Ruff tuff cream puff

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ruff tuff cream puff!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Érico (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Decreasing resolution on crops/uncrops

• File:A history of all nations from the earliest times; being a universal historical library (1905) (14593212830).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• File:A biographical history of Fremont and Mills Counties, Iowa (1901) (14597250229).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi, I've picked out the two examples above to illustrate a problem with your recent crops and uncrops of some of my uploads. You appear to be going to the Internet Archive, downloading the page and re-upoading, but in the process decreasing the image resolution. If you want to uncrop or rotate any of the IA images, please see User:Fæ/Project_list/Internet_Archive#Un-cropping for how you can use categories to get Faebot to do it for you, ensuring the largest possible image uploaded. In both the above cases I have used the uncrop category, let Faebot load the full image, then used the standard Commons CropTool to trim the image down. This results in an image several times larger than your versions.

By the way, I noticed you removed some of my user upload categories after doing a crop, I'd rather you left them in so I can keep more accurate reports for the original batch upload projects.

If Faebot fails to act on a file for a day, leave a note about it on my talk page and I'll check out the issue. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't overwrite files

This is related to the above I've reverted your overwrite of File:Foggy sunset in Coronado.jpg, if you make substatial changes to a file, upload under a new name, e.g.File:Foggy sunset in Coronado-flipped.jpg do not overwrite the existing file with the new one. See Commons:Overwriting existing files.--KTo288 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I overwrote the file because the file as-is is incorrect. public-domain-images files are often reversed in orientation; this is especially noticeable in photos of skylines and such; I live in this city and I recognize the file as an incorrect representation of reality, and I confirmed it by viewing similar images just to make sure. This change is allowed under the guideline that you cite except in cases where another editor contests the change; I am not sure why you would contest changing a backwards picture. But so I don't get any more annoying messages about the file I will upload another version. Please, no more "do not do this" messages. Thank you. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Blanking

Hi, please don't blank pages (see policy)! If you want a page (category or other) to be deleted add a {{speedy}} tag in case of speedy deletion, or start a deletion request, or tag a category for discussion if that might be necessary. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	I keep seeing your username pop up on my watchlist making helpful categorization edits. Thanks! :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm actually having fun categorizing, I find it very satisfying, and there are hundreds of thousands of images that need cats so I'll be keeping busy for a while Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • True that. Thanks. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

IA uncrop failures

Some of the images you have marked will be replaced by the next or previous page in the document. This is because the link given in the text has the wrong (absolute) page number. You can either revert and consider doing these by hand, or you can fix the link (the page is given in the link like "n197" for page 197) and re-add to the uncrop category. This error is consistent in a document, so if a page is one less than it should be in the link, it will be the same fix for any other pages from that document or journal. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anders Fager portrait

Hey there! Anders Fager sent me his portrait (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Fager#/media/File:Anders_Fager_2016.jpg) and asked me to put it in the article about him because he wasn't happy with the previous one. I thus have written permission by the man in the picture, but not by his friend who took the photo. Please advise. Mrund (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, thanks for following up. Unfortunately, the author of the photo is the only person who can choose a license for it. The Commons treats even simple snapshots as work that belongs to the person who made it. So, in order to license the photo, you would need to send an email or message from the photographer to the address in the tag that I put on the photo. This is how the Commons protects the rights of photographers, such as those who take professional photos of famous people; the photographer owns his work, and the famous person actually has no rights to it unless the photographer gives explicit permission. This is how we keep stolen work off the site. Obviously you mean well and I'm sorry for the hassle! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mary Duffy.jpg

Hello, I recently sent a message to OTRS about the permissions regarding the image and the person who replied declined to accept the text of the message do to a misunderstaning on my part regarding the permissions. In the original email I included a copy of an email that Ms. Duffy had sent to me releasing the image for use on Wikimedia Commons under a CCA-SA 3.0 Unported license, but the respondent refused it because the wording was not exactly in line with the documentation Wikimedia required. How long do I have to get the proper worded document in? Does the deletion become permanent after a certain time?

Thank you --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Hi, thank you for your cooperation, you seem to be doing everything correctly. I am not sure why the file was deleted if you sent a copy of the email; The wording shouldn't matter, all they need is evidence that the photographer is okay with his photo having the license you gave it. The only problem might be that the email is from Ms Duffy rather than the person who created the photo, or that the photographer's wishes aren't clear enough. At any rate, it is not deleted permanently. In the tag on your talk page there is a link for undeletion, so you can nominate it and explain the problem. You might have to do the OTRS process again. I'm really sorry for the hassle. Because I'm the one who started this I'll try to help out if I can. If they decline to un-delete it they need to explain more clearly what you can do. Thanks, and sorry again. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh ok, I did not know that gadget existed. Thanks, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrator?

Any interest? You've got the credentials and we need new admins. Let me know. lNeverCry 20:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• No but thank you for the offer! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I've asked three people today and this is my second no. I hope I don't strike out... lNeverCry 04:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to ask again, we always need admins! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:STEM

STEM 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!

Giudicati (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of bot generated categories

If there are several now useless categories generated by my batch upload, best would be to give me a short note and a list of these categories such that I can remove them. I guess there is no need for a discussion... All the best --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free

Please feel free to nominate the other group of photos from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marmot_Dam, I have deleted the first batch. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle

How can Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle as a whole be in Category:National Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• The category was already in Category:National Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks, I just changed the title of the category as per the other categories in Category:Water supply infrastructure in the United States. I don't know why it was in the landmarks category, I agree it does not seem to belong there. Feel free to remove it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming categories

Please use the "Move" tab when renaming categories, rather than just copy and pasting. Helps to have any linked pages/data (WikiData), along with the history to be moved to the correct place. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ok thanks I will try to remember Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing pictures of men

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff!

When you are categorizing pictures of men, which are already categorized as "Men", please only delete the category "Men", if your new category is a subcategory of the category "Men"! Otherwise you are deleting the information, that this person is a man. E.g. File:Senpetekelly.png: The Category:State senators of Alaska doesn't any more contain an information about the sex of a person; there are men and women in this category. Senator Pete Kelly is not only a senator but also a man, and this wants to express the Category:Men.

Regards, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you feel that adding such categories is helpful, please go ahead. I choose not to unless there is something obviously man-related about the photo, such as particular men's clothing or men doing an activity. There are several million photographs of men on Commons, mostly poor in quality, and they do not all need to be in man-cats. This is especially true for uploaders' personal photos, unless they are high in quality or distinctive. But if you want to categorize images a certain way, feel free. Leave me out of it. Have fun, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fak related categories

Hi. I find the pictures I propose for deletion looking for uncategorized images, which I try to categorize -generally-. I doubt I will go into the cats you informed me of their presence. I will prefer to ignore them. Be well. --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Moses Stone

I have seen that you removed File:Moses Stone.jpg from Category:Moses Stone. The person on the image is in my opinion indeed Moses Stone. See here, a link in the article on the English WP. So I added the category again. Regards, Wouter (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, that is the correct person, I was just adding categories. I was considering moving the image to more general categories while cleaning up musicians cats, because there is only one image of the person and it doesn't require an entire category of its own yet. But the person has an article and you are interested in keeping it how it is, so I'll leave it and let you deal with it. Cheers, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Drug Education For Youth

Category:Drug Education for Youth is actually a US Navy program. It did not refer to drug education in general. I re-created the category, and I put it as a child of Category:Drug education. —howcheng {chat} 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia deletion

Hello! Thank you for reporting me on the rules to be respected to upload files to wikimedia commons. I appreciate it means that wikipedia is an affable and watchful verapia. However, I'm sorry that I've been assured of the right clauses in the wiki upload form and there are no acts of copyright infringement since all the files I uploaded are owned by the artist Ernesttico. Authorized public photos taken by me and people who work for him. Anyway, I remain available for any clarification or if I have to correct some cataloging in the upload. Thanks and compliments for your work.

