User talk:Orrling/archive 04

Archive_04, created 2014-02-02

Previous: Archive 03 Next: Archive 05

Category:Haredi communities in Israel

Aloha! Did you tag the wrong category for deletion? The category is not empty. Regards, Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Please take another look. I think I did empty this cat. Orrlingtalk 06:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Taivo already deleted it. Thanks for your clean up! :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank all of you :) Orrlingtalk 20:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex in advertising

See discussions about the name of this category. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Equestrians

Hi Orrling, you can read my answer on my user talk page. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Cat move requests at CommonsDelinker

Please hold up for a while with the category moving requests. We have a massive backlog due to the bot operator being gone (or something?) and not enough admins are working on reducing the backlog. --Pitke (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is implausible to ask a categorist to slow-down their production, on a sort of activity that revolves around categories; so I'm sad to hear about this sudden helplessness, please take the help that I've been offering time and time again, and if from some reason I still can't receive the move tool for at least my commands then kindly make a(nother) constructive solution but whatever happens- wiki's millions of readers and users cannot pay the price for the unbelievable fact that we had ever thought it'd be a good idea to leave an essential and busy feature of our basic mechanism in the hands of a single user throughout years. instead of walking in circles crazy about that "operator"-'s recess better use the resources that are available, set the bot in action, and not sink into absurdities while plenty of category trees depend on the reparation of incorrect titles and spellings for their perfection, at this very moment. Orrlingtalk 08:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right in many regards concerning what you said, however the backlog still remains massive. I simply had to make sure you were aware of the situation as I haven't been regular on the command list or its edit history and don't know the regulars. In any case we'd be more than happy to have you help with moving files, subcategories and galleries as well as copy the page code content to the new names from existing requests on the list -- admin workload will then be reduced to deleting or redirecting the old names. If you are already doing this, you have my thanks. --Pitke (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

De Putte

I corrected the misclassification. There are two places wich are called De Putte in the province of Antwerp. The commune Putte in the south but also the Belgian part of the Dutch village De Putte. The last is part of the Kapellen commune. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! and good to learn about the Mechelen Putte. Orrlingtalk 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"You are not welcome to disturb. Comments relating to comments posted in your space should be posted in the space where the previous one appears"

Where did you find that rule ?! You seem to invent your own rules on Commons... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this is universally accepted here on Wiki to continue themes where they initially commenced and it's widely preferred to respond on comments in the same space where they were posted, to avoid scattering. Orrlingtalk 17:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In talk pages of articles or categories, yes. When it concerns user talk pages, no. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Transferring or scattering discussions from their central place should normally be avoided, you may reply in your space or ignore and, if needed, post an "I've replied to you" notification on walls of editors in concern. Orrlingtalk 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

TwoWings, I think that among the most experienced contributors here, the usual approach is to keep the discussion in a single place, and if you are worried that the person to whom you are responding might not see it, use {{Tb}} or something else along those lines. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I think it will be better to rename the Jaffa churches in English. What do you say? Another thing, when you move categories please chnage the link in the HE wikipedia. Cheers, Ori (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, are you talking about those categories with "XXX in Giaffa"? Naming them in Italian was indeed a very peculiar choice if you ask me! Of course, please let me forward them to my list of queuing moves (to not cramp the Bot's list) and it will be done, hopefully soon. To your request that I fix links on the Wikipedias, I'm sorry, I don't think this can be on my plate, I'm active on the he:wiki on multiple topics with various edits that are totally separated from my wikiCommons activity and I'm afraid I can't be undertaking an additional list of assignments - on either wiki where I'm active - English, Swedish, French or Hebrew. Thank you very much for the understanding. Orrlingtalk 07:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I named them in Italian ages ago. I'll wait for the change. Cheers, Ori (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Men at work by country

Hi, I respectfully disagree with you modification here [1]. I think the metacat should come first because it is a warning. Regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Meta-cat tags are always placed right adjacent to- and on top of the categories themselves, with regard to the following structure:

1. Usage text,
2. Various category templates,
3. Parents,
4. Interwikis.

The metacat tags essentially hold code info about categories and behave like a category and so separating MetaCat from sister categories would be illogical (and, they are by no mean "warnings", rather an instruction.) Cheers Orrlingtalk 12:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category:Democratic republic of the congo in the 1970s

Actually, the correct name should be Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo in the 1970s. :) Rehman 05:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's right, please fix it. Thanks a lot. Orrlingtalk 05:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ben Reis.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ben Reis.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Blurred Lines 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:David Cubillan.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:David Cubillan.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Blurred Lines 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ike Ofoegbu.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ike Ofoegbu.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Blurred Lines 12:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Views from train windows in France

Hello you had your answer in your comment, indeed the difference between "views from trains" and "views from train windows" is if we have a window between the camera and the exterior. Some old trains don't have windows at all, some other ones have windows that we can open, so that we place the camera through this opening, and in some rare cases pictures can be taken from roof, or from the cabin of the train. The fact that we have a light reflection of the windows visible in the picture can be a good clue to place into the category "from train windows" instead of "from trains". I think it would have been better to open a discussion page in the category before changing it with a redirection, in order to have other opinions. If possible . Thanks! Jeriby (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. I usually have little tolerance to duplications and superfluous/useless branchings in categories but a lot of appreciation to mannered comments like yours. I can't free myself from the feeling that despite indeed having such a generous plethora of possibilities to take photographs from trains, at the bottom point this is not really a distinction that merits annoying our users to extra-click to get what they're looking for for while arguably the default for “views from trains” is always in the sense of "through the window". Having said this, I think it's totally OK to create a sub-category for the images that feature glass reflection, but the title "Views from train windows" won't be apt for this, for the reason mentioned; however I can propose "Category:Views from trains with window reflections". What do you say? Orrlingtalk 09:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed categories from "plant by habit"

