User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive 2019

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aircraft by registration country

Should be renamed Category:Aircraft by country of registration to match other 'aircraft by country' categories: Category:Aircraft by country of location, Category:Aircraft by country of service, and Category:Aircraft by country of origin. Josh (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Support This makes sense. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

---

@Apalsola and De728631: Without opposition, will go ahead and make this change. Josh (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Customized aircraft

Should be renamed Category:Modified aircraft. "Customized" implies a one-off modification done to an individual aircraft, and that the customization makes the aircraft unique. However, the category also includes aircraft modified in series, that is a number of aircraft all modified to a new design standard (Category:Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair or Category:Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter). The word "modified" much better captures the full use of this category than "customized", so it should be changed. Josh (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Josh (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

 Done without opposition. Josh (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Text logos Y

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A.

Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have another idea to find one text-logo in a category with about 4000 files? To split the text-logo-category alphabetically was one idea, another is by type of letters (Arabian, Cyrillic, ...) --PigeonIP (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To find a logo, these cats won't work anyway. The search function may help out. To search alphabetically within a category, we have the CategoryTOC. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the idea was created in order to get all text logos out of he category:logos, which is overcrowded with more than 10,000 files in it. instead of simply overcrowding category:text logos instead, we started to create sub-cats according to the first letter of the logo. to me this seems useful, however, there may be better ideas.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can immagine you didn't know {{CategoryTOC}}, but now it's present, what is the advantage of alphabetical subcategories? Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

TOC refers to the filename, not to the logo or what the logo refers to. like File:2004 BACK YARD Recordings Logo.jpg for example.

What is the advantage of overcrowded categories? --PigeonIP (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

When do you call a category overcrowded? They are designed to have a lot of content, e.g. 100.000 is not a problem. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

actually it says on the category page (category:logos) that it was crowded and that files should be moved to sub-categorie. so maybe you should rather delete that template if it causes unwanted action?--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A tag like that usually means that the files should be moved down into more specific categories, but that doesn't mean strange types of categories need to be made. Logos are already categorized by country, subject (Logos associated with...), and other attributes. --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, TOC actually uses the sort key, which is the filename if no other is given. (Once you start using alphabetic sort keys for files, you get into all kinds of questions about what the sort key should be. One person might decide to give it the name of the company/organization, the other the brand name of the logo itself, etc. The only type of sort key that's widely-accepted on Commons these days is year-month-date on media of famous people/things with a lot of media of that same person/thing, so that they sort chronologically.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

it was just an attempt to be helpful. some german wikipedians recently discussed that there are so many completely uncategorized files on commons and have started to categorize these files. while we were doing this, someone came across the very large and unorganized category:logos. actually there are many files in that category that have no other category than the very general "logos". while i agree that the alphabetical approach may be against your customs on commons, i still think it could make sense to create more subcats of the logos-category and move files to more appropriate (i.e. decriptive) categories. one final thought: there are also sucats for logos according to shape - is that really a more relevant attribute than the first letter of the logo? anyway, i will rather continue now to categorize uncategorized files than cleaning up exisiting categories.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've grouped these categories at Category:Text logos by letter but if it's decided to delete these categories, that base category should also go, along with Category:Text logos 0-9. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Keep but rename Category:Letter Y in logos (same for the rest of the letters of course) to be more consistent with other letter categories. This is not an alphabetical categorization per se, it pertains specifically to depictions of the letter Y, as seen in logos. Josh (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Thoughts on Joshbaumgartner's proposal? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The reason of nomination was that somebody started to categorize all these textlogos in subcategories for the first letter of their file name, which is ridiculous of course. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Keep I think, Both categories are necessary.
I agree. - rename Category:Letter * in logos --Benzoyl (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Y in logos
• 
  > Text logos from Y
• 
  > Text logos Y

---

 Done merge "Category:Text logos from *" and "Category:Text logos *" into "Category:* in logos". Josh (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Four-color

Odd, uncustomary category title: it should be Four colors Orrlingtalk 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving the nomination from the mover-bot request list where I originally posted it: {{move cat|Four-color|Four colors|3=[[User:Orrling|<span style="color:orange;">Orrling</span>]][[User talk:Orrling|<span style="color:grey;">talk</span>]] 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)}}

Four-color is consistent with sister cats Bicolor and Tricolor. --Pitke (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a very odd way to name categories honestly. Please see Category:Four people, Category:Three matching outfits, Category:Multiple flags. This category is simply meant to host files that consist of three colours, just as its current content manifests. It's not a case of Six-wheeled vehicles. I propose the rename of "Bicolor" and "Tricolor" to Two colors and Three colors; futhermore, if it was meant to be consistent with Bicolor and Tricolor then this cat would have needed to be Category:Quadricolor. Orrlingtalk 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this to a proper CfD. Changing Bicolor and Tricolor would affect a whole bunch of subcats. --Pitke (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

</End of copying>

Note: Category:Four-color was redirected to Category:Four colors in June 2014 before this discussion had any resolution, partly because the way Orrling (since permanently banned, btw) tried to add this to CfD didn't quite work, making the discussion largely invisble. So the category remains at Category:Four colors but everything else in Category:Color combinations has the previous style (e.g. Category:Five-color‎, Category:Six-color. I think we should choose a consistent way to name the categories here. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pitke and Themightyquill: Numeric representation is better than word-based representation of numbers, note the parent category Category:Groups of 4. Something like Category:Combinations of 4 colors or Category:Groups of 4 colors I think would be superior to having to hash out between "four-color", "four colors" or "quadricolor". Using "4" instead of "four" makes it that much easier to be precise and for non-English speakers to use. I would recommend applying this to all color combination categories. Also, if it makes more sense, we can close this discussion and open a CfD at the Category:Color combinations level to apply to the entire tree. Josh (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I think Category:Combinations of 4 colors would be best. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Rename Category:Combinations of 4 colors. Same for other quantities. Josh (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:National flag of Palestine

