User talk:TommyG

Category:Petrol stations in Norway by decade[edit]

This category name indicates "by decade", so it should contain no files, only subcategories for individual decades. Why did you move files back into it? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I moved all files in subcategories of Category:Petrol stations in Norway into this category so I could review them and diffuse them to the appropriate decade. Unfortunately I've been busy the last few weeks so I haven't had time to finish up everything. Moving the categories to the parent category makes absolutely no sense, as all these files are already in other subcategories of Category:Petrol stations in Norway, and by moving it into the parent category, all you accomplished was to introduce a whole lot of double categorization. TommyG (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of Logo de L'Homme revised (©Kefaire).jpg refused[edit]

Hello TommyG, you recently declined the renaming request for File:Logo de L'Homme revised (©Kefaire).jpg, arguing it "does not comply with renaming guidelines". Could you please specify which guideline is not respected here? I think this file should be renamed in order to be more precise, and that the copyright sign is not a good practice in filenames. But maybe I'm wrong? Thanks for your clarifications :) Skimel (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skimel: Sorry about the late reply. I wasn't trying to ignore you :-). There didn't really seem to be any justification for moving the file. Have a look at COM:FNC and COM:FRNOT which explains a bit more about what should and what should not be renamed as well as what falls in under the different criterions for renaming. This was definitely not a criterion 4 rename, and I didn't really feel it fit under criterion 2 or 6 either, so ended up declining. TommyG (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer @TommyG (I did not see it until now!). You're right, I was trying to improve a name that is already acceptable.Have a nice day! Skimel (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename decline[edit]

Hello, you recently declinded a few of my rename requests (example), for not meeting renaming guidelines and I was wondering how the files did not meet COM:FNC#2, since the files share duplicate filenames would this not be the definition of ambiguous as a change in a capital letter will change the image shown? Thanks, Terasail ^[✉️] 09:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasail: The ambiguity they're referencing in the renaming guidelines is for the filename itself. F.ex different persons sharing the same name or a street name without specifying in what city it is etc. Having very similar filenames isn't really a problem that needs fixing. TommyG (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

River Burnett[edit]

You have a habit of declining renaming requests. On 5 May you declined my request to rename File:StateLibQld 1 179191 River Burnette (ship).jpg, and referred me to the Commons:File renaming page. I found no reason on that page to decline the renaming.

The ship was called River Burnett. It was never called River Burnette. Deleting the final "e" does not come under the criterion of "making the name look a bit better". It is a matter of changing the name from wrong to right.

Please reconsider your refusal. Motacilla (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Motacilla: I also added a comment Source of image says Burnette. What a seemingly reliable source says will always trump what any one editor on Wikipedia/Commons claims. TommyG (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases I have verified their correct names from Lloyd's Register of Shipping: the editions from 1930 to 1945 inclusive are available online from the public library service of the City of Southampton, and I own an original copy of the 1914 edition. I do not have access to the Miramar Ship Index, so I use other sources for ships built after 1945. The ship River Burnett is named after the Burnett River. The comprehensive and reliable "Flotilla Australia" website records the ship's name as River Burnett [1]. Her IMO number is 5297127. All online searches for that number produce the name River Burnett, e.g. [2] and [3]. Wikipedia's Australian National Line article, which admittedly is short of citations, lists the ship as River Burnett.

Conversely, no reliable online source corroborates your claim for the name River Burnette. The file name is wrong. Please correct it. Motacilla (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Motacilla: I haven't claimed anything with regards to the name of the file, but it's on you to include relevant information when asking to have a file renamed. I have no knowledge nor interest about historic ship names so I need to rely on information I'm able to access. When a source is given for the file, I have to assume that is an authoritative source. Obviously if you include information in the rename request that gives evidence to the contrary, that would greatly simplify the job for file movers. TommyG (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did provide you with evidence, in detail. Searches for the ship's IMO number 5297127 all produce the name River Burnett. So does "Flotilla Australia". I have provided multiple sources for the correct name, and evidence that the John Oxley Library is an inaccurate source. You "have no knowledge nor interest about historic ship names", but you still refuse a well-evidenced request. Motacilla (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Motacilla: Yes, and thanks for those. You could have just resubmitted the file for rename, including the references you've provided here and I'm sure someone would've been along shortly to process your rename request. Either way, I've moved the file now, using your suggested name. TommyG (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eanodat Girku.jpg[edit]