¿Is there a reason for what you removed trees, lianas, etc from "plants by habit" category? Do you know what a "plant habit" is, it was a mistake? --RoRo (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This category was an odd, inconsistent duplicate of Category:Plants by behavior that demonstrated lack of basic structure or maintenance and did not quite comply with any existing parent-category scheme and I therefore deduced it was mis-created and turned it to redirect to Category:Plants by behavior. Regards. Orrlingtalk 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Uhm. I don`t know what you refer about with "plants by behavior", but the "habit" of a plant is a category used by botanists, synonim "plant life form", check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_life-form It is not "odd" nor "inconsistent" and there are classifications by plant habit used in botany. By the way where did you take the "plants by behavior" term? --RoRo (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Classification of organisms by behavior (biological and other) is a rather old method here, so I'm not sure I understand your last question. The Habit-classification in the sense that you're advocating is about the growing morphology thus associated with "behavior" in a direct way more than with anything else; in any case, if you pursue to erect a new category you should build it with at least two sorted parent-categories, make sure their intersection (and the content) are distinct and not repeating an existing platform, and if it's also a "by xxx" category it must have a suitable tag. Orrlingtalk 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of the rollback tool

Rollback is for vandalism, misuse of the tool in future could see your rollback permission revoked. Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's unfair to address the particular matter in the link like that. The user appeared to engage in nonsense edit(s) of the "check-editors'-limits"-type. Orrlingtalk 09:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sortkey

Hello Orrling,
I saw that you worked a lot on sortkeys.
You have to know that taxon categories have some rules about sortkey.
For example on Category:Laridae:

• Taxon categories should have no sortkey => be sorted by their taxon name (e.g. for Laridae, they are sorted by Genus name)
• Non taxon categories should have non alphabetic sortkey => Laridae eggs should not appear under L nor E
  (The reason is that we want to sort the taxons as we are in a taxon category, not the additional categories)
  (The second reason is that the additional categories follow no naming conversions: 'Taxidermied Laridae', 'Laridae anatomy‎', 'Seagulls in art' or 'Laridae (juvenile)‎'. You can feel that there is no logic)
  • As for what sortkey they should have, there is no rule, but more a general habit:
    • In the past 'Laridae eggs' would have had sortkey "*eggs" or "*Eggs"
    • Today 'Laridae eggs' has more often a sortkey " Eggs" or " Laridae eggs" (my preference)
      (The reason is that "*" does not really mean anything when " " displays nothing particular. "?" is for unknown subcat)
      (The reason for my preference is that as the naming follow no rule, why take 'Taxidermied', 'anatomy' or 'juvenile' as sortkey. What sortkey will you use for 'Seagulls in art'. So I prefer space+the whole name of the category)

But the only rule is: 'Laridae anatomy‎' should not have an alphabetic sortkey.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of your notes are unfortunately rejected:

• It doesn't matter at all whether a category is a "taxon" category or a category about Ronald McDonald, we display its subcategories in a universal way as much as we can and you can't arrange them in an exceptional or incorrect way. - as a start, subcategories that are "by xxx" (like "Laridae by location‎") form a top-group sorting of their own apart from non-"by" subcategories.
• Subcategories that are dedicated to the nature of the media files and not to the behavior of the topic itself - like "Xxx in art", "Videos of xxx" or "Remote views of xxx", also get a separate off-alphabetic sort-group, preferably one or two below the very top one (that is, not " ", but optionally "*" or "+").
• Words that appear after the "|" for sorting designation should be capitalized, therefore you can't use, for example, "Xxx|eggs", it needds to be "Xxx|Eggs"
• Subcategories describing characters of the topic itself (like "Cats on roofs") appear by the alphabethical default of the thematic variable ("Cats by setting|Roofs"), which creates the visual array of ABC-entries; and generally not as head-groups. Head-sorting (non-alphabetical) is only for non-thematic subcategories. "Unidentified" entries, on the other hand, receive a bottom-list sorting: like "~" or (my introduction) "•".
• In some zoological categories, I noticed that the "Juvenile" entry tended to appear high-up --- this is fair; however it then requires its distinct thematic sorting and "Laridae anatomy‎" and "Seagulls in art" obviously can't be mixed together. Having no logic in sorting is not an option here as we aim foremost at end-users' navigation and orientation.

All the best Orrlingtalk 19:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Orrling here, their approach is certainly the way we've done it and the way we aim for. --Pitke (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ben Reis.jpg

File:Ben Reis.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

JuTa 20:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

File:David Cubillan.jpg

File:David Cubillan.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

JuTa 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ike Ofoegbu.jpg

File:Ike Ofoegbu.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

JuTa 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your images at Commons:DR

User:Blurred Lines has frequently displayed problems with image tagging at en:wp; see his talk page over there and the warnings that several admins (including me) have given him. I've voted to keep all of the images in this batch (both your uploads and others'), saying basically that Blurred Lines can't be trusted on this unless we have independent evidence to corroborate his allegations. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you for this, as I see it only the "voting" itself is a ridiculous waste of resources for anyone because it in-fact confirms that my images ever needed to be voted about; at the same time however I suppose that this person is doing his job the way he perceives is best for us all, can't believe there's any bad intention there. Personally I'll never decypher how and why just these three basketball players out of tons I uploaded attracted the "permission" allegations. Orrlingtalk 02:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Without any "keep" votes by me or by anyone else, the images ultimately would have been deleted, since they'd be uncontested deletion requests; we get little enough input on many nominations that we generally close a deletion request as "delete" if nobody comes along with a comment. A "keep" vote is precisely what you say it's not: it's a statement that the image didn't need to be voted on, and it says that the nominator shouldn't have nominated it. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK if so, good job :) Orrlingtalk 02:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Category sorting

Mediawiki has been updated capital letters are no more required. Bye--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Only capitals should be used after the "|" sign – this is for the legibility of other editors and this is how we do across on Commons, please adhere to this. Orrlingtalk 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Users_by_technology

