Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:kennethaw88

WelcomeEdit

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kennethaw88!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Burtis Home 1890s.jpgEdit

Why did you remove the NRHP template from File:Burtis Home 1890s.jpg. Is it a photo of the wrong house? The file is usually tagged even if the category is also tagged. Generic1139 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I had the impression that they are not usually tagged if the category is tagged, then the articles usually are not, for example from this edit. To me, it seems like a parallel to the OVERCAT practices. I'm much newer at the NRHP stuff, though, and don't know all the details/functions of the template, so I will stop removing them if I need to. kennethaw88talk 04:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The upload wizard always tags the individual files. I'll ask on the NRHP project at wikipedia if there is a policy on this. The tag may be used to load files into the database used for a lot of tools, like the monument finder map tool. I don't know if a file's presence in a catagory tagged with the template gets those files added to the DB. For now, I suggest that you don't remove the tags. Generic1139 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've asked, please follow [1]. Generic1139 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was only you. Generic1139 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Contributing propertiesEdit

Unlike at en:wp, where it's possible to have an article about a historic district and to have a separate article about one of the contributing properties, it's virtually impossible to do so here. The issue is the nature of imagery: it's virtually impossible to have an image from an HD that doesn't picture one or more CPs — with a very few exceptions, an image that doesn't depict an HD CP shouldn't be in the HD category in the first place. For example, all 173 images in Category:East Second Street Historic District depict an HD CP in Indiana, and with Category:Courthouse Square Historic District (Bloomington, Indiana), all the images in the category and all three subcategories pertain to CPs, and some of the images in the category depict multiple CPs. I'm familiar with a few images that belong in HD categories but don't depict CPs, but the only ones that come to mind are maps, e.g. File:Bridgewater Historic District map (Pennsylvania).png, and they're extremely rare compared to images of CPs. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

CourthousesEdit

Thanks for all the work you are doing on categorizing the historic courthouses. Awesome! Regards Nv8200p (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places in Atlanta, GeorgiaEdit

I noticed you placed Category:National Register of Historic Places in Atlanta, Georgia under Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fulton County, Georgia. Not all of Atlanta is in Fulton County, it is also in DeKalb County, so not everything that is on the National Register in Atlanta will be on the National Register in Fulton County. --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was in two counties at the time, but I believe it should be placed under the categories for both counties. Right now, navigating Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fulton County, Georgia, there are a lot of buildings missing from that tree because they are only in Atlanta's category, even though they are in Fulton County. Besides, Category:Atlanta, Georgia is in both categories, so it makes sense for the NRHP categories to be parallel. kennethaw88talk 04:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that perhaps there should be NRHP subcats for Atlanta? ----DanTD (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

1881Edit

The description page clearly says that the building was built in 1881 for an institution established in 1886, so I thought you'd misread the description page. Given your clear evidence, I can't give a solid explanation; my best guess is that it's somehow a copy/paste error from some other file. I'll revert myself; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't usually read the descriptions, because there's typically not much there. kennethaw88talk 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places in Lexington, KentuckyEdit

I noticed that you moved the category Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fayette County, Kentucky to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Lexington, Kentucky, when in fact not all NRHP sites in Fayette County are in Lexington. ----DanTD (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Lexington and Fayette County are a consolidated government. Every single listing at w:National Register of Historic Places listings in Fayette County, Kentucky is located within the city limits of Lexington. The map can be found here. For the items on the county list which are not listed as Lexington proper:
  • Athens is within Lexington/Fayette County.
  • Centerville is located in Bourbon County. These four listings are actually in a rural area of Lexington/Fayette County (I checked the coordinates). Centerville is the closest community, and the nominations all say "Centerville vic.", not actually Centerville.
  • Georgetown is located in Scott County, and the New Zion Historic District extends across the border.
  • Ford is located in Clark County, and the James Pettit's Mill is on the border with a rural part of Lexington/Fayette County. Ford is the closest community, and the nomination says "Ford vic."
  • Clintonville is in Bourbon County. The Frederick Shryack House is in a rural part of Lexington/Fayette County, and Clintonville is the closes community. The nomination says "Clintonville vic"
In any case, I only changed the name of the category. It was already within Category:Lexington, Kentucky. kennethaw88talk 02:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

NRHP categories for Chapman Hall, Mount UnionEdit

Hi ... I see that you removed the NRHP categories from Chapman Hall, Mount Union College (Alliance, OH).JPG with this edit. Though the protocol out here for this type of thing aren't very clear, I think those categories are appropriate for the photo because the building is a contributing property to the NRHP-listed Mount Union Historic District. Ideally, there would be photos of other CPs in the district and we could then create a new category that's specific to the HD, place that new category under the categories you removed (as well as 'University of Mount Union') and use the 'Historic district contributing properties in Ohio' category on the Chapman Hall photo (removing the 'UMU' category to avoid COM:OVERCAT).