Fish related categories

Hi. I am not an expert on fishes. Therefore I could not understand why you placed what we call "palamut" in Turkish and what they call "bonito" in Spanish under "mackerel", what we call "uskumru" in Turkish and what they call caballa or jurel in Spanish... --E4024 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I have been trying to figure out a clear way to organize this and not doing a great job there, not all the Scombridae are known as mackerels and not all the mackerels are in the Scombridae, and other issues with common names. So I will move that particular species from Category:Mackerel as food to Category:Scombridae as food, which makes a bit more sense. Thanks for pointing that out, and if you can find a better way to categorize it, feel free to make changes. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Related: Can you explain to me what's been going on with the series of changes to (for example) File:Lake Washington Ship Canal Fish Ladder pamphlet - male freshwater phase Steelhead.jpg? I'm pretty confused. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States – Results!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2017}} to your userpage!

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,400 people (the most of any nation this year) contribute over 8,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate pages on various Wikimedia projects.

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States! These photos are recognized for their photographic quality, artistic merit, and their encyclopedic value as illustrations of unique historical sites. We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret only being able to formally recognize the top 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other national contests, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 winners.

If you would like to view all the photos submitted for the U.S. this year, you may do so here.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all U.S. participants to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

A quick thank you to our national jury, as well as Commons editors who have helped categorize and place photos for the event. And finally, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments and helping to preserve our history through photography - we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events!

~Kevin Payravi & Nikikana, from Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States (16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Is there a reason for moving species illustrations back into the main directory?

Hi! I really like the illustrations, videos, and audio files of a species be located in a subdirectory. This actually works well with the existing category structure. I am unable to determine a reason, good or otherwise to not do that. So I am here, asking what a good reason might be? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. It is early in my day here. I was responding to this move https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_birds_of_Illinois_and_Wisconsin_(1909)_(14755731535).jpg&type=revision&diff=270394401&oldid=265397865

I thought about these photographs that were in magazines. I decided to call them illustrations because they are illustrating an article, printed in a book (compared to photographs which are printed on their own), and a scan of a printed material (not a scan of a photograph). Even better printing of photographs in books or journals suffer compared to how a photograph is printed.

The same with the taxidermy photographs that were printed into books or journals. Illustrating an article and much about the printing techniques. Another example of this is newspapers and school yearbooks. The photographs used are often sold after they are published.

I also ramble early in the day, so sorry. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's really great, actually, that you are getting rid of those "in art" categories. Also, I should never spam anyones talk page until the local afternoon. Sorry.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Hi, thanks, I don't mind a little ranting, hope it helped. Here is the thing: I'm going through all the animalia cats and creating cats for zoological illustrations; it is a huge project, so it requires a lot of reformatting of the category system, and I expected many people would be annoyed by a wholesale change. But it is a change that is needed because there is not enough organization and uniformity of these categories. I have almost finished with the fish, and the categories are easier to use now, in my opinion.

Yes I thought about moving black-and-white photos from (illustrations) into the main species cat, whether this would be controversial. As I am going through I am separating photos from illustrations or "art" or whatever we call it, and I have noticed some categories have a (historical images) subcategory. This might be useful for low-quality b&w photos from ancient books. On the other hand, if you think these photos work better in the (illustrations) categories, feel free to move them back. I am making such large-scale moves (thousands of files) that I cannot be concerned with where individual files go. Plus, my main focus is zoological illustrations (i.e. scientific drawings and paintings meant to illustrate organisms), other types of files might get moved inadvertantly; just move them back. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The primordial soup which is the tree of life

I am ranting now. Not at you, more of a this is not my first dive into the muck which is the TOL steam release.

A tree of life can be outlined for digital images also. The steps they go through have a lot to do with what sort of species they are now.

I am already in a bad mood here because of the flickr bot bot, fae, which picks up a different bots image poop and puts it here instead of getting its own food, processing it, and making its own perfect for the commons poop. What would be great would be all the links to all of the same issue of the same journal put it in the description on the image page of the commons own little poop drop of the image.

The difference between "art" and "illustrations". They cross purposes. There is an art tree and there is a scientific illustration tree and they cross. A little sculpture which is a species of birds. So, this is not a rant, just keep your eye out for something that is art of a species. The European Goldfinch is the worst for this that I have seen yet. So, the art category would fall under illustrations because those journal photographs of stuffed birds is a different kind of art which should be sectioned off into taxidermy also; for the lovers of that art. Sports crosses purposes here also, in the birds more than in the plants with hunting and fly-tieing.

Some of the articles that have been uploaded here for the old journals have been recorded at librivox. While making your own bot poop from IA, you could also pick up oggs there.

One last big rant which is not about you but about that french stupid bot bot which stupidified the botany categories I made. I had three of their maps outlined there -- for each of the major cycles of books and their attempts for a century to work that crap out. Homeopaths, gardeners, botanists, foodees, farmers, medicines -- they all have a book bulge with one or other of the trees. The french bot bot was removing all of that and replacing it with this years one stupid for other reasons model!! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I left a reply in your previous note. Not sure what the point of this one is, or what problem needs to be fixed. The changes I am making aren't actually a new invention of mine, but expanding on a category system that was already put in place. As I noted above, my focus is zoological illustrations, so I am creating new categories using the pattern already in place, and trying to be consistent with it. I am not doing anything new here. If I move a picture of a taxidermied bird from (illustrations) into the main species cat, it is part of a large-scale move and if it doesn't work for you, just move it back. I agree that part of the mess was caused by bots, this is one reason a human needs to do the formatting. If I revert a useful change made by another human, just move it back. No need to visit my talk page to discuss it, I have no emotional investment in these changes and I'm not nitpicking. I am just making the category system that is already in place uniform throughout the zoological categories. It is not useful the way it is now. Thanks, have fun. -Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

reason for

Hello Ruff tuff,
About your revert:
Like you I usualy don't like fancy sortkey (We globally agreed on " ", "?" and "†" which are very clear).
In the case of Category:Actiniaria, you can see that I provided 3 {{Taxa}} to list the suborders.
There is a note wich says "Plus familiae Actinoscyphiidae, Capneidae, Iosactiidae, Metridiidae and genera Stauractis".
That is why those 5 families have a sortkey : to avoid mixing them with surorders placed in Category:Actiniaria.
It also allows in one glance to check the listed sub-orders, the listed famillies and the taxon placed there by errors (Currently the case for Category:Petalactis).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle redux

You moved this last July from Category:Seattle water infrastructure. Thinking about it again: are you sure of this wording? Most of this is not in Seattle, it's in watersheds outside of Seattle, owned by the city. - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• The wording I am sure of: I moved the cat from "Seattle water infrastructure" to "water supply infrastructure in Seattle" to align with other "water supply infrastructure in (city)" cats. I have no idea what is actually in the category, including any subcategories. I just moved the whole mess along with the title, which already featured the word "Seattle". The contents of the category might need to be sorted out and recategorized. I agree that infrastructure that is not actually in Seattle does not belong in that category. Thanks -Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • But it is all the water infrastructure of Seattle, hence the original name. It is just that most of that infrastructure is not in Seattle. It is in the river valleys of the Seattle hinterland. - 06:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly Category:Seattle water supply system, analogous to what we do for New York City? (I still prefer the original "infrastructure" because it included sewerage as well as supply, but we could split that out. - 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Got it. I may have modeled the cat name after Category:Water supply infrastructure in Boston. Similar reformatting could be made there. I'll leave it up to you. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(illustrations)