Users by technology 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Cities and villages

Hello Orrling. Category:Cities and villages in France, unless renamed, exists. So it seems common sense to be in Category:Cities and villages, or Category:Cities and villages by country. To keep consistent, it is more convenient to undo your renamaing and have a Category:Cities and villages, than renaming the 100,000s of categories Cities and villages under. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the situation with the "Cities and villages" sub-tree at Commons has been determined already, in an open discussion where I evidently was only one of the participants, and the decision to eliminate the awkward, inaply-named "Cities and villages" was accordingly carried out 2 weeks ago by another volunteer basing on that majority, essentially seeing "Cities and villages" and "Populated places" as synonimous. I don't think that your decision to restore that cat is helpful in any grade. You obviously understand that "Category:Cities and villages in France" will sooner or later move to Populated places in France to pursue consistency while its parent category:Cities and villages by country is already placed next at this moment at the Bot to merge also... Renaming the plenty of categories under Cities and villages" is not an issue once we have decided about the merger; this, however, is retaining back the duplication. Orrlingtalk 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just what I see is that this decision was taken more than 1 year ago, and I now doubt that all subcategories will be renamed one day... We risk to live in this unconsistency of category names for long, unless we admit that this decision was taken maybe too quickly. Sorry to be a maniac of consistency . It is just my very small advice to point out that, let's wait and see, but I do hope that bots will rename all these subcategories quickly. Jack ma (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the long delay is administrative rather than technical. You should not be doubting the capacity of the Bot(s) moving tons of content daily, and suggesting that this decision was taken too quickly is somewhat invalid basing on that long history; maintaining a straight duplication, after the move has been accomplished, sadly can't be an option. Orrlingtalk 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Black and white photographs of women

Category:photographs of women is under Category:photographs of females like hundred other similar categories so please let Category:Black and white photographs of women under Category:Black and white photographs of females and all women category under its females category. The category tree is a search tool ad must must be consistent--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest example of inconsistency

Hi. As you can see I've recently been combatting the influx of "females" intermediate-categories in the Arts tree, and I do so for the reason that these creations come in as a pure nonsense surplus when having the sole purpose of sustaining the same-topic existing "women"-subcats being often the only child; as you may notice, in areas like portraits, classic paintings or photography female models are overwhelmingly women. The few occurrences of girls as models are unequivocally eligible within the women parent. There's an enormous inconsistency caused by "female" entries listed in many events as equivalent to "Men" in a given people category (-since you evidently only create "Females" and not "Males"). I check very carefully before reducing a "Female" category to its "Women" kernel since coherent navigation and consistency are my guiding principles. "Females" and "Women", being synonymous in most aspects of artwork sorting on Commons, don't justify the automatic split creating an altogether amazingly useless extra-level-just-for-the-level, and I unfortunately can't let that one be created to only hold the other where it clearly serves no tangible goal. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 11:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What to discuss about? You redirected this category Category:Females in art by activity where had to be 9 categories already created (not by me); so instead of simply looking in the Category:Women in art by activity subcategories an discover how many subcategories of Category:Females in art by activity (the nine above) were. Now please do not tell me "I check very carefully". Moreover redirecting a category to a sub category is illogical and we have this criteria Category:Girls. Picture of girls or old women must not stay in women categories. If you want to discuss this criteria please stop to undo my work and open a general discussion or try to nominate a female category for deletion so we will see who is in the right.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See. You might be doing a tidy and precise job with individual files but with categories you make tons of mistakes and problems. By this only for the minor example you've ignored all the principles summarized here on your talkpg 3 weeks ago. I think you are doing a generally very careless job in your categorization. Stating that categories of old women shouldn't be in womens categories reveals that you intend to yet brace your superfluous-category activity by creating more and more mini-subcats that don't really have any sense or use, please avoid it; I don't mind opening a Village Pump discussion but please stop your "Female"/"Women" categorization untill this matter gets resolved. Orrlingtalk 16:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unknown and Unidentified

Please note that here we use Unknown for absolutely not known and unidentified for still not identified here in commons. I don't like this choice because it's very confusing so if you want to open a general discussion I'll support it, but in the meantime please do not create redirect please. Them generate more mess over.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK Orrlingtalk 15:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola Irish flags

The reason I added the explicit "both the country of Ireland and Northern Ireland" note to Category:Nuvola Irish flags is that the Four Provinces flag represents the entire island of Ireland, not just the Republic. Likewise, the traditional province of Ulster covers territory currently divided between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we don't maintain subcategories for both entities together, since our flag sorting is primarily by country and not by geography; I solved it by tagging that flag in both categories, Ireland and UK. Orrlingtalk 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I disagree with the political rather than geographical categorization, but just wanted to make clear why I explicitly used the geographical definition of "Ireland" for that category. It does seem odd though to list the Four Provinces flag as "subnational flag" for both the Irish and British categories; I've moved it to the main British and Irish flag categories. I also added Category:Nuvola subnational flags of Ireland to the Ulster flag, as the term "Ulster" is also used to refer only to the three counties in the Republic that are part of the traditional province of Ulster (for example by ISO). SiBr₄ (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK good work. (Though Category:Nuvola subnational flags of Ireland can probably be deleted as it won't have more than a single image...) Orrlingtalk 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It may contain more files if Nuvola flags for the other three traditional provinces are created. I don't know whether such files will ever be used though. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If usefulness is a question, then what are all the Nuvola-type icons hosted here for... Orrlingtalk

Well, some of the national flags are used for infoboxes or as WikiProject/portal/stub images on several wikis. Most subnational/territorial Nuvola flags were in fact made by me before I started wondering whether they would be actually used. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Orrlingtalk 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Modern movement"