Thanks for closing the discussion, but it's been a non-issue since Orrling got herself banned four years ago. She probably had some good intentions, but insisted on doing many things in the most annoying possible way... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with {{Aircraft of operator}}

Hi Josh. I've run into a problem with your template...it had been applied to Category:Beechcraft aircraft of NASA at some point, and never was proper functional. I came across it because it was trying to sort into the primary Category:NASA category. As far as I can tell, all the parameters should be correct, but it is still breaking. I've commented it out so that it doesn't interfere with the live category. Mind looking in to whats going wrong?

Additionally, I see this template as being quite useful, but it has virtually no documentation to describe what some things do, or examples to show exactly what needs to go where. Even looking at the code, I can't tell what some things do. Is this something that could be made more user friendly? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like a few steps are required to fix this. The template has to recognize that 'Beechcraft aircraft' are a subset of 'aircraft', and therefore that if 'aircraft of ...' exists, it should be under that, and only if it does not exist should it be placed at the next higher level. The same logic applies to it being under 'aircraft in United States government service' as opposed to the parent 'aircraft in United States service'. It seems to work okay for 'aircraft in Foo service' categories, but adding these extra parameters is going to take a bit of extra work. I am working on folding this into Template:Aircraft cat so I haven't done much with 'Aircraft of operator' lately. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. For now, commenting it out and using manual categorization works.

I totally agree on the documentation issue. I will see about giving that an upgrade as well. Josh (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I made a bit of an assumption I suppose. I made an assumption that the "g" tag for type of user would place it into "United States government service", and that "Beechcraft aircraft" would be applied in a case of 'this doesn't match any pre-set terms, so directly apply it'. I love templates, and just haven't had time to really delve into this one's code (I'm at work). If you are deciding to fold things into "Aircraft cat", then all the better...the issue I raised was just something I randomly came across due to seeing a suspect edit, so it is certainly not a priority issue. Let me know if I can help with any testing or whatnot. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category talk cfd

Hi. Thank you for documenting resolved Cfd discussions with this template. It is a shame that there is no provision for a link to the original discussion (or the archive of it).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is a link to the original discussion. If you click the edit button, you will be editing the original CfD discussion, though most of these are archived and should not be actually edited. Josh (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Number_17_on_products

Category:Number_17_on_products 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!

E4024 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Folk art of Mexico

Thanks for closing the CFD. Did you leave the CFD template on the category for a reason, or did you just forget to remove it? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that one. Thanks for noting it. Josh (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been trying to think of a way to check all the categories with that template to see if the linked discussions are closed, but I haven't come up with a way. I suspect we have a number of categories where the template could be removed, especially for discussions that included multiple categories. Maybe someone with bot skills could do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a very easy step to miss when going through the process of closing discussions. However, I think it is pretty harmless as anyone who notices the CfD is closed can remove the tag. If you find an automated way to identify these, let me know, I'd be happy to go work on cleaning them up. Josh (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft cat template

Hi, Josh. This template seems to be setting more categories than it should. I just removed it from a couple of categories (Category:Carrier-based dive bomber aircraft and Category:Dive bomber aircraft) because it was causing overcategorization. Then I noticed that there are others with the same issue, so I'm not removing any more, but could you take a look at this? Another one I'm looking at is Category:Flight inspection aircraft, which shouldn't need to be in Category:Vehicles. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks for alerting me. It seems the issue arises when attaching the template to a class that isn't covered in {{Aircraft label}}. I have fixed the vehicles categorization you noticed on Category:Flight inspection aircraft, so check that and make sure it is more to your liking now. Josh (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely better, thanks. There are some other things I'm seeing under Category:Aircraft by type:

• Category:Modified aircraft and Category:Parked aircraft: I think these should be under aircraft by condition instead.
• Category:Record breaking aircraft: this isn't really a type of aircraft
• There are some categories under Category:Aircraft by type that I think should be under its subcats instead (actually, some already are also under subcats). Some of these are Category:Carrier-based dive bomber aircraft, Category:Night bombers, and Category:Strategic bombers.