I notice you've been renaming various categories from along the lines of "Category:Animal illustrations" to "Category: Animal (illustrations)". Since the "Animal illustrations" is intuitive and perfectly correct grammatically it seems unnecessary. I understand that in some cases using a parenthetical specifier at the end can save time sorting or finding categories but in this case the two are so similar that I think we should just keep naming them in plain English. Is there a good reason for the parentheses that I don't know about? Abyssal (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't like the parentheses either, but that is the format that has been set up for the mammals, so I am changing them all to match. I would rather have them without the parentheses, like the fish illustration categories are (such as Category:Salvelinus fontinalis illustrations), but I didn't start the trend. Same problem with the bird categories. Someday if I have a ton of extra time I'll do a complete overhaul and take out the parentheses but for now they need to all be formatted the same to make searching easier. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we rename them all at once with a bot? Abyssal (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That would be great, if you know someone who can do it. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

W

Hello my friend,
I saw you excellent contributions.
You could use WikipediaBioReferences a free tool that I created for our kind of contributions:
You put the taxon name, it returns wikicommons syntax that you can copy/paste in wikicommons.
Mostly references and subtaxon list.
It is very simple to install and I will help you of course.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will read about it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you try WBR?

About this change of sortkey.

It is a sad situation were contributors create one subfamily but not the other.

Hopefully it is always a temporary problem.

So your change of sortkey is really needed to move the subfamilly out the bunch of genera.

The question is what sortkey should we use ?

• space is used for non taxonomic categories (see Category:Mantodea). Sometimes there are many of those.
• . is used for automatic categories (see Category:Thespidae). But there are not many of those. So we could use it.
• * could be used

What do you think ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Yes I really don't know how to use it. I am just trying to organize categories, but there should be a way to do it so that anyone can do it without using tools or complicated code schemes; this system is supposed to be accessible and usable by anyone. A category should make it easy to find files. I modify a category and it looks correct, but apparently messes up the codes and links somehow? So if I make a change like that perhaps you could fix it for me. Thanks for your help Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reflections of people

I removed your categorization. First, your User: and User_talk: pages don’t indicate explicitly that you are proficient with English and I spent an extra minute to ensure you have to be. As a presumably native speaker, you should know that “Reflection” has several meanings. One of them is Reflection (geometry) that would be appropriate, but Reflections of people is a subcategory of Reflections of objects which, in turn, pertains to Reflections – from interwiki links and subcategories you easily could infer that it is about an optical phenomenon, not photoshopping. Please, think better next time before removing {{Uncategorized}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! I will certainly think better next time! I will also review my vocabulary more thoroughly in my future categorization pursuits! I appreciate the advice and welcome future suggestions. Best regards, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Stagecoaches

Please revert your merger with Concord, you are quite wrong to do this. Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• You're going to have to explain what you mean. Also, you may want to fix the problem yourself so it is done correctly. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did you do your merger? Eddaido (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If you could place a note on each category explaining what it contains, this would help people put their images in the correct category. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • If you could consider what you are about to do and perhaps contact the editor concerned that made the category before demolishing it that would be nice. Please fix it, I am sure it will be beyond simple little me.

• • • • Please have a look at what I was doing when you made your edit and finally, why did you make the edits I'm complaining about? (again) Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.157.19.93 10:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.157.19.93 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations vs. Photographs

I spent some time considering the difference between a photograph and an illustration when it comes to photographs that were printed in a book or journal and then scanned. I decided that they were illustrations. I might be wrong about this but I would like to share my reasoning.

The form they appear in is so far removed from an actual photograph. Their usefulness as a "photograph" is limited at best. Also, they went through the secondary (and destructive) printing so that they might "illustrate" an article or book chapter.

Do you know if there are any commons guidelines about this? (example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_birds_of_California_(Figure(s))_(7699559902).jpg&curid=43106393&diff=289193435&oldid=288646672 ) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The animal illustrations, if you go up the categories from species to family and so on, are in Category:Zoological illustrations. We also have Category:Botanical illustrations for plants. These are technical illustrations (i.e. artwork) that is meant to be scientifically accurate and describe the subject; there is an article at en:Biological illustration. These are things like Audubon illustrations. We have a massive collection of these, so they need a category system of their own, and the zoological illustrations categories don't include photographs. I don't think we need a Commons guideline defining what a zoological illustration is, it is a specific topic and a specific form of art.

An existing Commons guideline would negate any discussion of it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it useful to separate book photos from photos taken by Commons users and other sources. It is not a tool that people need to find the images they are looking for. Also I don't see how we would agree on whether or not a photo was used to "illustrate" something at one point; any photo can be used to illustrate something.

Origin. Method of printing. How format changes between camera and digital image. By your definition, video would also be photographs and in many ways a video is more like a photograph than a scan of a printing of a photograph in a book or journal.--RaboKarbakian (talk)

For the old black and white photos from old books, some people like to put them in "historical images" categories such as the ones in Category:Historical images of birds. I am removing photographs from the zoological and "illustrations" categories because they are not zoological illustrations. Thanks for your help. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of terra-cotta or ceramic likenesses are also not "zoological illustrations". I have not helped here but I do think that I have thought about this more than you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I really deserve that. I am actually very clearly explaining what a zoological illustration is, and some other options for old photographs. I also would not put a photograph of a sculpture into a zoological illustration category. The peacock has Category:Pavo cristatus in art. This can contain artwork that is not meant to be an accurate scientific illustration of a species, such as sculptures and paintings. You can put the terra-cotta sculptures there. Category:Pavo cristatus (illustrations) is a subcategory of that, because a zoological illustration is a specific kind of art. I don't think a 100-year old book photo would go in either of those categories. I am not sure how else to explain this. I have built hundreds of biological illustrations categories, from tapeworms to mammals, and there are no photographs. Maybe it is the birds that you are most concerned with; if so, you might want to look at the other taxa to see how those illustration categories are built. Nobody gets emotional about the tapeworm illustrations, and I'm just starting with those. You might also look at Category:Botanical illustrations for scientific illustrations of plants. Commons is a file repository, and categories are meant to direct people to the files they need. People looking for zoological and botanical illustrations are not looking for photos. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

By deserving, it might be me that needs the thinking re-adjusted. More like "By Collaboration" as it is easy and even fun to just revert the edits of others. I know this first hand as I watched things I have done be reverted by others. They are so un-usable as photographs which is all that should be found in that upper category. In other lives here I have categorized plants and places and video and audio. They are as different of a format from the actual photographs as they are from audio or video. As illustrations, they point to additional information. I always found the commons to be the very best research tool available. The serving images to wikipedias is the easy thing. Being as good of a research tool as wikipedias is the purpose for the categories and the galleries; etc. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Internship

Internship 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!

Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Help upload this photo [1]. Thank you.171.245.241.90 02:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• This cannot be uploaded to Commons because it is marked copyrighted. The licenses that are allowed on Commons can be found at Commons:Licensing. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Buphagus_erythrorhynchus_on_big_mammals

Buphagus erythrorhynchus on big mammals 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!

Kersti (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Benedict Wells © Dirk Skiba.jpg.

Hello! I'm writing you because of your message about this foto. I'm not sure what to do now and I hope you can help me. I'm Benedict Wells myself and I have asked Dirk Skiba, the photographer, if I can use his foto for the English Wikipedia site. (It's from this series: http://dirk-skiba-fotografie.de/autoren-a-z/w/benedict-wells). He said yes, so I uploaded it last year. What shall I do now? Best whishes and thank you.