The phrase "Modern movement" is virtually content-free to anyone who doesn't already know what it means, which is why the architectural categories that deal with it should have "architecture" in them, as in "Modern movement architecure". Please don't move it again without getting a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Orrling_in_File:Old_City_of_Accre_02.jpg

You had begged for it. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? I request you to avoid harassing the media on this project for no reason, people put a lot of thought on their contributions; this isn't nice, isn't respectful and isn't rewarding for you to remove uploaders' valid text from images Orrlingtalk 11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Men by country by occupation

Should Category:Men by country by occupation even exist? Do you have a problem if I move all the files to Category:Men by occupation by country and delete it? HelenOnline 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by the opposit names of these two cats, they are the reverse meaning of one-another. So how can they be conflated?.. "Men by country by occupation" has all merit to exist, because this is the cat listing men by country sorted by their occupation, as much as "Men by occupation by country" is a list of men by occupation sorted by their country. These are mirror-cats. Please see Category:Languages by occupation and Category:Occupations by language. Orrlingtalk 15:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just as well I asked. HelenOnline 15:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Male bandleaders by country

Hello. Please note that this category is not empty as you claimed in your speedy deletion tag. It does have a tree of subcategories with several files. If you still think all these should be deleted, please start a regular deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I probably missed the one item that populated that cat. Fixed, and now indeed empty. Orrlingtalk 13:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revenge-motivated reverts

If your goal is to prove to other people what an obnoxious person you are, then you appear to be doing a pretty good job of it. Meanwhile, I don't see any "closing" of Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:National flag of Palestine... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You probably understand thing on Wiki in an incorrect way. This is not a nice sight. Try to calm down, and understand that no one chases you. The discussion that has opened about Category:National flag of Palestine has been inactive for about 3 months with - tragically for you - clear support for the original nominating cause. I wasn't doing anything exceptional. We move with the discussion's guiding light. What revenge are you in about? Orrlingtalk 05:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The extremely obvious fact that you only started in on this round of your endless revert war in response to my comments on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎. The whole thing does not cast a very positive light on some of your working methods and personality characteristics (in fact quite the reverse). As for the category discussion, you attracted one (1) supporter who did not have cogent replies to certain points, which does not suggest an overwhelming consensus... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have forgotten to take your daily pill, mister. Your personalizing style indicates everything possible about yourself and nothing about others. You appear to believe you're very special and people associate 'you' across topics on Commons. I have my universal continuous projects here, don't know about you. Here we come to work voluntarily and push things in their better shape, collaboratively, what you seem to be opposing just by strangly refusing to end the Palestine flag issue. A pity, but not pressing for me. Orrlingtalk 13:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You knew very well that I was commenting on the file-renaming kerfuffle at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎, and then all of a sudden you "coincidentally" re-open the National flags edit war after three months (in your usual high-handed and arbitrary manner, without bothering to consult with anybody about anything)? Forgive me if that slightly strains credulity... AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly for you, and tragically also, I do not have an interest in you in a way that would make me remember what you're commenting on and where and when. This can encourage you to look for better-echoing addresses for your crappy credulity assumptions :). Contrary to popular belief nobody owes you anything, surely not editors here, beyond colleagial editing . You're exposing a very awkward and rather halucinatory dimension of yourself, and unpleasant as it is, I don't have anything with you yet. When I edit that's because beyond your obstracting elbows there's many millions of readers who desereve this project's product, and I've been doing this for them long before you ever possibly "commented on file-renaming kerfuffle". As a side note, since you raised it albeit fantastically out of context, take into consideration that if you troll a COM:AN topic (that one you were pointing at is probably not related to you) you generally won't be very respected around here on Wiki. I'm sad for you for living with a belief that I have means or interest to follow your identity. How about this? 29 October, vindictiveness too? ;) Orrlingtalk 11:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Двухслойный трафарет.jpg and File:Трафарет однослойный.jpg

The reason to keep these files in the category Category:Graffiti stencils, is to keep related files together, as they show the 'before' and 'after' when using a stencil. best regards --JotaCartas (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. You can go for it, but include a note in the desc box that clarifies the affiliation to that category. Orrlingtalk 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Stencil_graffiti_by_country

Stencil graffiti by country 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!

JotaCartas (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Diaspora and emigration

Hiya. I was intrigued by these few edits (one appeared as a reversion notice in my notifications bar). I am all for consistency, but would we not think that (for example) the diaspora categories should in some way be related to the emigration categories? (Diaspora of X are diaspora of X because they or their forebears emigrated from X. Perhaps there should be intermediate categories to more loosely associate the diaspora with the emigrants, but I'm not sure disassociating them entirely is the right path. Not if "consistency" is the only goal/issue.) Are you in the middle of a broader review of those categories? In which you are already planning to "re-associate" them in a different manner? If not, I'm inclined to suggest that we find some way of re-associating them. Guliolopez (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Working on it ;) Orrlingtalk 22:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

'disputed territories'

Please provide a reason not to revert your changes from the neutral Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements to the non-neutral Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements in disputed territories. The term 'disputed territories' is only used by the Israeli government and pro-Israel advocacy groups such as CAMERA, NGO Monitor etc. Are you aware of that ? Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories would also be neutral given that 'occupied territories' is standard/common term, but Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements in disputed territories is without doubt non-neutral. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As you are certainly aware, you can't use a general term like "Israeli settlements" for a category dealing with specifically the settlements in the occupied areas because "Israeli settlements" (the category you attempted to create, which was soon reverted) hints at "Settlements in Israel" i.e any municipality of Israel. This ambiguousity is declined and is in any case settled by the title "Maps showing Israeli settlements in disputed territories". However, if you reject the term "disputed" you can move it to Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories, which is as good as far as I'm concerned. Still, when renaming the cat you'll have to migrate all the parents from the original page to the destination, and not only one of them ;) otherwise the new category will be seen as miscreated. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 10:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand but my categorization was no accident. 'Settlements in Israel' and 'w:Israeli settlements' are mutually exclusive sets. A defining feature of 'w:Israeli settlements' is that they are beyond the Green Line, outside Israel. There are no 'Israeli settlements' in Israel, by definition. Several things follow from this fact/unfortunate terminology, one of which is that the categorization of settlements is in a pretty poor state and needs cleaning up. For example, Category:Settlements in Israel includes Category:Populated places on the Golan Heights and Category:Community settlements in Judea and Samaria District among others that refer to Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line miscategorized as being in Israel. Regarding Israel's municipalities, they extend into the occupied territories, so settlements in 'any municipality of Israel' does not equate to 'settlements in Israel'. Another example, 'Settlements in Israel' in not a valid parent category for 'Maps of municipalities of Israel' if 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' (with or with occupied or disputed in the name) is included as a subcategory. I could go on...