Thank you for your comment in the edit summary, but the language is not changing through the merge; it is still Northern Sámi, but renaming the file would make it correct Northern Sámi. The person who named the file named it incorrectly and as such, the file would not be found by speakers of Northern Sámi looking for the file because it makes no sense in the language. So, I once again request that the file be renamed to the correct name. -Yupik (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupik: Right. The reason why chose to not rename it was that I saw that several articles using it, was using the same spelling as the current name of the file, leading to the assumption that the file was uploaded by a person from a country where the current name was the correct spelling. I see the person who originally uploaded the image, User_talk:Rauenstein is still active on Wikimedia Commons. You could just ask him and renominate the file for renaming if he's fine with it. TommyG (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, but that is not policy so I have rerequested the filename be changed to the correct version. Rauenstein I have requested this filename be changed to the correct version. BTW thank you for the wonderful photo, it brings to life the otherwise stubby article we have on the Northern Sámi wikipedia for this church. -Yupik (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming File:Highland Road Cemetery 20220208 095830[edit]

Hi, could you provide some clarification on why my rename request was declined? [4] Thx --TimSC (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TimSC: Hi, I added some comments on the first two i declined, but I see that it would have been useful to include the comments in all the declines. The reason for the decline was:

1. For all the graves you requested renamed, there were more than the people you specified in the filename, buried in the grave. It seemed like these were typically family graves, where multiple persons from the same family was buried.

2. I did some spot checks for the names of the persons buried in the graves and wasn't able to find any indication that they were notable on their own. Thus, renaming to a name nobody knows, while loosing the context of the cemetery they're buried in, didn't seem like a good tradeoff. Maybe something like File:Highland Road Cemetery - SomeFamilyName family grave (51872322283).jpg would be a reasonable compromise?

TommyG (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyG Agree mostly with point 2 but disagree with point 1 in certain cases e.g. [5] only has 1 name. TimSC (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TimSC: Yeah, fair enough. On a more thorough review, I see there are 2-3 single occupancy graves. I still think it's not an improvement to remove the reference to the cemetery though. Would a combination, with your suggested names, but including the cemetery name be a reasonable compromise? Otherwise, you're welcome to just adding the rename request back as is, and I'll leave them alone and let some other filemover make their own assessment. TommyG (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyG I don't have a problem keeping the cemetery name. Thx! TimSC (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary revert[edit]

hi @TommyG sir, i saw you reverted my editlike this at File:Ingenuity flight 8 real-time animation (75_seconds).gif. but actually sir that image that i uploaded and the text editing were just more good improvements to the same file. both of them are identical files so i dont want unnecessary confusion of having uploaded a near intact duplicate file. moreover that was not my fault nor @Cherurbino's fault. it was nasa's fault. they uploaded someimages today almost 15 days less than a year after that event has passed. and even now on they still are uploading earlier images of edl sequence. so i wish you may allow me to return back my contributions to that page.

in hope of a positive response, Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if i needed my own praise over that file wouldnt i had uploaded separately a file now instead of overwriting my own file, that is, File:Ingenuity flight 20 full real-time animation.gif. my main goal is updating wikipedia of recent stuff, so that readers dont feel a file to be lacking anything in seeing any image, etc. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyG i checked back and saw that the original image is already almost full real time imagery of 77.4s but it was written as of 75s. to compensate for 2.4s less nasa says the camera starts at 1 m high in flight so the name must actually change to the required one Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

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

Affected:

File:Portrett av den norsk-amerikanske sopranen Grace Holst (1892-1975) (34598798554).jpg

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 i Norge[edit]

Hi there! I see that you have participated in the Norwegian part of Wiki Loves Monuments in previous years. Thank you very much! I'd like to inform you that the 2022 edition of the contest has just started, and I want to encourage you to participate this year as well!

Photos are not required to have been taken this year – they can be from any time, as long as they are uploaded during October 2022. Maybe you have some more pictures from previous years that can be uploaded for this year's contest?

You can read more about it on the contest page. Thanks, and good luck! Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File rename[edit]

Hi! I don't see how my rename request fall in any category of Commons:FR#Which files should not be renamed? so how come it does not comply. Moreover, the new name that I request also met the criteria of "describes what the image particularly displays". Đại Việt quốc (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images had a "meaningless or ambiguous name". There is no requirement that an image name is exhaustively descriptive. TommyG (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for future file renames ;)[edit]

Hello, i've seen you rejected the file rename of my coat of arms, the Arenzano-Stemma.svg one, which you rejected because it "does not comply with renaming guidelines", but why? so many of my files had been renamed to a better name, even this one after 4 days by another file mover.

My advice is to be more careful about file renaming, and if you see a request where the changing is:

"Stemma di X" to "X-Stemma"

It does comply with renaming guidelines.

Thanks. 𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐨. (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashoppio: I dissagree. The fact that several other file movers practices criterion 4 incorrectly doesn't mean that my rejection of the file move was incorrect. But, if you can link to the complex template that require a standardised naming scheme to show why these files needed to be moved, I'd be willing to reconsidder. TommyG (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its strange, because criterion 4 its literally "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs", The renaming is just setting the name of the municipality with an hyphen and the word "Stemma", so it makes it more precise and doesn't create confusion. I don't understand why the file movers who accept the requests are using the 4th criterion in the incorrect way. 𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐨. (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashoppio: The more extensive explanation states:

Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons’ upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists.