Regards, --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right that the protocols aren't clear. I prefer to leave categories like that on the categories that encompass the whole district instead of individual files. And (as you can see from my talk page), many of the NRHP regulars tend to disagree with my style of editing and categorization. But I don't really care that much. I'm not going to edit war if anyone reverts my edits. kennethaw88talk 06:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. If you don't care that much, I'm going to reinstate the categories on that photo so it's clearly identified as associated with the NRHP. Happy editing! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit

 

Hi Kennethaw88, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | Українська | +/−

--Ruthven (msg) 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:History of Burlington, VermontEdit

Why did you remove this category from numerous images while adding other cats? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I created Category:National Register of Historic Places in Burlington, Vermont, which is a member of that category. I don't think anything was removed from the history category, only further categorized into the NRHP category. If I did remove any without adding the other category, they certainly should be fixed. kennethaw88talk 04:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Clayton SchoolEdit

Re: this edit, has Clayton School closed in 2015, 2016 or 2017? Because it was clearly operating as a school when I took the picture in 2/2015. — Ipoellet (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on the nomination form and not seeing any label on google maps, but not on any specific evidence it's not used as a school. I sometimes assume that uploaders haven't bothered to check if these types of buildings are current, but if you saw it in use as a school, that's more than I've seen. kennethaw88talk 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpgEdit

  File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Useless workEdit

Hello Kennethaw88, could you please let me know how to avoid this? This picture (and many many others) was categorized already, and now I have to remove a parent category once more. Fransvannes (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There's not a quick and easy way to avoid this. I adjusted the categories of these files using Cat-a-lot, which means I was viewing a category page, and not individual file pages. In these cases, I was on Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 4678999 needing categories trying to clear it out. I moved them in bulk to what I knew was a correct (but not necessarily the most specific) category. I couldn't see if they already had a good category. One way to deal with it is going to the generic category (for example, Category:Amersfoort) and using Cat-a-lot to move them to the specific category. If they are already in the specific category (and therefore double-categorized) they will simply be removed from the generic category. If they aren't double-categorized, they will be moved like normal. Cat-a-lot is useful for doing bulk categorization (in this case, clearing out "panoramio files needing categories"), but isn't useful for individual, specific categorization. Hotcat is the opposite: it is good for getting the correct categories on individual files, but you have to do it one-by-one. Mainly what I was doing was trying to remove unnecessary maintenance categories, even if it sometimes adds an extra category. Overall, most of the files I've done don't already have a good category, generic or specific. kennethaw88talk 17:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I understand this, I have to find out how Cat-a-lot works, since its the only way to avoid useless work. Which means that categorizing is in fact no longer a thing anyone can do. That's sad. Fransvannes (talk)

categorizing the panoramio stuffEdit

Hi Kennethaw88, thanks for working with the panoramio stuff and for doing the categorization. May I give you a hint about the structure of the panoramio bot uploads: there are two categories (alas), that have to be removed when categorizing: Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of __date__ and Category:Photos from Panoramio ID __id__ needing categories: [2] is only half-way done. You can still use Cat-a-lot, but you have to select the files in both categories. Otherwise, someone else will run across the same file again from the other side. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm well aware of both systems. I'm the one who nominated Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of 2017-07-15 for deletion. Right now, I'm just trying to get as many deleted as possible, so for the most part, I'm just using on the ID categories (since they are much smaller). Usually, the date categories tend to be spread out more, so clearing out one ID category might involve looking through 4 or 5 date categories. That makes it a lot less efficient. The best solution is for a bot to clean up, which is what Cewbot did for a while. Unfortunately, someone is determined that that doesn't happen. There really isn't a solution that is always correct, minimizes duplicate categories, and is fast. I'm personally opting for the fast option. kennethaw88talk 00:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree. It would be better to prefer the right option to the fast option. While you are fast, in fact nothing gets done from the point of view of categorizing away the panoramio stuff. Someone else has to do the additional work. If you can use cat-a-lot to move a lot of files to a single target category, what you are doing, then I doubt that there are many different by-date categories. At least that is my experience. So it would be an improvement to open just one of the files removed from the ID category and look at the by-date category. Usually files share a common name format, so you can handle them in bulk with cat-a-lot a second time. Adding the same category twice will result in a NOP. If you are dealing with a set of images from a single user and a single location, you're in the topic, so it is easy to complete work. While somebody else has to think again from scratch. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't over-categorize!Edit

Hi Kennethaw88, in images like File:Papenburg, Germany - panoramio (1).jpg, File:Papenburg, Germany - panoramio (2).jpg, and File:Papenburg, Germany - panoramio (3).jpg I already removed the redundant Category:Papenburg. Unfortunately you added this category again. Please read and respect Commons:Categories. Avoid over-categorization! Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That was almost 3 months ago. I have long since stopped trying to deal with the panoramio backlog. Someone else can do it. kennethaw88talk 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of disambiguationEdit

I note that in a recent edit, you changed "Category:Fisk building (Amarillo, Texas)" to "Category:Fisk Building".

While the Amarillo building may be the only one currently represented at Commons, the name seems common enough that others might show up. A rather quick Google search turned up a Fisk building in Portland, Oregon, that's part of a historic district, so that might be made the subject of a Commons category; and a 1920 Fisk Building in Minneapolis that might wind up in Commons as well.

Insisting on bare-minimum names now, and trusting that we can disambiguate them later, is a potential source of problems. I can all too readily envision a user uploading photos of the Portland or Minneapolis building into the existing Fisk Building category, heedless of the fact that it's in the wrong city. A little disambiguation now will prevent that kind of problem, and keep photos from getting lost in the wrong categories. Ammodramus (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

By all means, disambiguate it. I just noticed that there were two duplicate categories, so I consolidated them. The other category had already existed for 7 years. kennethaw88talk 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Kennethaw88".