Those are just a few I noticed. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I figure there is some more discussion that should happen around those kinds of categories in the future, and the templates can be modified to match consensus at that point. For the meantime, letting 'by type' be a general index of all types so users don't have to understand the full taxonomy of what they are looking for. Thus having Category:Dive bomber aircraft directly under 'by type' doesn't seem too offensive to me for the time being. As a side note, I think Category:Record breaking aircraft was supposed to be for aircraft specifically designed or modified for the purpose of setting new aviation records, not just any aircraft that was designed for another purpose but happened to set some record for something. There are a lot of different ways 'type' has been used and interpreted, so I'm fine with leaving it a general catch-all. Cats can also be placed in more specific metacats of course. Josh (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have another one for you. The template is saying that Category:Douglas aircraft by name is a metacat, but it isn't one. Most "by name" categories aren't metacats, because they don't group multiple things that have the same name. I also see that Template:Aircraft cat/manufacturer by has Category:Meta categories hardcoded. That should never be hardcoded; it should only be added via the {{MetaCat}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... Admittedly there is only really Category:Uiver (aircraft) directly in Category:Douglas aircraft by name to look at so one might question the need for that particular category at all, but if it exists, it is perfectly correct to consider it a metacat I would think, as it should only have categories within it, not files. As for the hardcoding question, since anything using {{Aircraft cat/manufacturer by}} should be a metacat, why not include metacat sorting and save the need for the extra template to be added (or forgotten) on each individual category? Josh (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The need to contain only categories is not what makes something a metacat. A metacat has subcats that are multiple things grouped by a particular criterion. The "by name" categories can be confusing in this way because "by name" can mean different things. For example, look at Category:Hotels by name (a metacat) and Category:Board games by name (not a metacat). The subcats for hotels are each for all hotels with the indicated name (for example, Category:Hotels named Bristol); in this case, "by name" means "grouped by shared name"--different things with the same name are grouped there. The subcats for board games are each for an individual game (for example, Category:7 Wonders (board game)); in this case, "by name" means that each game is identified by name and there is one category for each game. For categories like the board games, you use {{CatCat}}, not {{MetaCat}}, to indicate that the category should contain only other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing why these two are fundamentally different. It is true that most of the hotels in Hotels by name are grouped into "Hotels named name" categories, but not all are (e.g. Adina Apartment Hotels). Also, most board games in Board games by name have unique names but that is also not exclusively so (i.e. there could well crop up a "Board games named xxx" category if there were a specific name used by more than one game). While most topics might trend towards either one or the other, they are not exclusive. Certainly you do not intend that we should have two parallel "Topic by name" categories, one for "Topic named xxx" and the other for "xxx (topic)" categories requirings users to know whether the name they are looking for is used by more than one category within the topic, are you? Or that we should have to create a "Topic named xxx" category to hold "xxx (topic)", even if there is only one category by that name under the topic? Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The hotel chain categories are questionable there, IMO, but the category is intended to be for groupings. As for the board name category, if there were multiple games with the same name, that could be handled either by just making separate individual entries or by creating a metacategory for them. You could also create a disambiguation category for them. Template:MetaCat says "Use this tag for meta categories only, that should only contain other categories that are grouped by a specified criterion." Commons:Meta category also explains that metacategories are for groupings of things that have something in common. I know this is tricky to understand: it's because "by name" is used in different ways.

As far as parallel categories, I haven't seen a case where we'd need that. For example, we have Category:People by name which is for individual people and is not a metacategory; where there are mulitple people with the same name we use a disambiguation page (for example, Category:Cornelis Danckerts), not a metacategory. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As for whether to hardcode the metacat category, I wasn't suggesting that it should be coded on each category. I was saying that Template:Aircraft cat/manufacturer by should be changed to use the metacat template instead of hardcoding the category there. Although in this case, it might need to use the catcat template instead in some cases. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying here. However there are some layout issues I am trying to fix there. So long as the functionality is correct, I don't see a technical problem, especially since {{MetaCat}} is pretty stable, but I will try some alternatives to get it to where I can just call {{MetaCat}} from {{Aircraft cat}}. Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Airbus aircraft by name

Hi, Josh. I just undid the changes you made to this category because, again, this kind of category is not a metacat by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Josh. I know this is being discussed at CFD, but I just noticed another issue. The category is a child of itself. Can you take a look at the template and see if you can fix that? It would also be helpful if you could add some examples of different combinations of parameters to the template documentation if you get a chance. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks for noting that one. It was the result of Airbus being a subsidiary of Airbus on Wikidata, so I added a check to not add the parent org level cat in a case where it would be the same name. That seems to have eliminated the self-reference. I agree that the documentation should be written at some point, I have to find the time to get my head around that part of it, I guess. Josh (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

L'Illustration category renames

Would you like some help with these? Just give me a subset to work on--or even all of the remaining ones--and I'll be glad to do them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I'm working backwards chronologically, there are a lot in 1915 to do so if you want to start from the other end of it, much appreciated! Josh (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. When they're all done, I can use AWB to go through them all and add sort keys so they're in date order. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I finished 1915, adding sort keys and date categories like you did. I also tagged all the old ones as renamed to get them deleted. It looks like all the years are done now. Let me know if there's any remaining task that you'd like help with. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'm just hoping to close some more CfDs this week and get them done. If there are any more batches like this one, I'll ping you. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unusable link added

Not sure whether this was intended, but the link you added yesterday on Category talk:Pages with maps doesn't appear usable. --Hjart (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hjart: Thanks for alerting me, it is fixed now. Josh (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Victims of religion

Ok, fine for me, thanks. SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit of Template:Number cat/layout

It appears that your latest edit to this template created an unintended and unwanted result for other dependent templates (see Category:West Virginia Route 211 for an example). Since you are more aware of what's involved, you should be notified instead of just undoing the change. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@An Errant Knight: Thanks for the alert, seems there were a couple of extra brackets...taken care of now. Josh (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

THANKS! Looks good! An Errant Knight (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related item, which you may or may not be able to assist, but since you have a better grasp of the coding involved than this editor. . .

An glitch has been identified in attempt to create navigation template for the state highways in Michigan (similar to many other states). These templates are based upon your creation, the Number cat template. The issue with Michigan involves the unique naming of its state highways, which are "M-### (Michigan highway)" (with ### being the number of the highway and no space between the "M-" and the highway number). The template inserts a space between the seriesprefix ("M-") and the highway number. The result is that it lists the "Category:M- ### (Michigan highway)", which don't exist, instead of "Category:M-### (Michigan highway)". The possible fix may not be within the Number cat template, but in a significant change to the Michigan highway number template itself.