• Hello, sorry about the hassle, but Wikimedia Commons requires the actual photographer to give evidence of permission that their photo is avaiable under a usable license. This is so we can prevent violations of copyright and release of photographers' work without their consent. So in order to release the photo you can use the Commons:OTRS system; it involves getting the photographer's written permission and emailing it to Commons, the details are located at that link. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, thank you for your quick reply. I try to do my best and I hope I understood everything right in English. So what I have to do is to ask the photographer to send an e-mail to "[email protected]", saying that wikipedia can use this foto - right? Best wishes!

Some questions

I have a mindset about this collection of media, the set of files which is the commons. It might be wrong, however. You have a completely different mindset and I would like to know it.

I see this collection as being the greatest repository of media for any person needing such media. Videos about bugs or photographs of pollen or street locations, svg of penguins, etc, etc. Perhaps an elementary school teacher who has spent as much time learning the language of the kinder as they have learning math, science, literature combined. How can they find the media they need?

They misuse the word "Engraving". They use the word calligraphy to describe a style of font and not a skill of very very skilled artisans. At what point does the common language get an entry point? Oh sure, we used to call that language "vulgare" and if we are not using the word engraving correctly, and it is an issue here, should we change the name from commons to precise language onlys?

A child I worked with uploaded a video to fb. Math teacher. Special ed also. College grad, homeowner, younger than me. She had changed the camera from profile to landscape and back again. How much education should be required to find stuff here. She is not stupid, but I cannot help but try to imagine her finding something to aide her in her job at the public schools where I live.

Thumbnails are a problem. My crappy scans of a faded printing (a collection of dots rather than a chemical smear) are now showing in categories first and common people looking for photographs will think that the commons is a terrible place to find photographs.

Paintings started life as minerals. Should all paintings be categorized as the minerals their paints contained?

Please, tell me what you think people, common people, will be here for, looking for and how will it be easiest for them to find it? Are you planning on manning a helpdesk here?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Language is already complicated enough. Foroa was minding the froms and toos and tos. Branches and branches of proper connective phrases which helped with translations. It was beautiful. On the inside, you should think about the people on the outside.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

my mistake in species categories

When you encounter a species category, and it has the {{VN}} template on it, move it up to the beginning. That was one of my big mistakes. And if there is a script writer, it would be a good thing to keep an eye on the number of common names that occur in one language. Official common names are rude. But every location has a sting weed and a picker bush. :Category:Picker bushes in New York with nettles. Or better a gallery, but the category is a great way to collect the images.

The common names have been published in books like the scientific name has. We don't have {{Needs citation}} here, but if we did, common names would be more defined that the scientific names are.--RaboKarbakian (talk)

• Hello, which category are you referring to and what do you mean by "move it up to the beginning?" I've been making a lot of changes and I'm not sure which change you're talking about. Let me know what you want me to do, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello back! Any of the plant species categories. Category:Avena sativa, for instance. I've been there recently and I didn't do what I asked you to do. Here is the diff: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Avena_sativa&type=revision&diff=308018281&oldid=305937057 And I have not learned how to display a diff like I know what is going on either.... Just move the VN over the taxo-navigation. They (the common names) used to be manually put there but now they can be pulled in from wikidata. Thanks for responding, btw. I would not have blamed you for ignoring me! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK I will do my best; I guess I have not been doing things like this because I have no idea how Wikidata works. If I mess something up there, feel free to fix it for me. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I recently made a wikidata link from "Memorial Day" to wikisource. Unfortunately, it is linked to one section of one book. wikidata:Q371781. Source has a section of a portal page for this s:en:Portal:Holidays#Memorial Day but wikidata doesn't like the link with the "#". I am just pointing this out because it is not correct but it is somewhat correct and I am leaving it until a better solution is found there. One of the experts from en.wikipedia plants started making a Portal for each species, but I expect to have a Portal:Taxonomy there soonish.

Why do I write this stuff here? I am only a little not new to wikidata. Truly we are close to equals there in ability and it is not unlike categories. So, one new and living problem and the solution as I am guessing. And a "good luck" for over there.

Also, I learned a lot from what (I suspect) is an old guy who wanted me to stop messing up the plants here and it is probably my turn now, to be the "old guy". Truly, I did not really start learning anything until I checked out what he was trying to tell me. There was a lot to learn.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Children with balls

Children with balls mean they have a toy? How is a basketball considered a toy? Or a bowling ball? --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relax. If you are desperate to nitpick, I would staunchly agree that not all balls are toys. Indeed, you could have a child with a vast array of spherical objects that may be considered balls by some but not all people. Perhaps even certain types of balls, or objects which are called balls, which have probably never been used as toys, such as mating balls or larch balls. The title of the category may even be interpreted in ways that do not include spherical objects at all, when it comes down to it. The point is that when people come looking for images of children with balls, they may look for these images in the parent category children with toys. Therefore I have arranged the categories so that it makes these images easier to find for the casual user who is not obsessed with semantics. That is what the category system is for. Yes, some people would consider a sports-related ball a toy, especially when utilized by a child. If this disturbs you, you might add the necessary clarity by attaching the category to Category:Toy balls instead of balls-in-general categories. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're rude. Do whatever you want. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • You came to my talk page, I didn't come to yours. I answered your question. I will do whatever I want, but you can also make changes if you disagree with mine. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Ruff tuff cream puff,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Genera disambiguation

Hello,
The syntax that I enforced (see also here) is a better syntax than putting the disambiguation in the list.
It allows to update the list in the future without having to re-do the disambiguation It allows to have the same disambiguation for all {{Genera}}.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Look I don't care what syntax you use, could you please remove Category:Tayloria (Asteraceae) from this mollusc category and put Category:Tayloria (Streptaxidae) back in? I fixed an error and you reverted it. If I fix an error incorrectly could you just fix the error correctly instead of just putting the error back? Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

hello again. magazine vs photograph

I am wondering if there is a way to mark these.

File:Bird-Lore-1-2 0048.png is not a photograph, it is a scan of a magazine. It's usefulness is limited compared to photographs.

I don't revert these mistakes. Is that a mistake that I am making?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I am not differentiating between photos and scans of photos. I am moving photographs out of the zoological illustrations categories. Zoological illustrations are a specific type of artwork that are separate from photographs; because we have many tens of thousands of zoological (and botanical) illustrations, they have their own category strings (e.g. Category:Botanical illustrations and Category:Zoological illustrations.) We also have thousands of categories for the illustrators (artists) who make this type of art, such as Audubon. I don't really know how to separate photographs from scans of photos, or if we need to separate them. Old black and white early photos of animals are sometimes put in Category:Historical images of animals and similar cats. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason that I uploaded them is so they can be used at wiki source for the magazine that they came from. If not for that, they are such crap (as far as being useful goes). The reason I discuss them like this with you is because there are really great photographs here and photographers also -- I don't know that having the cats filled with those crap scans will be discouraging, but it might be to me if the situation was reversed.

The illustration categories, I know them well. These old magazines were somewhat responsible for the later funding that the scientists received, making wildlife management an issue. Bird-lore came from the Audubon Society. They are really close to being "scientific" while at the same time being accessible for regular folk.

I didn't like putting the bird children (maybe you have seen them) into the illustrations -- for the science reason -- although an early-childhood introduction to things like birds and plants is generally how the Americans start to teach the sciences.

Another thing, and you can trust me to know what I am talking about with this one, if the uploader is taking the commons (and their work or find) seriously at all, the illustration will find itself in the appropriate gallery.

Your problem with me, whether you know this yet or not, is that I was once very good at the cats here. Has anyone shown you the master cat? Hmm, the one I saw seems to be gone. I had problems with that due to the Apollo mission. They had space missions separated into Manned missions and Unmanned missions and Apollo was both. (They being, I think, the Germans.)

