User talk:Smuconlaw

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Smuconlaw!

Here Art=Visual artsEdit

Please do not set up "Visual arts" categories. On Commons "art" = visual art. Other "arts" go under "culture" or sometimes "arts". The category schemes chaotic enough without this new redundant layer. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should raise this for discussion? "Category:Visual arts" seems like quite a well-developed category tree. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you please refrain ...Edit

... from vandalizing the category section of my photos by removing user categories. Thank you. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the image is already in "Category:Quality images of Singapore by User:Cccefalon", it doesn't seem necessary for it to also appear in the parent categories "Category:Images of Singapore by User:Cccefalon" and "Category:Quality images of Singapore". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't mix up Official Categories and User Categories. The responsability for user categories is at the user. Again: Stay back from my user categories. Thank you for respecting. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Variable-message signsEdit

Hi Smuconlaw.

I noticed you reorganized categories about variable road signs and variable-message signs. Thanks for the work. However, several mistakes were made during the changes:

Please, be more careful and attentive especially when you assign mass moves which can depreciate the previous categorization. Fortunately, the Czech signs were not mixed with files from other countries yet, and thus the reverse move was possible.

If I understood the problem, "variable message signs" and "variable message road signs" was used in identic meaning and the duplicity should be fixed (the duplicate categories merged).

An other problem is that you didn't reflect the distinction between "variable-message signs" and "variable road signs" ("variable traffic signs"). Although some devices have both functions, legislation and terminology distinguish devices for variable messages (prevalently texts) from variable road signs strictu sense which display only symbols of standard road signs, not "variable messages". In some countries, the two types of devices are quite differently called and classified. As I can see, the article en:Variable message sign is about the first type, which is called "Zařízení pro provozní informace" (Devices for operational information") in Czech. However, "Proměnná dopravní značka" (Variable road sign) is quite different term ("Variable-message road sign" is not a corresponding term for it because it displays signs, not messages). I think, we should restore the category tree "Variable road signs" for them, even though we should reflect and keep the close relation between the two terms and category trees. Is there any corresponding term and distinction in UK also?

We can crash into the problem that various countries and areas of the world have different traditions of the terminology and classification systems of road signs and some concepts or distinctions can be even incompatible. However, we should try to reflect them as much as possible, even though we should create an universal system.

(Sorry for my poor English - I hope I was at least a bit understandable.) Please, use {{ping}} when answering here. --ŠJů (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonexistent categoryEdit

This and similar edits seem to be moving files into a nonexistent category. If you are going to do something like this, you should create the new category in question. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I had listed the category for renaming at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Got it. When you do that, if you aren't hand-creating the category itself (which is pretty easy to do), it's probably best to hold off on adding it to other images to the new category until the delinker has done its thing (which, in my experience, can be days). - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think I'd better create the category in the future to avoid confusion. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ads on trams vs Trams with adsEdit

Okay, I noticed these changes a few days ago and was planning on ask you for an explanation. I do agree that’s prety much the same, but then again if it is the same, why change what’s already created? Your rationale in renames like this is «To match the parent category.», but which one? All parent categories, before you renamed them, were of the type "Trams with ads" not "Ads on trams". -- Tuválkin 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply here. Need I ask it somewhere else? -- Tuválkin 18:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this comment. The parent category is "Category:Advertisements on vehicles". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure it is. One of the parent categories of "Advertisements on things" (or "Things with advertisements", doesn’t matter) is "Advertisements" and the other is "Things", if you climb the tree high enough. Then what? You cascade changes all the way down again? And a few months later someone else will change it back? Look, there will be unavoidably a branching point where the naming is inconsistent — just let it be. The wisest choice is not to change if the change adds no value and its result is as justifiable as its recyprocal. You, alas, chose poorly — it is doing wonders for your edit count, tho. -- Tuválkin 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are being so snarky. I have no reason to increase my edit count. And I disagree that the change "adds no value" because, as I pointed out in response to a separate comment you made below, by aligning the category tree according to the example I set out, the tree structure becomes more obvious to other editors. Conversely, I fail to see what benefit there is to adopt a different phraseology for certain subcategories. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Vehicles with advertisements vs. advertisements on vehiclesEdit