Regarding the name 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' rather than 'Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories', it was deliberate choice. There is no real need to say that they are in occupied territories. They are all in the Israeli occupied territories and the parent category included that term. This was partly to avoid the usual needless nationalist tug of war over language I'm all too familiar with in Wikipedia.

Regarding "when renaming the cat you'll have to migrate all the parents from the original page to the destination". Not quite. I need to migrate valid categories and drop the rest.

• Category:Israeli settlements in occupied territories| - This is the valid parent category that I assigned to 'Maps showing Israeli settlements'.
• Category:Maps of municipalities of Israel|~ - Not assigned because these are not Maps of municipalities of Israel
• Category:Maps of disputed territories|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not Maps of disputed territories.
• Category:Maps of the Golan Heights|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not exlcusively maps of Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights.
• Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not exclusively maps of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.
• Category:Maps of the Arab-Israeli conflict|Israeli settlements - I don't recall whether I assigned this one to 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' but I agree it is a valid parent cat.

I hope this clarifies things a bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your proposal is declined. The cat can either stay in it's very well-maintained long-prevailing adequate status or equally move in-one-piece to Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories or any name that will preserve the disambiguousity. Not All Wiki end-users (far less than you apparently assume) are fluent in the Arab-Israeli terminology. That the parent category is "Israeli settlements in occupied territories" doesn't mean the category itself is exempt from being clear on what it's concerning. The word "settlement" is an imperfect term that may mean any populated place that was once settled, see Category:Settlements. Therefore "Maps of settlements", for instance, doesn't suggest a direct throwaway at "Maps of settlements in occupied territories", does it? It isn't the English Wikipedia here and you can be quite assured that we regularly work to adjust factual and plain-neutral titles to categories to just prevent those familiar en:wiki tugs of war; that is contrary to deliberate samantic choices like the one you just admittedly made that potentially leave many of our readers mixing terms innocently. Category names can't have ambiguousity. Just because we can't allow ourselves to be like en:wiki we shouldn't welcome 'adjustments' from fuller term to shorter term in areas where it might provoke confusion sustained by the assumption that "there is no real need to say that they are in occupied territories" as if what is obvious to one is obvious to others.

The category's parents are all valid. "Maps of municipalities of Israel": While we seem to agree that these settlements are not in Israel they are indisputably to some extent under Israeli jurisdiction and qualify for containment in the Israeli demographics tree as irregular entries, as they factually are. "Maps of disputed territories": The maps we're dealing with are maps of areas of past and present dispute and removing this tag is an absurdity. "Maps of the Golan Heights" and "Maps of the Palestinian territories": Israe's occupied territories straddle Syria's Golan Heights and Palestine's West Bank (and to some level Gaza too) so maps of Israeli settlements in occupied territories are most relevant under both these cross-parents.

From this point, if you still disagree with the above you can start a discussion on the category's talkpage and attract more views through the Village Pump. Let me know. Regardz. Orrlingtalk 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To both (thus including @Sean.hoyland: ). Does "Israeli settlements" mean that it's about settlemtns patronaged by, or promoted by, or endorsed by, the Israeli government? Or it's simply about people only from Israel or only Israelian citizens? If the answer to all these questions is "no" then the category should be only "Settlement in the disputed territories" (as a matter of fact they are known also in Italy as "disputed territories"). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"This is not a nomination this is a deletion command"

We are not your dog. If a cat is not yet empty, we decline the nomination - Jcb (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Orrlingtalk 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Can you give me an explanation to your request for moving Category:Convoy of 35 on CommonsDelinker? The Wikipedia article is at Convoy of 35 not "Convoy of the Thirty-Five". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is showing along with the entry at the category move list. If you question requests for any established reason (aligning category names with article-names on the en:wiki generally isn't such) you can drag them down below the "Category moves to be discussed" subtitle (and state your reason for discussion) but you can not delete them from the page. Orrlingtalk 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the information page for naming categories is merely a proposal for a guideline or policy page, and that there has been unclear information on the current practices or policies of Wikimedia Commons for proper category names, I think it best these categories warrant discussion and at least some mention of the naming schemes of other wikis, including English Wikipedia, to guide how Commons structures its content. I have moved the request down to the appropriate section as a courtesy, however the notice at the top of the page was very clear to me. I would not trust a bot to determine what is considered controversial or not, that's up to the community and consensus to decide. The header at the top of the page at the time of writing this says, in no uncertain terms:

No controversial name changes. All moves have to follow the language policy. Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language—even if that is the official name used there)...If you challenge a request added here, please simply remove it and kindly inform the requester of your reason for doing so. Invite the requester to open a formal request using {{move|new name}} or COM:CFD to discuss the requested name change. Consider notifying the requester even if the request is unsigned—determine who the requester is by looking at the page history.

I have thus followed this instruction to the letter, regardless of what you may think of it. I also think it best practice to discuss something before making a large move request to a bot we can't reverse and may regret. As a show of good faith, I've already moved most of the requests you listed on that page as deemed uncontroversial, which you can see for yourself through my contributions history. But if something can be controversial, it needs greater discussion at CFD, not just here.