Also, we discussed this before. When I had you look at one of these "photographs" at full resolution you agreed. So, I won't revert your work as I really really dislike that when it was done to me. I appreciate that you are discussing it with me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the old scans are crap, but that's a judgement. Who am I to say they won't be useful to someone. I don't like most of the stupid photos people upload. But looking at a category of animal photos and dividing them into "crap" and "not crap" isn't helpful because it is an opinion. Dividing them into "photo" and "illustration" is not an opinion, these are two different types of files. A category you might use as a trashcan instead of the illustrations category is the "low quality" images category, such as Category:Larus argentatus (low quality). This way you can use your opinion about the quality of photos without tossing crap photos into an illustration category. And I don't have a "problem with you" personally (you came to my talk page, I didn't come to yours), I don't know you, I don't know about your extensive history or mastery of categorizing, I don't care about other users or their specialties, I am here to deal with the files, not argue. I don't care if we disagree on what an "illustration" is, there are 40,000,000 files here and I won't squabble over individual ones. This is supposed to be enjoyable, if Commons isn't fun it's time to move on to other hobbies, cheers Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here is a warning then. If you don't think that the attempt to appeal to, at the very least, an outline (or contribution trail) of yourself 10 years ago is not fun or at least interesting; you should stop now in making strong opinions about image database circumscription. I could take it as a compliment to my renovation skills if this involved more than using auto- white or black point buttons included with just about any image software.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't give me "warnings", I have no strong opinions about "image database circumscription", I am just categorizing images here. You are taking this personally and getting creepy. This is the part of Commons that I don't get involved with, robot weirdos who get anxious about lines of code. I don't know what else to say, so how about you leave me alone. Thanks, have a good time Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 84 on Flickr

Back in July, you tagged a group of pictures of Interstate 84 in Connecticut uploaded by User:OceanAtoll, which you claimed were "photos of nothing." What exactly made them "nothing?" ----DanTD (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for you to show me where I put this tag, I don't remember. That particular user was banned for using a bot that made problematic bulk uploads (totaling 100,000 files) and not checking what it uploaded. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Captive, Cultivated subcategories of organisms

Hi RTCP - please don't empty or delete these; speaking as a biologist, it is very important to keep these separate from photos of species in their natural habitat, even if there is just one in the subcategory. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Which category was this? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Several; examples (not a complete list!) Category:Tyrannus tyrannus (captive), Category:Passerina ciris (captive), Category:Sterna hirundo (captive), Category:Abies chensiensis (cultivated), Category:Abies squamata (cultivated), Category:Pinus yunnanensis (cultivated, bark), and more ;-) MPF (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember. However, when you create these categories, would you be able to attach them to parent categories? For example, Category:Tyrannus tyrannus (captive) should be in both Category:Tyrannus tyrannus and Category:Passeriformes (captive) or such. Category:Passerina ciris (captive) can also be in Category:Passeriformes (captive). This makes it easier to search for topics, as the categories can be searched from two or more aspects. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to remember, but it isn't always easy to find the second one ;-) MPF (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And other categories created

The categories I create are created for good reason. They should not be deleted without discussion. For example, you emptied and deleted Category:Abies lasiocarpa (unknown subspecies). As I'm sure you're well aware, some authorities split some of the subspecies Abies lasiocarpa into separate species. Therefore, categorisation of the Abies lasiocarpa photos into their relevant subspecies is important, pending possible wider acceptance of this split. The handful of files with images giving no location and not identifiable to subspecies are therefore of very low value, barely better than belonging in Category:Unidentified Abies; they should not be placed as the sole images in the head species category, as this may mislead less well-read users into thinking they are the best photos of the species, when they're in fact the worst. Likewise, as again you'll know well, the two subspecies of Category:Passerina ciris were proposed for a split which was rejected at the time but may be re-evaluated in the future if additional evidence emerges; once again photos unidentifiable to subspecies should not be left as the "best" examples in the species category. I am left wondering how many more important categories I will have to track down to restore, and re-allocate their images; it is extremely slow and tedious work. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this wasn't a matter of being careful or not. Thanks! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2018!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2018}} to your userpage!

Hello! Last year you contributed to Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States. Thanks to people like you it was a great success, with over 1,400 people contributing over 8,000 photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the country. Hundreds of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, improving our open knowledge about United States history, culture, and heritage.

I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information. The event runs similar to last year with some small but exciting changes: improved state guides, an interactive map, and a larger prize pool! Like last year, you'll be able to upload your photos of any registered historical site in the United States through the end of September (even if the photos were taken before this month).

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017, and we hope to see you again in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

birds, nests, illustrations

wikimedia diff

A media should be in more than one branch of an important tree and if possible in more than one important tree. I have been doing printed works recently. There is a speech here which I could not find because I was looking for speeches by the author and it had been categorized by day only. It should have been located along the speech tree also.

The diff I pasted, that image can and should be in both categories. It is an illustration and it is a bird nest.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Source and author - Vincent Asaro img

The source and author is quite clear in the image details - it says clearly source=Pinterest and author=FBI - not quite sure what you are getting at? ThePlane11 (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• The source needs to be verifiable, so that other people can verify the license. Anybody can put anything on Pinterest. If you could find the image in a credible source such as the FBI website, it would be more likely to be verifiable. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2018 (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!

It was the file File:American malacological bulletin (2005) (17968238800).jpg. Snek01 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Leptactina mannii.jpg

File:Leptactina mannii.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

COM:A

Hey Ruff tuff cream puff,

Have you ever considered running for admin? You seem to have the qualifications to be one, and the backlogs do need help. -- 1989 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, I know there is a lot of work to be done there, but I do everything I can to avoid user-related drama and admins seem to suffer a lot of that. Might consider it in the future though. Really appreciate your note, thanks! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• You’ll only encounter drama if you get involved in it. What I think you’ll get is new users who are confused on how Commons work request for their files back, saying they own the image, etc. It shouldn’t be that hard, right? You could always resign if you feel the need to. -- 1989 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• If you want an alternative, you could become a license reviewer at COM:LRR, as there's a backlog there as well. -- 1989 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seeing as you’re not responding tells it like it is, so I’m going to unwatch this page now. If you wish to give a response, notify me by using the {{Ping}} template. Good day. -- 1989 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Brownlowia elata.jpg

File:Brownlowia elata.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of category to state damage was by hurricane rather than infrastructure failure

See Category_talk:Automobiles_damaged_by_Hurricane_Katrina if you wish to comment. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Bird illustrations from old books

Hi RTCP - files like File:Bird studies for home and school; sixty common birds, their habits and haunts (1911) (14564522118).jpg are illustrations - it even says so in the file description: "Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book" [my emphasis]; not museum specimens. They therefore belong in the subcategories [Category:Genus species (illustrations)], not in the subcategories [Category:Genus species (museum specimens)]. Important as in close view, they show printed illustration characteristics, made up of halftone dots, not continuous as in photos. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree, [Category:Genus species (illustrations)] are for zoological illustrations, which are biological illustrations, the definition of which can be found at Category:Biological illustrations ("This category is for artistic illustrations"), which is a subcategory of Category:Scientific illustrations ("Scientific illustrations showing features of animals, plants and other species..."). Biological illustrations are a specific form of art: per en:Biological illustration ("Biological illustration is the use of technical illustration to visually communicate the structure and specific details of biological subjects of study".) We need a category specifically for biological illustrations of species, and that is was the (illustrations) category is for. It is not for random photos used as book illustrations. There is no need to separate general photographs from photographs that were used in books. We have a Category:Book illustrations category, but this doesn't seem to include photographs; we could make a category that has book illustrations that are photographs of species if there is a need.
  