In my opinion, "vehicles with advertisements" and "advertisements on vehicles" are two different things. The first implies that the vehicle is the main subject of the image (or at least is much more prominent in the image than is the ad), while the latter implies the reverse: a close-up of an ad on a vehicle. The difference is not huge, and it can be debated, but it is significant, and I don't believe that "to match the parent category" is nearly sufficient reason to change the many categories that others have created in cases where it's not clear that the category's current content is predominantly images focussed on advertisements. I am not nearly as invested in this subject as Tuválkin, but I agree that you are moving too fast on category renamings that are controversial. My comments apply to all of the various subcategories of "Advertisements on vehicles", e.g. buses, trams, roof-mounted advertisements, and for different countries, etc. Taking one of the many related Lisbon categories as an example, "trams with roof-mounted advertisements" makes far more sense for nearly all of the images in that category, because the tram, not the advertisement, is the main (or at least much more prominent) subject, not the roof-mounted ad. To me, the new category names in which "advertisements" comes first are misleading for the actual content in some (most? I have not checked) of these categories. Indeed, because "vehicles with advertisements" and "advertisements on vehicles" are different things, I considered created a few subcategories so that both would exist for a few subjects (specific vehicle types in specific countries) that are of interest to me, but I did not do so, as I found that there were too few close-ups of advertisements in the (transit) vehicle categories I was looking at that it was not warranted to create "advertisements on ____ [type of vehicle in specific city]" for it. I just left the "[type of vehicle in specific city] with advertisements" category that was already in place, as that was the logical format for most of the content in the category. But now, you have wiped out most or all of those category names. – Steve Morgan (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this posting by you, even though it is dated 20 September. If indeed there is a difference between "vehicles with advertisements" and "advertisements on vehicles", which I doubt, this was not at all evident because all the "... with advertisements" subcategories had "Advertisements on vehicles" as the ultimate parent category. In any case, I am happy to discuss this in a generalized discussion elsewhere (the Village pump?). I had not thought the category renamings I requested were in the least controversial. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Trams with multiple advertisementEdit

Also, I reverted your speedy of Category:Trams with multiple advertisement. Did you remove any of its content? Because I’m almost sure I didnt create it to leave it empty. -- Tuválkin 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It had two images. One was a tram in Belgium, the other a tram in Lisbon. Is this really a necessary category? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Please put back the Belgian image, I cannot go around cleaning up after you through out the whole planet, Lisbon is big enough. And, yes, it is: One vehicle sporting ads from more than one advertiser — I suppose people researching the history of marketing will find it fascinating, and it fell out of fashion for commuter transport vehicles in the 1980s, apparently. -- Tuválkin 13:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!. -- Tuválkin 13:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] All right, I've done so. Personally, I'm not sure a category for trams with different advertisements on them is very distinctive. I would argue that it's quite common for various types of vehicles such as buses and trains to have different advertisements on them. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop thisEdit

(Edit conflict) Concerning the location of the ad on the tram body, this is not a coin toss matter at the one above:

Replaced category Category:Lisbon trams with full body advertisement with 
Category:Full body advertisements on trams in Lisbon
Replaced category Category:Lisbon trams with roof-mounted advertisement with 
Category:Roof-mounted advertisements on trams in Lisbon
Replaced category Category:Lisbon trams with side panel advertisement with 
Category:Side panel advertisements on trams in Lisbon

This makes no sense at all: Side panels, roof-mounted panels, and tram full bodies — are nearly not identical, let alone superior, to City trams in terms of semantic nexus. And the reason you state, «To match the parent category», is simply false. There was no parent category other than Category:Advertisement on Lisbon trams.

Also you’re changing "City trams" to "Trams in City", against what was previously discussed. Stop it now. Revert everything. Then discuss with other users.

