why wouldn't photos of goats eating blackberry bushes belong in Category:Blackberries? - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the fact that what they are eating are blackberry bushes isn't particularly evident (or important) visually. If we had Category:Goats used for brush clearance and it has subcategories by what the goats were eating, putting Category:Goats eating blackberry bushes into Category:Blackberries would make sense to me, but otherwise, it seems too minor a detail to include it in the category. I won't revert if you want to re-add them, though. JesseW (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons talk:List of meta category criteriaEdit

Hello, JesseW. Are you sure to make the bot work like the search engine? I guess if I do add a %, it might generate a lot of false positives. (example: by area of responsibility would be included in by area). --zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It may make more sense to have the bot work the way you currently have it. In that case, we should add a note to the page so people are not confused by the numbers not matching. JesseW (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok :) --zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


An icon refers to something else, and doesn't really intend to attract attention to itself (but rather to what it refers to). The "Womens-love-vs-mens-love-joke.svg" image conveys a complete message by itself, and so seems to me to be much more like a sign than an icon (though of course it is composed of symbols which can be icons when occurring separately) AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway User:Cathy_Richards seems to agree: -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, that generally makes sense. Thanks for the discussion. JesseW (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Signboard Herculaneum.jpgEdit

Hi JesseW,

Thanks for being interested in my Pompeii and vesuvian sites pictures. I re-added the category "signs" you removed, because this engraved stone is really a "sign", a commercial signboard for an ancient roman shop. But the category you added is very relevant too.

Cheers, --Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I moved it to a subcategory, Category:Shop signs in Italy -- but thanks for insisting that "Inscribed stones" isn't specific enough. JesseW (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Refining valid categories is fine, but don't just remove themEdit

At Category:Big Nazo, you removed Category:Theatre of the United States without replacement. The category was certainly too coarse -- I've now substituted Category:Theatre companies in the United States -- but it was valid. Please, when removing valid, non-trivial categories, try to replace them with more precise categories, or you simply throw away information. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. I felt that the combination of "Vaudville" and "Masks of the United States" conveyed the same information as "Theatre of the United States" -- but it was certainly borderline, and your improvements greatly help. JesseW (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has done a lot of categorization work here, while this isn't a formal rule, you should almost never remove a non-trivial category from a file simply because it could somehow be deduced from the file's other existing categories, unless it is an ancestor of one of those existing categories. (And, of course, if it is a descendant of one or more of the other existing categories, then it's the one that should stay, and the other should go.) Think of it this way: if someone starts at a very broad category and navigates down the hierarchy making choices that would reasonably include this file, then they should eventually arrive at this file. If you find yourself cutting off such a path, then probably you are making a mistake. - Jmabel ! talk 04:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I was in the process of trying to fix up Category:Theatre of the United States, but didn't (at that point) realize it wouldn't still be reachable. JesseW (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


Seems to me that Category:Statues in Seattle shouldn't be under a "monuments and memorials" category. Some of the most famous -- e.g. the Fremont Troll or Noguchi's Black Sun -- aren't monuments or memorials at all. - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I'll go ahead and fix that. JesseW (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
And fixed (I think). JesseW (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Judkins Park, etc.Edit & the corresponding removals of Category:Judkins Park, Seattle, Washington from the photos I took in the park: seems a bit odd way to go about this, since the majority of my photos of that protest are not in the park. How can anyone now sort out which are and which are not? - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ack. I was afraid that might have been the case. Let me revert myself and fix that. I'm thinking to do so by making a subcategory for (~60) photos that are from the park. Thank you again for catching my blundering around in Category:Seattle. JesseW (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I probably have 15-20,000 Seattle photos on here, so as you can imagine I'm pretty deeply engaged in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
And thank you VERY MUCH for the effort and skill of taking them and putting them up! JesseW (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello JesseW, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Guanaco (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "JesseW".