Regarding the museum specimens, that category is for museum specimens, including taxidermied and prepared specimens of life forms. The huge collection of images we have in books like Category:Birds and nature are photographs of taxidermied animals, and they go in [Category:Genus species (museum specimens)]. It doesn't matter if they were used as "illustrations" in books because they are not "zoological illustrations". Audobon paintings are zoological illustrations. Photographs of birds are not. That is why I will continue to move photographs out of the (illustrations) categories, because we need those categories specifically reserved for zoological illustrations, being a notable, important topic in both science and art. If you need a category for "book illustrations", maybe you can start a [Category:Genus species (book illustrations)] category string? Old photographs also work well in the [Category:Genus species (historical images)] categories. I'm not sure there is a need to separate (illustrations) into "scientific or technical illustrations" vs. "book illustrations that are made up of halftone dots". I could start a [Category:Genus species (zoological illustrations)] category string, if you really need book illustrations separated from other photos for whatever reason? It would be time-consuming but I need somewhere to put zoological illustrations, including the tens of thousands of images we have yet uncategorized. You can revert all my work if you want to, but as I go through all these old books and categorize images I will continue to keep the (illustrations) categories for scientific illustrations and move photographs out. Thanks, have fun. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all; they are illustrations, taken from old books, not photos of live birds, nor museum specimens that you could visit and obtain a DNA sample from. [Category:Genus species (illustrations)] is for all illustrations of that species, not just specifically 'zoological' illustrations, which (if really necessary, which in most cases it isn't), would be a subcategory of "general" illustrations. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

So you can have a photo of a taxidermied animal and put it in a (museum specimens) category, but if that photo was published in a book, you don't put it in that category? This is just getting silly, you can develop your own system of categorizing pictures but don't expect me to learn it and use it. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't have proof they are photos of taxidermied animals, and they are certainly not referenced identifiable individual specimens; we do know however that they are illustrations from a book. They also have the same physical structure (halftone dots) as book illustrations derived from paintings. But more to the point, their categorisation should depend on what their educational end use on wikipedias is: one would not use them in a species article taxobox; for that, one wants a higher quality photo of a live individual, not a low quality halftone illustration. Neither would one use them as an example of a museum specimen, nor to do research on available museum specimens that one might want to study for e.g. DNA research. So they are out of place in the main species category, and also out of place in the museum specimens category. They are - as illustrations from books - very much in place in the illustrations category. It is so obvious, I really can't see why you want to put them anywhere else. I suppose to be brutally honest, the best place to put them would be in an out-of-the-way subcategory "Junk images that virtually no-one is likely to want to use" where they don't clutter up categories of more useful files (joke, not serious! ;-) MPF (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Tarentola parvicarinata.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

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

 

Ytoyoda (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Organization

Organization 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!

KPFC 💬 20:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Painted_windows

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

Josh (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wondering about an edit of yours

Wondering about this edit: not patchwork? not a closeup? I don't get it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Careful

This picture is of Bodine when he was 28 (see http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses2.html). "Adolescent" is not the best descriptor. DS (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• lol wow Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Biceps brachii muscle

This phrase isn't redundant, and in many languages is required. The phrase "biceps brachii" means "two-headed of the arm" and requires the noun "muscle" to be a complete noun phrase. It is only recently that "biceps brachii" (or "biceps") has come to be used in English as a shortened phrase. Medical terminology worldwide uses the complete phrase musculus biceps brachii. Please reverse the multiple moves you made to restore the complete phrase. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• The English Wikipedia article doesn't seem to agree with you. Maybe you could change the name of that article. Feel free to make the changes you want. Thanks, have fun. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have access to a bot to deal with the large number of moves I'd have to correct. I'll post a request in the Village Pump since you're not willing to handle to correction yourself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • If you want it formatted this way, you would need to change the category name anyway from singular to plural; I wouldn't revert the changes to what they were before or you will have double the work on your hands. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yoga categories

Hi, many thanks for your work tidying up yoga categories. Please note that no images should ever go into Category:Yoga itself; often they are types of Asana and should go into the most specific Asana category possible, e.g. Category:Kapotasana.

We also get quite a lot of PowerPoint or similar slides from Indian yoga teacher training courses; I think these are basically either advertising or just using Commons as a free server to organise training materials, which sounds to me like an abuse worthy of deleting the materials and blocking the perpetrators, but who am I to judge. At any rate they mustn't go in Category:Yoga ...! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Look I don't know anything about the topic. When a subcategory is deleted, I have to move the files to the main category; from there someone else will need to recategorize them. That is a separate task, and one for someone who understands the topic. As for the advertising and personal junk people upload, you are welcome to judge that they should be deleted. If they meet the criteria for deletion and/or do not meet the criteria for acceptable files, please get rid of them! Thanks, have fun. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Botanical illustration by...

Did you know that phylum and division are considered to be the same rank and interchangeable in botany? So making two separate categories is misleading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Very good, professor! I assume you are referring to Category:Botanical illustrations by taxon. You will notice that this category makes no sense, especially in the context of the category hierarchy it belongs to. I am using it as a temporary trash can until I can get it reformatted and make it work with the parent categories and subcategories. I used the wording on purpose. It might be ugly for a while, because this is a time-consuming process that is being done in segments. The wording helps with the formatting of each segment and it will be cleaned up if you give me minute. Rather than just dropping an asshole comment on my talk page and then prancing off without doing any work, you could assess this category structure and either change it or propose changes that are helpful. If you aren't going to help, go do something else until I can get this work done. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fomes fomentarius and other

Don't delete the correct category: it's vandalism. Wikipedia articles refer to it. Selso (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Fomes fomentarius- good category Fomes fomentarius by country - idiotic categories. Selso (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured video candidates

		We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
		Dear Ruff tuff cream puff, Are you Interested in Film Making/Videography/Cinematography or Animated films? 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) 08:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

honestly

A few moves would've sufficed rather than attempting to delete. Famartin (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• You'll need to be more specific. Thank you, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2019

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2019 has started in the whole world. It is now completed in Russia (active in May), Ukraine and France (active during November), but it's still open in all the other countries.

If you want to take part where WSC2019 is still open, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, please consider that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, i.e. "nature and wildlife".

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase, please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2020.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsuscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2019 #WikiScience #WikiScience2019

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Species illustrations categories

Hi Ruff - it would be much better if you standardised the format to the much older [Category:Genus species (illustrations)], please. This was the format first used, several years before anyone started using " - botanical illustrations", and is independent of whether the parent category is a plant or an animal. It also more inclusive, as it allows for the incorporation of the small number of illustrations that might by some to be considered not "botanical" and which are then left 'homeless'. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ok I'll start doing that when we actually change the entire format. If you look across all of the plant illustrations categories, almost all of them are in the "Genus species - botanical illustrations" style; we are talking thousands, maybe 10,000, or more categories. I don't know what it used to be and I can't be concerned if the format has changed. They should all be formatted the same to keep our huge collection easy to navigate. If you would like to change the format back to (illustrations), could you please start a Cfd or something similar, and when there is consensus about the change, someone with a bot will have to do it. I am not going to be the one to start changing 10,000 categories.
  

As for botanical illustrations, we need a category specifically for botanical illustrations. We have a massive collection of files of that specific topic and it needs a category of its own. I am willing to bet most of the ones we have are yet uncategorized, and then there are many more yet to be uploaded. Botanical illustrations categories can be subcategories of (illustrations) categories if you want. But in that case, (illustrations) categories can be included in "Genus species in art" which contain art works other than scientific illustrations, so we don't need the (illustrations) category as a separate level. We have a category for any type of botany file you can think of, none need to be left homeless and they don't all have to be tossed into illustrations categories.