Any help you can provide with this issue would be greatly appreciated. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@An Errant Knight: Interesting... It seems the code was already in the /layout for the template, but the pass-through parameter wasn't set up yet (I hadn't yet come across a real-world case for this feature). Anyway, a tweak to {{Number cat}} fixed that, and so now you should be able to use the parameters seriesprefixns and seriessuffixns for situations where either is required to be used without a space being added. I have made the change to the Michigan route template and M-1 (Michigan highway) appears to work correctly now. Hopefully this works for the whole series, but let me know if you find any issues. Thanks, Josh (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! THANKS! An Errant Knight (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The fix also worked for Kansas highways, which are similarly named. Thanks again! An Errant Knight (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for doing work on implementation, if you come across any other issues, let me know! Josh (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you offered. . . several states have suffixed routes, for example, Oregon Route 422S. It does not appear that the existing templates accommodate anything but numbers, but if they could, it would be nice. However, the benefit of such a "feature" may not be worth the work necessary. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@An Errant Knight: That should work with the seriessuffix and seriessuffixns parameters, but I will take a look. Josh (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah...of course it will create the list, but only look for other numbers that also have that suffix, just like the prefix works. I will have to give this more thought this weekend. But I'm inspired...I've actually driven Oregon Route 422S. Maybe I should go back and get some pictures. Josh (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As you have already seen, getting the template to return the proper highway shield seems to work fine, getting the list of highways to include the suffixed ones is much more challenging and definitely requires coding that is beyond the limited expertise of this editor. It may have to remain on the wish list for some time--or even indefinitely. Thanks again for your assistance! An Errant Knight (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured video candidates

		We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
		Dear Joshbaumgartner, Are you Interested in Film Making/Videography/Cinematography or Animated films? We think you are. Featured video candidates needs your help and you can help by reviewing , nominating your videos for the FV Tag. You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome ! -- Eatcha (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Saint Catherine

Hi, Josh. I appreciate you wanting to get RFDs closed, but this one needs to stay open until all are resolved. Therefore I un-closed it. Multiple categories are tagged with this RFD because they need resolution: please don't remove those tags unless they are resolved. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Okay no problem, we can keep the discussion open if you want. You were more involved in it, so maybe there are still open items to be decided? I thought the resolution was clear, it was just the actual work of implementing that remained to be done. Josh (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine

For your attention: how to handle the ships in Category:Naval ships of the Bundeswehr by name?.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine that should go to Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine by name. Do you know of any ships listed which are part of a branch of the Bundeswehr other than the Navy? Josh (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not to my knowlidge. I am not a specialist in naval ships.--Stunteltje (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I will be resuming my work in the area in a couple of days, I'll make a point of getting to that one. Josh (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are creating a complete mess. The name „Deutsche Marine“ as name for the Navy of the Bundeswehr only came in use in 1995. before it was Bundesmarine. So, many of the ships you now categorised as „Deutsche Marine“ never had this attribution but were seen as Bundesmarine ships. Tp avoid this problem, the term Navy of the Bundeswehr is being used here. Please revert your edits. --KuK (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is, Deutsche Marine and Bundesmarine are the same navy, just a name change, so whether a ship served in the 1970s or the 2010s, they served in the same navy, so they should be listed together under that same navy. 'Navy of the Bundeswehr' is not the name of anything ever, so it doesn't solve anything. Category:Deutsche Marine covers the Bundesmarine, so therefore logic dictates that Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine covers Ships of the Bundesmarine. Josh (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Josh, but you are wrong! The “Deutsche Marine” is the common navy of “Bundesmarine” and “Volksmarine” since the reunion of Germany. After your recats, unfortunately without previous discussion with German users, many ships are listed in a category, where they never have been in service! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'common navy'? The navy was called Bundesmarine until 1995, several years after re-unification, so the idea that Deutsche Marine was some brand-new navy created from the bits of the Bundesmarine and Volksmarine is completely false. By any reasonable measure, the Volksmarine was absorbed into the Bundesmarine during re-unification, and just like all other East German institutions, the eastern institution ceased to exist and the western institution essentially carried on as the new whole for the unified country. If I was wrong as you claim, there would be a Category:Bundesmarine to cover what you claim to be a different navy, but there is not (it is just a redirect). Josh (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your statement: "The navy was called Bundesmarine until 1995 ..." is missleading. "Bundesmarine" and "Deutsche Marine" were always more or less unofficial. Officialy in the west the correct Name was and is now: "Marine". So in 1995 the "Bundesmarie" wasn't renamed, it kept being the "Marine". But the former unofficial name "Bundesmarine" became out of use. Not by an exact date but gradually replaced after the unification and was replaced unofficialy by "Deutsche Marine". In 1995 "Deutsche Marine" became somewhat half official, when it was decidet to use this term in circunstances when a national definition is needet.--WerWil (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@WerWil: I actually agree with you. "Marine" is correct, though not widely cited as such in English sources (due to its lack of uniqueness I presume). The point is that it is all the same navy we are talking about, not two distinct different navies. The West German navy (by any name) and the current German navy (by any name) are one and the same navy. Josh (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather philosophical question. Is the navy from 1959 identical to the one in 2019? But I guess you look at it at a more legal point of view. In fact there was no act of founding a new navy after 1990 (even thoug there was never a formal act of founding the Royal Navy). But in this categorization you create an anachronism, because there are many vessels of the german "Marine" that never were called "ship of the Deutsche Marine". It might be in a 100 years no one cares about it any more, but today it sounds awfully wrong to German naval experts to refer to the e.g. Jaguar-class fast attack craft as "Deutsche Marine" boats.--WerWil (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but that problem always exists with entities that change their name over time. Take Category:Saint Petersburg; many of its contents are wholly or substantially relevant to when it was called Leningrad, but they rightly belong under Saint Petersburg because it is a single entity just known by different names at different times. Having two categories just for the different names is a bad thing because most folks want images of the city regardless of what name it happened to go by at the time of the image. There are many more such examples (Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle for a different variation of the situation). To name this category correctly in English, it should just be German Navy (its most common reference in English sources), but because of some unique circumstances in German history, we have chosen not to do that here to avoid confusion with the Kriegsmarine, etc. So we already are forcing an anachronism on ourselves by doing this. Keep in mind though, the category is not defined by its name, but by its contents. The name exists to allow users to easily access the contents. Categorization is not intended to tell you what things are, just to conveniently group things for users to access them. Note, you can also sub-cat temporaly by decade or year if it would be valuable to group by time period. I don't see any problem with having the Jaguar class in the category as it is...they are indeed ship of the navy currently referred to as Deutsche Marine, so it is perfectly valid. I would encourage you to contribute to the CfD for this category, likely a better audience than my talk page. Josh (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Template editor given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted template editor right to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to work with templates. Please consider enabling two-factor authentication for your account. Furthermore, please look at Category:Commons protected edit requests (template protected) occasionally and try to help your fellow Commoners with responding to their edit requests. Thank you.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Re-used aircraft registrations