Yes, I would very much appreciate a proper link to the consensus or policy page that says this is the case, before making a judgment on it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed, the header you just quoted here was by mistake not modified upon the introduction of the "Category moves to be discussed" procedure in about last October, which abolished the pattern of removing entries from the page when challanging them and has since proved to be a collaborative and respectful method of working out questioned commands centrally. Thanks for following that procedure now, and sorry that you were misled by the older notice (a result of a longer-time mess and absence of bot operation). To just make sure things aren't perceived incorrectly, I, and probably any other editor of my scope of activity, are in no need of "courtesy" by having things done the right way and using one's bot to carry out productive renames is definitely not a show of good faith but is a common procedure here, while of course I agree with your comment about generally striving at being sure that a move is right before performing it. The hundreds of moves I'm responsible to throughout the recent years confirm though that if I've posted an entry on that list it's most probably the more correct/preferable/consistent nameform. Orrlingtalk 02:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! You've assured me through the volume of work you've done you know better about how to name the categories than I do at least. We can request removal of those instructions at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/en if you so choose, to prevent future misunderstandings. And sorry if I offended you in any way, looking back, my comment may have came across as accusative and I did not mean it by that. I will still suggest "Lamed Hey" as an alternative category name, perhaps appropriate as a category redirect, but if you still insist the point I will find time to move it to "Convoy of the thirty-five" (is thirty five hyphenated? capitalized?) as you find appropriate. Oh, there was also one issue I almost forgot to mention, one of the subcategories contains a number inside that might not be an appropriate Commons category name, how do you suggest we pull it out if we should? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not attended the subcategories until this moment.. Consistence might need to be pursued, thus: If leaving the parent cat as Category:Convoy of 35, that subcat will preferably be Category:Graves of the convoy of 35, if renamed as Category:Convoy of the thirty five >>> Category:Graves of the convoy of the thirty five, and in case we end up renaming it as Category:Convoy of the Lamed He >>> Category:Graves of the Lamed He. Please note that "Lamed Hey" is in any case wrong, because the transcription should be as Lamed He (or Heh), but not "Hey" (as per English Wikipedia itself...). I must leave this computer now, so the next time I'm on a comp (which might be late night) I'll contribute further. Orrlingtalk 03:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment on my objections: I have moved dozens of categories listed as entries on that page for quite some time, most of which were listed by you or DenghiùComm. However, I've had at least one user object to one of my category moves, so I want to be careful this time around whether to perform a move or not, and whether the community agrees with it. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, and why I repeatedly ask for a little clarification before starting on another category page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:File renaming

I just opened a discussion on the generic concerns on Commons:File renaming at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:File_renaming. Please share your opinions too if any. I see some merits in renaming; but concerned on some side effects too. Hope we people can arrive into a gentleman agreement. ;) Jee 09:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Forest4.jpg‎

I note your recat of this file from Category:Men with black skin to Category:People of Black African descent and your elimination of the former category. Although the latter may be more PC, how do you know that this man or any other is of African descent? Although we are all ultimately descended from black Africans, that was a long time ago and now there are many people with black skin who are not from Africa -- Melanesians, Maoris, Australian Aboriginals, etc.

Making assumptions about descent is tricky -- we have a Bishop who just got her DNA tested, and although you would put her in Category:People of Black African descent, the largest group of here ancestors are Scandinavian. Better, I think to categorize observable facts rather than making assumptions that may be wrong on this difficult subject. It seems to me that Category:Men with black skin may not be PC, but it is observable. It's certain that the first time you put a Maori in Category:People of Black African descent, you'll get an angry complaint..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not PC-guided, ever! That category shifting you point at was not directed by that kind of consideration (-and I'm pretty horrified by the idea that anyone possibly does pursue it when categorizing on Wiki). So don't be mistaken, I was led by the primary notion of «black skin» being simply a near-implausible classification trait, lexically; any person you'd commonly refer to as having a "black skin" namely quite rarely has a skin with that colour, pointing at that such a tag is first and foremost subjective and relative rather than absolute and my sole point is applying the more objective tags and harmonizing as much content with this understanding. You are very correct that I in the above specific case introduced an assumption (=that was my only tool provided no factual data) and about the trickiness in overall trying to categorize people when actual ethnicity is unknown. Eliminating "Wo/Men with black skin" had nothing to do with sentiments, it was only the straighforward understanding that "black skin" is an incorrect grouping method, so you can see in my recent work I did also find several Pacific portraits. Obviously I could mistake any figure that doesn't have enough details. Thanks very much for this accurate comment, do assist in suggesting ways for improving observable and objective categorization mechanism when data is scarce. Do you think "Category:People with darker skin" should be created? I would have no problem with this. Orrlingtalk 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the PC assumption -- we see too much PC in the real world. One of my hot buttons is the use in much of the American media of "African-American" as a description of anyone with dark skin. As I noted above, "African" is not always correct, and, of course, neither is "American" -- even if the person is in the USA they might well not be a citizen or even resident here.

The current terminology in use in my circles is "People of color" or "black". Most people that I know who fit the category call themselves "black". I don't have a good answer for the question -- clearly we need a category, as many potential off-WMF users look for images of people with particular complexions. Perhaps this needs a discussion at the Village Pump. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jewish_community_of_Thessaloniki

Jewish community of Thessaloniki 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!

Kimdime (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Animals.jpg

For your information: a user listed this as potentially unfree at w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 17#File:Animals.jpg, although he didn't say why he thinks that the image is unfree. However, I do not see anything problems which would make the file unfree. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:White_people_of_Africa

White people of Africa 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White_people_of_Kenya

White people of Kenya 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White_people_of_South_Africa

White people of South Africa 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White_people_of_Zambia

White people of Zambia 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White_people_of_Zimbabwe

Category:White_people_of_Zimbabwe 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sex_in_humans

Sex in humans 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!