So until there is a large-scale change I'm not going to change the formatting we currently use, it is too big a project. If you want to get that project underway, please feel free to start a discussion so we can find a way to make it happen. Thanks, have a good day Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was already doing the [Category:Genus species (illustrations)] style by 2009-2010 at least, maybe earlier; the [Category:Genus species - botanical illustrations] style only started around 2015, but whoever started it, didn't look at established system, but was very prolific, very quickly. For the vast majority of species, it isn't necessary to split specifically 'botanical' illustrations from general ilustrations, only for the perhaps one in a thousand (or more likely, 1 in 10,000) species where there are over 200 illustrations of the species. I'll start a RFC some time soon, tho' it won't be tonight. - MPF (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the fish categories and some of the insect ones use the format "Genus species illustrations"; once we make the change we should reformat all those to the (illustrations) style as well. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Border Patrol Agents Seize Drugs, Arrest Six (23862883521).jpg

If anything, these are mules. There is no evidence they are immigrants, and I removed that category. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Narcissus vs Daffodil

I would think Narcissus is the more proper Category name based on the Wikipedia entry, but I see you have redirected to Daffodil. Could you explain your reasoning? Famartin (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I would prefer Narcissus. But the category we have for "Narcissus by country" is called "Daffodils by country". We shouldn't have both for the genus because they are the same topic. It would take some work but you could reformat Category:Daffodils by country to Category:Narcissus by country. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I started the process, I'll continue it later today. Famartin (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Iconographia Zoologica

Hi, I'm organizing the items in the Category:Iconographia Zoologica in categories reflecting the 19 century taxonomy used to order this collection. A lot of items only have a Latin name, so I use Latin names for all categories, e.g. the Category:Aves. You moved the items in the Category:Aves to the Category:Birds. Do you mind if I undo this change? Thanks in advance. Alex1 (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, if you do that it will not work with our category structure and the files will be harder to find. Using obsolete names for taxa adds to the confusion. Birds already exists, you don't need to create Aves in addition. You can certainly divide the collection itself into the old taxonomy, but we still need to place individual files into our categories, which use current taxonomy. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Most items are also categorized using current taxonomy. I don't change that. Alex1 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

Hello!

When you want to delete something, please don't replace all the page's content with the deletion template. Just place it at the top. Regards, Jonteemil (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:George Appo c1894 solo.jpg

@Ruff tuff cream puff: Since I cannot edit the file, can you add it to the Category:George Appo? Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not an admin, I can't edit it either! It wasn't protected when I put that category there. Cheers, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

​  Done :-) Guessing some admin fixed it. Lotje (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your category move

Hi - I don't really think 'Category:Grand Central Terminal in art' is appropriate for many of the images. I made the category, and it features many technical diagrams, architect sketches, and the like; most of it is not art, and so people will be misled there. ɱ (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the problem with making an orphan category; you don't know what parent category it will be part of, so it is hard to name it. If this is not appropriate, then 'Category:Illustrations of Grand Central Terminal' would also not be appropriate, because its parent category would be Category:Illustrations of buildings, which is a subcategory of Category:Buildings in art, making it the same thing. Other options would be to have a subcategory of Category:Architectural drawings such as 'Category:Architectural drawings of Grand Central Terminal'. I don't really like the term "drawings" there because a lot of them are engravings and other prints, not really "drawings", but that is the option we have. Category:Architectural illustrations makes more sense to me but that category string is not very well developed. Either of these options could end up as a subcategory of 'Category:Grand Central Terminal in art' because drawings and illustrations are subcategories of "art"; therefore, that is why I created that category. So if you like I will make something like 'Category:Architectural drawings of Grand Central Terminal', or 'Category:Architectural illustrations of Grand Central Terminal', or bring back your 'Category:Illustrations of Grand Central Terminal' as a subcategory. It should just be consistent with our category structure so that the topic is searchable by multiple parent topics. Any other suggestions let me know and I'll make the move. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the string has to be or will ever be perfect; I think cats sometimes inevitably need unique naming. Regardless, I think my category name would be appropriate, with the parent cat of Category:Illustrations of buildings; that's where people would expect to find the GCT category. And the 'Illustrations of buildings' category shouldn't just be a subcat of Category:Buildings in art; it should also be a subcat of Category:Buildings, just like Category:Diagrams of buildings is. ɱ (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the best solution here is a new 'Category:Architectural drawings of Grand Central Terminal', a subcat of Category:Grand Central Terminal, Category:Architectural drawings, and Category:Illustrations of buildings. The art can go in its own category, but these schematics are not art, and I don't want that confused because it's not protected in copyright law, and not part of en:Grand Central Terminal art. ɱ (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok done, let me know if needs fixing. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sign shops

Could you explain this edit? Summary didn't give rationale, and Category:Commercial signage isn't anywhere up the hierarchy from Category:Sign shops, so it wasn't simply redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Per the responses in the discussion you started, this move and many similar ones are incorrect. There was no United Kingdom prior to 1801. From 1707, the nation was the Kingdom of Great Britain. Works published before 1707 should be from England, or Scotland, or some country that existed at the time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you could add this to that discussion instead of my talk page? I'm going to merge Category:Books from Great Britain by year into Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year for the sake of simplicity unless you're more clear about what you want from these categories. Once that change is made we can reformat the earlier categories. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  That information is already present at the discussion page. Why do I need to add it again? There should be no "Category:YEAR books from the United Kingdom" for years prior to 1707 because the United Kingdom did not exist until 1707. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Taiwan in art

Hi, I don't understand what's wrong with my edit. Category:Taiwan in art should not be a subcategory under Category:Taiwan because it itself is a subcategory of Category:Art of Taiwan. Could you explain your edit here: special:diff/418930583?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes so these changes are a work in progress, the art categories being very poorly developed right now. Taiwan in art would be a main category of Taiwan. Art of Taiwan would also be a main category of Taiwan. However, as the art categories are developed, the "Art of Country" category will become less useful because it is not specific or very clear. We will have Category:Taiwan in art for art featuring Taiwan, Art from Taiwan for art made in Taiwan, and Category:Art in Taiwan for art located in Taiwan. Because I am making large numbers of changes to get these categories defined I moved the category in question so I can organize it more quickly but if it's a problem I'll put it back. For now I'm keeping Taiwan in art as a main category of Taiwan as well, because then I can see where it belongs in the category chain; if you could be patient with these moves they will make sense as the category chain is better organized. I'm not sure if the three main art categories will be under "Art of Taiwan" in the end but it will eventually work out as all these changes are made. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't think I fully understand your comment. I'm talking about "category tree". A simplified category tree follows:

    Category:Taiwan: It is a topic category.

    Category:Culture of Taiwan: It is a subcategory of "Taiwan".

    Category:Art of Taiwan: It is a subcategory of "Culture of Taiwan".

    Category:Taiwan in art: It is a subcategory of "Art of Taiwan".

  • However you made this edit, which only violates COM:OVERCAT.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Honey I put the category back where it was, so you're good. One subcategory can belong in two different levels of a category tree and it won't be overcategorization if the subcategory serves two different purposes and so needs to be found in two different places which just happen to be in one category tree. Again this is a work in progress and a large amount of work, so it might not all make sense until the basic framework for these categories is made. Especially because we haven't really established what purpose the "Art of Country" categories will serve and what subcategories they will have. If a change needs to be made, just go ahead and make it; maybe you could even help with the project so it goes faster. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Drawings in Indonesia

If images like File:Padang.jpg or File:Op-pad-op-Java.jpg aren't drawings, what would you categorize them as? I don't think paintings or etchings make sense but either way, I think putting it in the "works" category rather than removing the year entirely is better. Thoughts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's because I can't tell what the medium is, so placing it in a less specific category is better than guessing what the actual medium is. It doesn't seem like a big deal at first, but as I have been working with the art categories, we actually have a huge problem with art media. The "drawings" categories are pretty bad; everything gets tossed in there, including prints, which are specifically not drawings. So if we can confirm the file is a drawing and not made by some other process, it should go there. If we can't confirm how the art was made we should keep it in a less specific category. Thanks for your help Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Singer or what?