Hi, All gone I see. Did I miss the discussion on this? Ardfern (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, I can't remember one off hand. Did you search COM:CFD archives? Josh (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you actually closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Re-used aircraft registrations a few weeks ago. De728631 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: Indeed. A two-year old nomination with no objections. What piqued your interest? Josh (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about the disappearance, too. So I hit the search button. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: The removal is explained in the CfD. You and Ardfern (talk · contribs) commenting on the same obscure item on my talk page within 30 minutes of each other seems more curious than the CfD itself. That said, if you have any actual questions about it, you know I am happy to answer. Josh (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Lockheed L-100 Hercules

Hi, sorry to bother you (again), but just noticed you are removing the manufacturers name from Lockheed L-100 Hercules files, leaving it as L-100 Hercules. Grateful if you could explain the logic as it just doesn't make sense to me, particularly if it is intended to apply to all manufacturers/types. Ardfern (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft facing

Template:Aircraft facing is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: T2: Unused template If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

CptViraj (📧) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Groups of different vehicle types

Why have you moved Category:Groups of different vehicle types to Category:Groups of dissimilar vehicles. Won't this risk including different types of cars or different types of planes?--Darrelljon (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a very valid concern, and one I have been thinking on how to deal with. However, I think it is just as likely to be an issue under either name for the category. A picture with Boeing 737s and Airbus A320s in it would definitely be deemed to be of different types just as it would be considered dissimilar vehicles. In reality, what is really required is for more of the sub-structure to be implemented (e.g. Category:Groups of dissimilar land vehicles). Users who are less familiar will likely deposit items at a higher level, but if the structure is in place people can see how to easily sort an image down into the most specific sub-category. Right now, a lot of that does not exist, or is not correctly arranged, so you are right that there is a good risk of categorization at too high a level. Hopefully a combination of better sub-categorization and descriptive headers will alleviate this in the near future. This category is in the vein of Category:Groups of dissimilar subjects at the highest level (objects with people, etc.) -> Category:Groups of dissimilar objects -> Category:Groups of dissimilar vehicles -> Category:Groups of dissimilar land vehicles ... and so on. Hence why the name change to be consistent with the rest of that lineage. Josh (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks--Darrelljon (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Nintendo Playchoice-10 control panel closeup.jpg‎

Hi there,

Your re-categorisation of File:Nintendo Playchoice-10 control panel closeup.jpg‎ has been reverted.

Although only one monitor is on display, this device has two monitors.

Hope this explains things,

Ubcule (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: It is fine to remain in multi-monitor, but it still belongs in Category:1 display. Josh (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You haven't even made clear what the criteria for the "1 display" is in the first place. Is it devices with one display? Is it photos with one display showing? If we're making different assumptions about what it's meant to be for, that's because it's far from obvious. Ubcule (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It is photos with one display showing. Josh (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:1 display

In addition to what I said above, why are you removing pictures of computer monitors to this category?

Category:1 display isn't a subcategory of Category:Computer monitors, so there's no justification for removing them from the latter category (as opposed to them being in both categories).

On top of this, I'd question how useful the "1 display" category is anyway. Is the grouping this represents likely to serve any purpose in practice? Ubcule (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: This was an erroneous misclick with Cat-a-lot. The intent was to add these files to Category:1 display, not to move them. Of course they should remain in the more specific Category:Computer monitors. Thanks for catching and reverting. Josh (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:1_display

1 display 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!