I can't really say why other file movers do what they do, but the criterion is quite clearly defined and explicitly says that images shouldn't be renamed just to have the same naming standard within one category. TommyG (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, never seen this explanation. 𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐨. (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the renaming guidelines you linked in the first message you posted here. TommyG (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cairns Post - Premises 2016.jpg[edit]

Thanks for fast action and also adjusting the impacted pages. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Yadrinsky rayon (Chuvashia).gif[edit]

ГЕРБ ЯДРИНСКОГО МУНИЦИПАЛЬНОГО ОКРУГА https://geraldika.ru/s/39983 Барабас (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vestlandet Flag[edit]

This flag is unofficial at the moment, however it is in use thus a relevent article. This is not with the purpose to vandalise, rather to spread awareness. I apologise for any confusion. However I did edit the status of the flag to "unofficial" as it is, and you ignored it nonetheless and you are now attempting to remove the flag. I do not appreciate this and I belive this is very wrong. Please revoke any actions you have taken against it. Thank you. @TommyG

Refference: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Vestlandet_Flag.png Therelnacu (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therelnacu: Do you have any kind of reference to this being an actual proposal which is in actual widespread use? I failed to find any trace of this flag outside of the instances here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons TommyG (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyG There are absolutely no indication that this flag has ever been in use. Quite the opposite actually, it was posted on Reddit (r/vexillology) yesterday, under the title «Vestland Flag / Vestlandet flag proposal (just for fun!)», which means it has absolutely no place in Wikipedia articles!

A near identical flag was also used for illustration as a hypothetical/possible Russian flag if Russia were catholic, in this short article from October 2020. 1000mm (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, dear license reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named `license+` and `license-`.

Hi TommyG, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! Killarnee (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabella Quaranta, Scena Muda, edit.jpg[edit]

Hi TommyG, there is still this orphan redirect to be deleted. I mispelled some names of those twin actresses. Thank you :-) --Teatroge (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the page with a redirect in the meantime. We could also leave it, if you want, but in this specific case it is pretty unnecessary. cheers. --Teatroge (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Teatroge: Right, thanks. What happened there was due to a concurrency-bug in the scripts for moving files which happens if a file being moved has a reference to another file being moved at the same time. It's not possible to move files that are in use without leaving a redirect, but if you want to have the redirect deleted you can add {{SD|G2}} to the top of the redirect page. TommyG (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I know it. Just wanted to contact you directly to let you know. Cheers. ;) --Teatroge (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken video file(s)[edit]

Re How does changing capitalisation of words acomplish moving the file to webm? If you look at the requested target page, I requested it to be moved to .webm. I tried to upload the same video with another filetype (webm). Apparently, that's not possible for videos so I requested the broken file to be moved. Prototyperspective (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that and tried to move it to the specified filename with a webm suffix. This was automatically overridden by the rename script, which set the suffix back to ogv while renaming. TommyG (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re:Violaciones de los derechos de autor[edit]

Hola buen día. Te ofrezco una disculpa por la situación, nunca fue mi intención violar los derechos de autor y mucho menos subir archivos no permitidos. Como puedes ver soy un usuario con mucha antiguedad y conozco muy bien el funcionamiento de los proyectos, pensé que los derechos eran lo suficiente amplios (o quizá si lo eran en el momento en que empecé a subir archivos del INAH) para estar en Commons, pero no volverá a ocurrir. Saludos! Battroid (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congress House Member Pin[edit]

How does harmonizing the file names for all files in the category Category:United States Congress House Member Pin not exactly follow reason 4 of the renaming guidelines? Jonas1015119 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:File renaming#cite_note-4. TommyG (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename on File:Maemi.A2003255.0455.2km.jpg[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that you have declined my file move request on File:Maemi.A2003255.0455.2km.jpg because you did not understand why the images needed to be harmonized. Most tropical cyclone files have the format [STORMNAME] [DATE IN FORMAT YYYY-MM-DD] [TIME IN XXXXZ].[FILE FORMAT]. This is evident in widely-viewed categories like Category:Satellite pictures of Typhoon Haiyan (2013) and Category:Satellite pictures of Hurricane Katrina. As a fellow filemover, I would like to ask for your opinion. Thank you for your consideration and please consider my request. 2003 LN 6 22:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2003 LN6 My opinion is that most Criterion 4 moves that is performed is not actually covered by the rules as specified. I see however that I am probably in a minority in this interpretation and I normally stay away from most Criterion 4 moves. Maybe the rules should need to be revised to align with current practices. If you want to relist it for moving, feel free. I won't rename the file, but I'll make sure to skip over it if I go through the category, so that someone else can make a determination as to whether to rename the file or not. Btw, if you have file mover rights yourself, why not just rename the files without going via a rename request? TommyG (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just gained the right a few days ago, so I am quite new with the moving procedures. Thank you! 2003 LN 6 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]