Kijand (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you there?

I've noticed you used to arrange lots of categories in Commons and seems as you've been gone for quite a while... Did you quit? Yuval Y § Chat § 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I only log in to the Commonssphere once a month (every 1st) now since suspending my donation in February facing this failure, to just see if there is any important change made such as the restoration of my editorial rights - As I've quite clearly indicated in that thread (which you've all obviously read and which followed this) those latter had been central to my Commons contribution and so I will not resume my activity here before those rights are returned to my toolkit completely and thoroughly. If one wants a responsive attention from me there's clearly several off-wiki ways to do so as this one space is not attended over the month. Orrlingtalk 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'd read and do my best. --Yuval Y § Chat § 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Geez... I feel like i'm in a disaster area. Seems as things got totally over the edge and I saw no actual reason that the moving tool had been taken from you. I've returned you the mover ability and I hope you'd return to your activity. I've sent you an email, based on the address you wrote at the bureaucrat, and I hope it would work. Reply when you will. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn, that's awesome. I'm impressed, thanks bigtime Orrlingtalk 18:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's only two of the files I should yet recover back with their names which for some reason failed (=due to the auto-generated redirects, and you do realize that this is the issue my campaign went all about from the outset..) so I was like compelled to leave a silly gap between the name and the .jpg suffix, in case you have the right permissions for fixing them these are File:Philly .jpg and File:Two men .jpg (need to remove the little space before the dot), lol Orrlingtalk 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I notified you back to your e-mail :) החזרתי לך נוטיפיקיישן במייל... איך הצלחת לעשות את זה! Orrlingtalk 18:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been indeed, a disaster area back in last December. Where were editors like you then... and you're even an Israeli :-D
איפה היית לפני שנה שלמה - אין לך מושג כמה מתסכל זה היה, אבסורד מוחלט! Orrlingtalk 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I'm glad I could help you . I personally prefer choosing less generic names, but as far as I checked that's not an obligation. Next time, If you need anything it would be simpler if you'd write me in my talk-page. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

אין לך מושג... --Yuval Y § Chat § 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanxxx.. hope there will be no reason 4 dat. Ye I should be getting to the old category work soon tomorrow. though it appears I will at first refrain from uploading new images, for a month during which zero acts of rename trolling onto the current upload portfolio should occur. Too traumatizing. Gonna call ya haha. Orrlingtalk 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

גדול :-))) מגניב שאתה כאן ומצאתני, הטיפול שלך רב-ערך עבור מיליוני המשתמשים של וויקי Orrlingtalk 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hands_of_politicians

Hands of politicians 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!

BrightRaven (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Orrling. Jee 16:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... Orrlingtalk 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Filemove tool again

Hello, You have moved files again against policy. Therefore i removed your file mover permission again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not moved any file against policy, making up things is against the Wiki spirit and is not a nice thing to look at; I have recovered self-uploaded files into their original, legit names, after they were moved against policy about a year ago. I surprisingly managed to now finally fix these files perfectly without even needing to ask any assistance in deleting the obstructing redirects. This is a very good thing, and so, I would ask you to kindly reinstate the file mover permission as it was, so I can go on with my work when it might be needed. Orrlingtalk 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

All filemoves are against policy, you know that verry well from the last COM:AN/U discussion. FYI: COM:AN/U#User:Orrling --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, sadly you might be misinterpreting the events - if you even actually followed them at all when they occurred, back in last December. Making up things is NOT a nice thing to do here on Wiki. We work with one-another in collaboration and sensitivity and no personal harassment is accepted. Obviously no abuse was recorded by me, I was retaining some original filenames that had been vandalized, you should know the events. Of course the title of your post here is one that intends to create a pseudo-reality, and you should explain to yourself and to all of us why you're acting in this manner; we have a rename policy on here on Wiki, it seems to work - I have been very happy with it. I am a friend of policies. Last year that policy was straightforwardly abused by someone who overnight swooshed over 16 of my uploads into other "names", stating false and laughable reasons for each such deed - please view the history of this issue so you learn; and now eventually I, backed with the clear understanding that a donor's say about his filename (as long as not contradicting our policy) is not denied, got things recovered to my full liking in the fashion that enables me to continue to volunteer here happily, and this is all thanks to lately regaining the mover tool that had been illegitimately-revoked in the heat of last-year's campaign; I am very thankful to the admin who recently returned to me this permission, you should also thank him and not say things EVERYONE reading this knows to be untrue. Orrlingtalk 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

18:16, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File talk:View of Akko from the south.jpg to File talk:Akko.jpg (O:) (revert)
This discussion is going nowhere. See the example above, clear abuse of of filemove right. Please don't play the system. It is not possible to restore your rights without community consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that. I have the impression you are not reading the responses you are getting. I have the impression you did not actually follow the links you were given in my responses here. Last year these files which I had donated on Commons were renamed in what was mostly a patent clear violation of our renaming policies and codes-of-conduct, and it was done as a personal harassment. I now have recovered the files, two days ago, believing this was the most natural thing one would do once that I regained my long-good-serving mover right, and this enabled me to contribute here again. My recent use of the mover tool was a regular 'undo' to an abuse from a year-old spree of vandalism directed at me. Have you questioned that person's use of his/her mover tool, which I now have successfully undid, or are you for some reason questioning only mine? Orrlingtalk 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You fail to show how possibly any of my recent moving actions is against any policy. I'm listening. You fail to show how and by which standard(s) you as an administrator decide to confront my pure filename reversal moves while not confronting the moves on same files by the other user last year which I have now undone. I'm listening. Orrlingtalk 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, please do not try to be cute. If you don't know what you did wrong with the recent file moves, you only prove you should not have filemover rights. For the benefit of outsiders to this topic, here is a summary of the problems with Orrling's December 2014 filemoves:

• nonsense file move reason summaries (example: "drfh5")
• comprehensible but unhelpful move reason summaries (example: "Legit")
• reducing file name descriptiveness (example: File:Brigitte Menon performing.jpg to File:Mukta.jpg)
• reverting previous moves from undescriptive names to descriptive ones (example: File:Mukta.jpg -> File:Brigitte Menon performing.jpg -> File:Mukta.jpg)
• defending said move reverts as a valid response to "vandalism".