Ubcule (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Phoenix

On the close of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Phoenix, shouldn't Category:Phoenix include Template:Disambig and further details? Also, I think Category:Phoenix (mythical bird) needs the notice removed. Otherwise, it doesn't actually solve anything when someone accidentally puts a Phoenix city file with that cat and then a bot or someone "fixes" the redirect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Yep, had my computer go down in the middle of the process, so had to finish it up this morning. It should be good to go now. Josh (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Redundant categorisation

This edit added a redundant category, Category:Audio files in English, to a file that was already in Category:Audio files of females speaking English. There are many such edits in my watchlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for the alert, result of an upmerge CfD, I did an overcat check and removed the violators from Category:Audio files in English. Josh (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#CfD scope? (Military vehicles of the interwar period). This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Surprised

What shall we do with a user who completely disregards policy like this? In spite of this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I have reverted the change (again) and issued a second comment on their talk page. If they persist with the disruptive edits then we will have to bring this up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Hopefully, that will not be required. Josh (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wild this durting iongoing discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have commented on that CfD. At this point Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) has ignored multiple warnings about the same issue. Josh (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: @SergeWoodzing: I have no objection with an administrator being involved within the cfd considering we’re all trying to get around those, some of us on the basis of factual information released by relevant and authoritive sources and others basing it on assumptions :). Rereader1996 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: @SergeWoodzing: yet on that CFD regarding Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia, @Themightyquill: has already stated their suggestion to move to a neutral category name. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rereader1996: You must understand that the problem is not your position on the naming of the category. That is perfectly fine to present and argue in a CfD. The problem is your behavior of violating the CfD process by enacting your own edits on multiple categories while they are still under discussion. Josh (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Symbols_by_quantity

Symbols by quantity 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) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Categories_about_aviation_requiring_diffusion

Categories about aviation requiring diffusion 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) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Groups of insects

Hi Joshbaumgartner, can you please stop adding Lepidoptera illustration plates to categories like 10 insects, 11 insects, etc.? This is not what Category:Groups of insects is for, it should instead contain media displaying actual insects naturally occuring next to each other. Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And now I see this one. Please realize that this doesn't make any sense. We already have Category:Lepidoptera illustrations (and its subcategories) for these pictures. Please don't create endless "X insects" categories, they will have to be deleted. --LamBoet (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Really? Category:Groups is a very general topic. Groups by more specific rationale can be seen to with a sub-category. Perhaps try Category:Groups of insects in natural settings or some such to get down to the definition you seek. Restricting "groups" to a limited scope just for insects is what does not make sense. As for needing to delete categories by quantity, that would fly in face of existing categorization schema. Josh (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

1) I am not restricting the definition of "groups", you are extending it in a very far-fetched way. I think you know very well what kind of media these categories used to contain before you started filling them with plates.

2) What flies in the face of the existing categorization scheme is what you are doing now, i.e. adding a new redundant category tree that doesn't seem to have any purpose. Why would one put a category like "X insects" to every Lepidoptera plate file? To whom is it useful? Please stop doing this; I will have no qualms about emptying these categories myself. --LamBoet (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"I think you know very well what kind of media these categories used to contain before you started filling them with plates." - Irrelevant. New additions to a category are not restricted to matching existing contents, otherwise what would be the point of adding new content if it only mirrored existing content?

"What would one put a category like "X insects" to every Lepidoptera plate file?" - Sure, why not?

"I will have no qualms about emptying these categories myself." - I presume that you would only do so after proper resolution of a CfD and in accordance with agreed upon consensus. Josh (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

1) New additions to a category are restricted by the category's purpose. In this case, people who browse Category:Groups of insects expect to actually find groups of insects, rather than illustration plates, which already have their own category structure.

2) Why not: because it would clutter these categories with thousands of off-topic files, and clutter thousands of file pages with a meaningless category. It is really for you to answer: what is the use of putting plates in these categories? And moreover, why would you think that Category:1 insect (or "1 [any topic]") can be useful. Do you realize that it would have to contain a large majority of insect files of Commons?

3) For obviously mistaken or obviously abusive categories, no, this usually goes through speedy deletion, criterion C3. --LamBoet (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Animals_by_quantity

Animals by quantity 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!

Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 21:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Two versus 2

I saw that you moved Category:Two cats to Category:2 cats with the summary "standard numeric representation of quantity in category name". Based on quick searches I did, it is common for the number to be spelled out, not represented by a numeral. There is a general rule in English that sentences (or titles, as in this case) should not start with a numeral. Can you direct me to any policy or guideline that supports your changes? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Apologies, this is the result of a pair of CfDs (listed at Category talk:Groups). I had been adding the CfD links to talk pages for a while, but didn't on these latest ones, simply putting the aforementioned note. Numeric representation improves international access as well as supporting easier use of templates to manage categorization by number. Josh (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That discussion is you and one other editor. And you closed it yourself. Category names on Commons are in English (for better or worse) - international use is really a non-issue given that starting point. And we should follow the common English usage. Categories which start with a quantity should be spelled out. Categories that don't start with a number can use the numeral. They are different cases. I suggest you stop what you are doing until there is a wider discussion of this issue. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

More than one, but regardless the discussions were open for some time and all users who either checked the CfD pages or browsed the tagged categories were able to voice their opposition if they had any. I understand your concern about English sentence structure, but there is nothing in category naming policy that states category names must follow a particular formal word structure or specifically that numbers at the start of titles should be in a particular style. I completely disagree with you that maximizing the ability of people to use Commons categories regardless of language is a non-issue. We use English for titles of categories, generally, but that is no reason to use English in such a manner as to make things harder on non-English speakers. Biological taxa are by the way specifically listed as an exception to the English-first rule. Josh (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. I suggest you lay out your case again, rather than assuming that people will read the linked discussion. Although I favor spelling out the quantity if it begins the category title, I'm not trying to force that view, just get a discussion going so that we can have consensus before you get too far into your changes. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Excellent, thank you for raising the issue at VP, I have opened a new CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Groups of cats. Josh (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Military equipment by former country

Hi! Why you remove Category:Military equipment of Yugoslavia, Category:Military equipment of the Soviet Union, Category:Military equipment of Czechoslovakia from Category:Military equipment by former country? Лапоть (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC).