-- Tuválkin 18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think this was controversial. My intention was to bring some coherence to the naming of the categories in "Category:Advertisements on vehicles". For example:
Advertisements on vehicles
Advertisements on rail vehicles
Advertisements on trams
Advertisements on trams in Portugal
Advertisements on trams in Lisbon Renamed by you just now from "Advertisements on Lisbon trams". -- Tuválkin
Roof-mounted advertisements on trams in Lisbon
I'm not sure what you mean by "Side panels, roof-mounted panels, and tram full bodies — are nearly not identical, let alone superior, to City trams in terms of semantic nexus". Neither did I see any earlier discussion – can you point me to it? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You are imposing coherence from top to botton, but why not the opposite? Especially when Lisbon tram material is covered with a dense and (yes!) coherent categorization system, while the top level categories (and most other cities’ categories) are haphazard, scarcely populated, and practically unmantained?
As for the reasons to favor "City trams" vs "Trams in City" — look it up yourself, since you’re the one making the changes. Some of the reasons should be obvious, though, due to the radically different typical “behaviour” of a tram when compared with a plane or a ship.
Finally, if you think that things like "Side panel advertisements on trams in Lisbon" are any way better than "Lisbon trams with side panel advertisement", etc., well I’m not here to try to change you mind. I’ll simply revert it all back. If you do care for consensus, start a discussion about it.
-- Tuválkin 18:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop this, now: "Trams in City" is not better than "City trams", it is actually worse, as was repeatedly explained. You’re not replying in this thread and yet you’re going ahead with the renamings, goading me into edit warring. I wont give you that satisfaction, but I will react, and if you are not available to discuss the collegially for the good of the project now, you will have to respond for disruptive editing later. -- Tuválkin 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I haven't listed anything new for renaming. Those edits are clearly bot edits resulting from earlier requests made before you started this thread. I thought you intended to start a formal discussion somewhere, like the Commons:Village pump? I was waiting for you to do so. And I still don't know where this previous discussion of "Trams in City" v. "City trams" is supposed to be found. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(I’ll take care of the bot edits, then.) The discussion you seek must be somewhere in the talk pages of User:Liamdavies, as I cannot find it where I thought it was. But maybe if you consider something like Category:Former Lisbon trams in Teller County, you’ll see that "City trams" is greatly superior to "Trams in City" (and to "Trams of City") — if you value clear and compact category names. -- Tuválkin 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I generated a list of 46 cats including "trams in Lisbon" in its name, of which 34 were recently renamed by you from "Lisbon trams". If you’re agreeable with this, I’ll change that back, but keeping your preference for the form "advertisements on trams" instead of the original "trams with advertisements". That will avoid false impressions when the whole matter is discussed — not specifically about Lisbon this time, but about any tram system. Please let me know your opinion about this, for I don’t want to enter any edit wars.
There are three more of those, renamed/created not by you, and 8 others which need to use the analytical form "trams of Lisbon", to avoid double adjctive noun — which wold hinder clarity instead of promoting it. That will leave only the main Category:Trams in Lisbon named in the way I object, the fixing of which will follow the wider discussion I plan to (re)start.
-- Tuválkin 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that since the categories have already been renamed, leave them as they are for the time being but start a discussion at the Village pump or in some other more appropriate venue so consensus can be reached on the better naming style. Once consensus has been established, we can tell whether the categories need to be renamed again or not. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be rewarding the elephant-in-china-shop approach, wouldn’t it? -- Tuválkin 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's up to you. It just doesn't seem to be worth the effort to undo all the moves if, following the discussion, they need to be moved again. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Foodstuff = food and drink?Edit

You ordered this: Category:Lisbon trams with foodstuff advertisement to Category:Food and drink advertisements on trams in Lisbon. You better have a good reason to do so. (And «To match the parent category» is only a good reason if the parent category is either undeniably better or, if both are equally good, if it is used in a lot more file pages and categories — and neither is true in this case.) -- Tuválkin 18:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because "Category:Food and drink" appears to be a well-developed category tree, and contains the subcategory "Category:Food and drink advertising", which was already a parent category of the category you refer to. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
What about a Lisbon tram advertising things like flour, starch, yeast, butcher shops, bakaries? Is that food?… Category:Lisbon trams with foodstuff advertisement was meant to mean produtos e serviços da área alimentar, you dig?…
Please note that these subcats were carefully worded to ensure maximum applicability to the items they categorize (now and futurely), based on deep knowledge of the local subject. There is/was a finite number of products and services advertised on Lisbon trams and I made the necessary categories to cover them in a sensible fashion. Lacking a parent category Category:Foodstuff advertisement, I linked Category:Lisbon trams with foodstuff advertisement to the next best, but that’s the weakest nexus, and the one needing a fix.
Your hamfisted, bot-like to-to-bottom approach is unlikely to add value to the categorization of these items and, for me as a fellow user, one with who has deep knowledge of the subject and is not less experienced than you, is most unwelcome.
-- Tuválkin 18:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to be rude. You asked "[F]lour, starch, yeast, butcher shops, bakaries? Is that food?" Yes, I think both cooked and uncooked food falls within "Category:Food and drink". For example, note the following:
Food and drink
Food ingredients
Ground food
SMUconlaw (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Never tried to be rude, just stressing a point. I’m satisfied with this wording then — just hope some busybody wont come around later removing categorization and leaving items uncategorized just because the exact wording of a remote grandmother cat is not a 100% fit for the case at hand. -- Tuválkin 20:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Faculty_of_Law_and_Political_Science,_Aix-Marseille_University has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Superbenjamin (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Smuconlaw".