--Pitke (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Again the attempt to create a pseudo-reality for outsiders who might buy this obvious distortion of the well-recorded history and policy? I may be commited to applying comprehensive and helpful "reason summaries" (for sure will prefer using them next time) when moving files that are not related to this old saga, I am NOT (or was not) committed, understandably, to applying any further reasonings on the recent moves, those reasonings are recorded very clearly in my arguments throughout this forum; this is very well understood by probably anyone who is not outsider to the topic; who followed and realizes that those last files had gone thru an off-policy act just last year, and have now finally been restored by me (=their uploader) with little care for "reason summaries" (which I can apply on the next files I move, not on those where the revert is obvious!). Do'nt try to present a pseudo-reality that suggests "drfh5" is a reason for letting me from now on work without my mover tool. It is not plausible. I'm sorry for the trouble, but please don't try to show that you really care for effective file-move summaries while you never have appeared to care whatsoever about last year's 22 Dec fraudulent reason summaries or no summaries at all. This is doing yourself a bad service before the eyes of too many users who now see this standard-inconsistency and awkward mis-management of policies and codes of conduct. I say this because I presume you DO know the facts. Please grant me back the tool and be sure to pave the way back to a good old decent existence on here where vandalism such as moving a file from Mukta.jpg to some other unconsensed by the donor, without asking, without dialoguing - with the sole aim of clashing into an editor - is NOT allowed. Please reinstate things as they were before, do not try to count reasons that everyone reading this knows to be irrelevant, void and of poor-standard. (seriously..? You're telling me your brand-new policy supports those acts from 22 Dec 2013 and onwards done straight against me here. You calling the reversal by me of filenames back to the quaint original and consistent state a "reducing file name descriptiveness"? You know like others that description's field is not the title, but the description rubric. You know well that uploader's request to their filename is valid here. You're supporting acts that were done against our policy. Filenames don't have to be more "descriptive" than they already are. There's some intelligent ppl here, who know this is petty nonsense that can't work!) Please read, read, read, and reinstate my full rights to as they have been before I was attacked last year without you caring. Stop defending each other (admins) when you know you are wrong! It doesn't look nice outwards! Orrlingtalk 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Yann (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the last short time block. You will be blocked undefinitely next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop sending emails to info@wikimedia.org ... That will be eventually moved to info-commons@wikimedia.org and responded by us. We will not unblock you for never-ending this kind of email, and only way to appeal your block is, using {{Unblock}}. — Revi 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, of course I will continue sending emails to the Wikimedia support (at info@wikimedia.org and any other address I see relevant) as long and as much as I need, you may try to continue to penalize me for doing so of course, if you believe that might affect me. Orrlingtalk 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Orrling-- Geagea (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Submit an unblock request....

and I'll look at it for you. Refer to my comments at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Orrling to help you formulate the request. russavia (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Russavia he knows how to do it. He just does not want to. You realy do here a uhge mistake. Hanay (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanay the presence of individuals who have been involved isn't going to help to alleviate the issue. Orrling should be free to request an unblock request in an environment which is conducive to him addressing any issues, so that an unblock can be considered by myself, or another uninvolved admin. I ask you to leave the issue alone for now. If people are unable to do so, I will re-enable their email access so that they can contact me, or another admin, directly and privately. russavia (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Science_and_technology

Science and technology 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!

--ghouston (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Penile-vaginal_intercourse

Penile-vaginal intercourse 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!

218.15.33.20 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Orrling of Finland.jpg

File:Orrling of Finland.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

MKFI (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sculpture park in Savonia.jpg

File:Sculpture park in Savonia.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

MKFI (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Penile-anal_intercourse_(female_and_male)

Penile-anal intercourse (female and male) 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!

63.143.114.102 03:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Rakia-letters.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rakia-letters.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Rakia-letters.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Ruthven (msg) 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Uri Klausner.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Uri Klausner.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Uri Klausner.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Ruthven (msg) 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dany Atar.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dany Atar.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dany Atar.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Ruthven (msg) 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Arterials.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Arterials.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:Arterials.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

Ruthven (msg) 13:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sexual_use_of_plants_by_humans

Category:Sexual_use_of_plants_by_humans 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!

2604:6000:140E:800D:592A:C15B:ED4B:C722 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Profil-perdu_painted_portraits_of_women

Profil-perdu painted portraits of women 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!

97.77.153.51 08:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Black_people

Black people 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Translators_by_language

Translators by language 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!

DGtal (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the talk page trimmer

Hi, based on discussion at the administrator's noticeboard, there is a consensus to go ahead with adding user talk pages that are unattended to be processed by the talk page trimmer. These cosmetic changes trim unnecessary boilerplate text in standard notices, lower the template transclusion count, and will make this talk page readable and quicker to render for all readers, without losing any content. Other users have asked to be added to this housekeeping task for this reason.

Please leave a note on my user talk page, or email me, if you would like to opt-out. If changes by the trimmer are reverted, they are likely to be re-implemented automatically unless opted-out. Thanks --Fæ (User talk:Fæ) 16:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:PNG_smilies

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Works

Works 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!

Josh (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vocalists_from_Belgium_by_gender

Vocalists from Belgium by gender 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!

Adelfrank (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vocalists_from_the_United_States_by_gender

Vocalists from the United States by gender 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!

Adelfrank (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vocalists_by_gender_by_country

Vocalists by gender by country 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!

Adelfrank (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)