@Лапоть: Unintended, result of a template issue, I've re-added it manually. Josh (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Topic of country

Hello, I discover your use of the template:Topic of country for sub-categories such as Category:Military equipment of France.
Although I think this is a good thing to use this template for general categories (Culture of ..., Geography of ...), I think it is not appropriate for sub-categories because it adds these categories in the country category.
For example, the category above already belongs to Category:Equipment of France and Category:Military of France. So it should not appear in the Category:France category.
Is there a parameter in the template to avoid this ? I hope my explanations are clear. Sincerely, Pmau (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pmau: You are completely correct. The template had an error that was adding it to the country category incorrectly. This has been rectified for Category:Military equipment of France. It should fix the appearance of any others with the same issue. The template should only place it in direct topic parents (as you note, equipment and military in this case). No additional parameter should be needed, as these are managed by the template, but if the direct parents do not exist, appropriate higher cats should be added manually. Thanks! Josh (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Liechtenstein

Hello Joshbaumgartner, I have seen your changes in the Category "Geography of Liechtenstein" (also in "Geography of Switzerland" and so on). The new navigation block is very large. I personally would like to continue using the navigation block "Countries of Europe", it is smaller, clearer and fits quite well for the countries in Europe. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I am working on code that will set the list to only the continent of the country instead of the whole world. The problem with {{Countries of Europe}} is that the text is too small. I like compact solutions, but they need to be accessible as well. Josh (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I wait for the result. :-) And yes, the text can be a little bigger, but it shouldn't be too big either. Otherwise you have to scroll first until you find the other files in the category. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It sure would be nice if there were a way to add the navbox after the category contents, in essence using a navbox the same way as in an article, but AFIK this is not possible. I am also looking at the option of doing it as a sidebar (as the Wikidata Infobox is done). For smaller topics a global list is fine, but for larger topics, by continent listing is more appropriate, so there is a parameter ("navby=continent") that can be added to {{Topic by country/data}} to make that happen. You can see now that Category:Geography of Liechtenstein should only show European countries in its navbox. Josh (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that only the countries of Europe are now displayed in the category Geography of Liechtenstein. It's a good thing.

The list of countries now follows the spelling of the names in English. Sorting by alphabet in the other languages is still missing. The other navigation block can adjust the order of the respective language. For example, Hungary is after Greece - in Alemannic and German it should be after Ukraine because we write Ungarn and not Hungary, also Tschechien and not Czech Republic, Deutschland vs Germany etc. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two things here: displaying names in the user language and sorting the list correctly for the user language. The template used LangSwitch to change the list based on the user's language, though it needed the list to be made for each language which was a task mostly yet to be done. It did have a default option that showed the labels in he user's language but simply used the default sort order. At any rate, the LangSwitch was removed by another user and thus now labels are only in english. Due to some edit conflicts with the user, I have not been working on this one for a couple of weeks, but I will need to restore the ability to show names in the user language and sort the list correctly based on said language labels, probably with a better method the LangSwitch used previously. Josh (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

QuickCfdClose Gadget

I've found closing CfDs to be a bit of an arduous multi-step process, so I started a gadget for streamlining the process. Since you participate in CfD frequently, I thought this might be helpful to you. Currently it only handles the closing of the discussion page itself, but when I have time I will expand it to some of the other repetitive tasks like removing the notification templates from the affected categories. See User:BMacZero/QuickCfdClose. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@BMacZero: This looks like a really useful little tool. I will definitely keep my eye on development and give it a spin at some point. Thanks! Josh (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Can a state have some politics before it is founded?

Can a state have some politics before it is founded? Of course not, and so institutions which ceased to exist long before its establishment cannot be considered its part. Czech Republic was founded in 1968 as a part of federalized Czechoslovakia and became an independent state in 1993, while Bohemian National Alliance of America was founded to support separating of Czech lands from Austria-Hungary in 1914 and ceased to exist shortly after establishing Czechoslovakia in 1918! While Czech Republic has its clear beginning in 1968, Czechia is a term that can be applied to anything connected with Czech territory throughout all the history. You can rarely find a serious source using the term Czech Republic in connection with the times before 1968. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking a question, or answering it? Is this relevant to a particular item or edit? Josh (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to explain the problem caused by the edit which I linked to above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So remove it from Category:Politics of the Czech Republic if you feel it doesn't belong there. Where's the problem? Josh (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop

Your changes in lot of categories are radical, you've broken lot of categories by incorrect zautocategorization and removed the necessary navboxes. Autotocategorization is generallyt undesirable and you've forgotten LOT of cases. Almost alld categories where you've put the untested template are now mixed with incorrect topics. verdy_p (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your damaging edits to the template need to stop. Again, you make big claims of incorrect topics, etc., but have not provided specifics. Instead you have acted by making drastic changes to a complex template, breaking it badly. You then claim the template is broken. Well yes, you broke it! Josh (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello. Please stop edit war at Template:Topic by country/layout. Edit warring may get you blocked next time. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If you edit war on a template again, you will also lose template editor permissions. Just putting that out there incase it was unclear. ~riley (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2 and ~riley: You have both been crystal clear and are 100% correct. I was wrong to engage in the edit warring over that file, I got caught up in it and should have known better. I have no excuse for my mistake, but I can assure you that it will never happen again. I should have relied on discussion and raised the matter if needed on the notice board instead of trying to act on my own in such a manner. Is it possible to restore the file to its original state prior to the start of our edit war so the changes can be discussed and only implemented if consensus is achieved? In any case I am sorry to have involved you in this mess and respect your decisions fully. Josh (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to defer to 4nn1l2 on that one as he is already involved on the talk page. Thank you for showing insight and understanding. ~riley (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Many_trucks

Many trucks 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!

188.110.54.18 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Education and Politics as activities?

Hi Joshbaumgartner, in March you changed many of the Education and Politics categories of each country in such a way that those categories are now to be seen as Activities - e.g. Activities in Germany. This must be an unwanted side effect. If you look at the root category Category:Activities you will notice a variety of (true) activities, but no general category such as Politics or Education. Could you please explain the reason for your edits? --Till (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Till.niermann: Note that the main structure is:

• Category:Activities

• Category:Human activities

• Category:Education
• Category:Politics

Category:Human activities by country does not exist, so therefore, Category:Education by country and Category:Politics by country ended up directly under Category:Activities by country. If someone sees fit to add this later to the 'by country' structure, that could be easily accommodated, but I am not sure that is really needed. Hopefully this helps answer your question. Thanks! Josh (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains to me the reasons for your changes. But, to be honest, it seems quite absurd to me to call education or politics a kind of activity, even in the most abstract sense. If you do that, there is no end to what is to be seen as an "activity", it is, essentially, everything humankind has ever done or is in the process of doing: Science, history, medicine, whatever. No, I'm strongly opposed to this concept and would rather stay with what the guy from the street would call an activity, i.e. what is listed in the Category:Activities. --Till (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Till.niermann (talk · contribs) The principle is a hierarchical one here. If it is agreed to remove politics from human activities, and hence from activities, then of course the same change should be made for 'by country'. In other words the 'by country' or 'by anything else' trees should reflect the hierarchy of the main categories, though any particular indexing scheme may see one or several levels of such a scheme to be redundant. I do not know that I agree with restricting the scope of activities to such a narrow band. Keep in mind that "activities" is a main topic (one of only a handful such categories) and as such topics are extremely broad in what they contain. Sub-categories are relied on for more narrow interpretations. I'm not sure what a guy from the street would say, or who qualifies as such a guy or who doesn't, so I don't think that is a very good method of determining categorization criteria. In my experience dealing with hundreds of CfDs, categories that rely on 'common sense', or more accurately, that rely on common preconceptions held by some subset of users, as opposed to being based on objective criteria are a recipe for trouble. However, as it stands, Category:Politics is a sub category of Category:Activities, ergo, Category:Politics by country should be a sub category of Category:Activities by country. Breaking that because one does not agree with the scheme of the parent category is the wrong approach. The correct approach would to be raise a CfD for Category:Politics or Category:Education, or even Category:Activities and propose changing the scope and categorization scheme applied to them. Once that is settled, the new scheme can be applied to all of the indices such as 'by country' or 'by whatever'. I appreciate your point about Education seeming a bit abstract to call a discrete activity and that Category:Activities including all sorts like that is so huge as to be almost too broad to be meaningful. That discussion simply belongs at the main category level, not at the index level which should just functionally and objectively follow whatever the parent category scheme is. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear: Do you think it is OK that with your changes you essentially say that “education” and “politics” are activities like cleaning, drawing, and walking? --Till (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

They already are categorized as such. I didn't add either Category:Education or Category:Politics to the Category:Activities tree. Whether I think it is okay is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Josh (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Numbercategory-vehicle

Hi! Sorry to disturb, but could you take a look at Category:Number 5 on racing motorcycles and Category:Number 5 on racing cars? It seems like they broke somehow over the years... Anders (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Anders: Check those out now, they should be working correctly. "racing car" and "racing motorcycle" had not been correctly setup in the template...fixed now. Josh (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are working again, thank you!! --Anders (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:1_people

1 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!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Category name pluralisation for animal breed categories

Hi, I noticed you moved a cat breed category onto a pluralised name ("Egyptian Maus"). This is not proper (and I've fixed the category); breed names as category names must be in singular form. It may not be obvious at first, especially based on the limited type of media we thus far have, but a breed is a multi-faceted phenomenon, not merely a group of animals with the same arbitrary name. There's things like breeders and studs, organisations, events, development and history, standards, founding/influential individuals, genetic topics, disputes, subtypes, specialised uses, traditions, etc. Furthermore, each breed name is a proper name. --Pitke (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

................ After taking a look around it has become clear this was not an isolated incident. Please revert your breed category name pluralisations. --Pitke (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pitke: I have no problem with cat breeds having an exemption from the standard category naming guidelines. A note on the category's talk page explaining the non-standard naming convention to be used for he categories would be helpful to ensure users are aware of the correct practice and reasoning for it. Josh (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Fry1989 ^eh? 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Groups

Hi, there is a minor problem in the Template:Groups. For example in Category:1 petal {{groups|petals|1}} wrongly adds Category:1 which is the Year 1. So "Birth of Jesus, Gaius Caesar the first emperor of the Roman Empire" and so on. Maybe Category:Groups of 1 or Category:1 (number) would be better suited. Thank You; Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahobr: There was a missing entry in the data template, it should be fixed now. Thanks! Josh (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to be annoying but Category:1_kind still has the same problem... ;-) Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahobr: No worries. 'kind' should be fixed now too. Josh (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Postmark Turkish Cyprus 1964

If I had imagined a ping would be enough to bring you back to CfDs, I would have done that before! :) All the best in 2021 and beyond. Thanks for your contributions in this year that we are about to leave behind. --E4024 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and I wish all the best to you and yours as well. Still a challenging year, but I try and at least check in on pings and comments and such, and thanks for pinging me on things where it might be useful, I appreciate it. Josh (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)