Hi. Can you tell me why you added Category:Underwear models to File:Sofia Coll - Portrait.jpg? Her only article in WPs, namely in the Catalan WP, only mentions her as a singer. Am I wrong? Best. --E4024 (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• No I don't remember, it was a year ago. But if there is a portrait-style photograph of a person wearing underwear, you can use it to illustrate the modeling of underwear no matter what profession the person belongs to. Who cares. Please feel free to remove the category if it actually bothers you that much. Cheers, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

tagging empty cats

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff,
when tagging empty cats for speedy deletion, please choose CSD C2 instead of CSD G1, as some people may take offense in the G1-related edit-summary. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• OK thank you Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo permission is granted!

FROM ANDREW RIGHT, photographer and copyright holder: Pleased be advised that Susan Collett has my permission to use my photographic portrait of her. I am both the photographer and the owner of the associated copyrights. I grant her this license in perpetuity without limits, provided that the attribution to Andrew Wright is made. Should you have any questions in regards to this usage, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]

FROM SUSAN COLLETT, photo subject and artist: the above permission and assingment of copyright use has been GRANTED by the copyright holder Andrew Wright. This is in regards to Wikipedia's sudden deleiton of Mr. Wrights' oroginal pgotograph which was also given usage clearance for Susan Colletts Wikipedia profile page.

We await your confirmation to place and use this photograph with all releases and continued usages intact.

Regards Susan Collett Toronto Canada

Do not change categories of the Art Library Project

Hello, please do not rename categories of the Art Library Project. This is a special collaboration between the National Gallery in Prague and Art Library Project, which is crucialy important for our future work. National Gallery provides high quality photographs for this project free of charge and we would not like to mix them with other photos uploaded by amateur photographers.Thank you.--NoJin (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Which category are you referring to. And what would you like me to do if the category name is incorrect. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove established category link

Hi. In an edit today, you have removed a category from a number of paintings by Viggo Johansen, such as this one: File:Viggo Johansen - Gæs og får på bymarken. Dragør - 1893.jpg. You may ask if there is a need for it to be both categorized as a "painting by Viggo Johansen" and as a "painting by Viggo Johansen in Statens Museum for Kunst". Is this not redundant? It may seem so, but it is in fact part of a plan to have as many Danish paintings as possible categorized over three dimensions for each artist, being "by subject", "by location" and "by date". Presently there is a very long way to go, but the structure is slowly building up, and you are not helping the process by deleting the category links. Of course you have not been aware of it - but now you are. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Now I am! Where have you documented this "plan", so that I might adhere to it properly? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi again. Well the talking through of the "plan" was done on the discussion pages of a group of Danish colleagues (in Danish) and I don't think you would enjoy reading it. But as stated above, it is a tale of three dimensions. If you want to see it in action, try Category:Paintings by Michael Ancher. As you can see, there are no more individual files (and redundancies) in the category, and that is what we are working towards. You may rightfully claim that this is the letter "A", and there is a long way to the letter "J" and the rest of the alphabet for that part. But bear with us. The small group working on it are mostly retired, with time on our hands and - death and taxes notwithstanding - we might eventually get there. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Drawings by José Luis Pellicer

You have emptied this category without explaining. Is it redundant? Can some images be added to it? Thanks Triplecaña (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes none of the files in the category were original drawings, but prints after his drawings, so I moved them to Category:Works after Josep Lluís Pellicer i Fenyé. It would be great if we could find original drawings by him. I did not delete the category in hopes we could find some. Maybe there are some in museums, we have a lot of museum collections of original drawings. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OK I have found one File:Grandes almacenes, Josep Lluís Pellicer i Fenyé, dibujo 1890.jpg, will continue to look thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:17, 16 November 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!

Affected:

• File:Orchids for everyone (1910) (14597335607).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 9 December 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!

Affected:

• File:The birds of the Republic of Panama (1965) (20358786656).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 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!

Affected:

• File:Sunset (1898) (14590318568).jpg

And also:

• File:Sunset (1898) (14590766138).jpg
• File:Sunset (1898) (14591286150).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 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!

Affected:

• File:The complete aquarium book; the care and breeding of goldfish and tropical fishes (1936) (20050812003).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 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!

Affected:

• File:British fresh-water Copepoda. - (1931) (20418034435).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 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!

Affected:

• File:Shans at home (1910) (14754613636).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 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!

Affected:

• File:Bulletin - Southern California Academy of Sciences (2012) (20316016190).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

File:The American Museum of Natural History - an introduction (1972) (17976507409).jpg

File:The American Museum of Natural History - an introduction (1972) (17976507409).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

And also:

• File:The American Museum of Natural History - an introduction (1972) (18159159682).jpg
• File:The American Museum of Natural History - an introduction (1972) (18162534855).jpg
• File:The American Museum of Natural History - an introduction (1972) (18163908871).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits of art categories

Hi. Sorry to have to write to you again. You have made two series of edits that affect the way paintings are organized. These are - in my opinion - non-trivial edits, so the proper procedure would be to discuss the structure of the categories before you change them. Remember, we are working together here at Commons, and changing your colleagues' efforts without discussion is - again - a non-trivial matter.

Example 1: You have removed the category Category:Paintings by Laurits Tuxen by subject. It is a vital part of the arts system to have artworks organized along the lines of both subjects and the 11 genres in Commons. Some people swear to the "genre" way, others to the "subject" way - so you need to have both. I have tried in the discussion pages to make consensus for the "subject" way (as it is broader), but failed, so we have both. Please do not just change that.

Example 2: You have emptied the category Category:1876 paintings by Laurits Tuxen (causing another user to delete the category as being empty). A lot of painters have their work organized by both year and decade. Who gave you the authority to decide that it should only be by decade? Where is the discussion?

Please reverse your edits. If you do not like the way the category system for art is set up, then you are welcome to start the discussion. --Rsteen (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, these are both correct edits according to our category structure.

1. Compare Category:Paintings by genre to Category:Paintings by subject. You can start a discussion about changing the structure of the category trees, but I am using them the way they are structured now. Meanwhile, if you want a category in both genre and subject parent categories, just put it in both. My edit was not wrong just because you think the category system should be changed.

2. The Laurits Tuxen category tree was a complete mess, with some 20 or 30 categories each containing a single file. Please don't create a category for a single file. First start with a general category, e.g. Paintings by decade. Then if there are a large number of paintings for one year, create a category for the year. Sorting 50 files into 40 categories is counterproductive. I don't need to start a discussion to perform housekeeping tasks, such as condensing nitpicky categories into useful parent categories; this is one of the main tasks in category maintenance. Anyone can do this task. Take a look at Category:Paintings by Laurits Tuxen by decade. It is much more useful than sorting by year. It would actually be better to condense it into paintings by century, and have 2 categories that are clear, concise, and manageable, making it easier to find the files you need. Again, start with a general parent category and then make subcategories only when you need to. Also look at the bigger picture. These aren't just subcategories of an artist, you also need to consider the other parent categories, for example Category:1876 paintings by artist and Category:1876 paintings from Denmark. Dicing these up into huge collections of subcategories that only contain 1 or 2 files is counterproductive, going back to the function of a category. All my actions are consistent with the category system, and if there are useless categories I will fix the problem. I make an effort to be responsible and recategorize each file when I modify a category; all the files in question are in correct and useful categories at this time. No one needs "authority" to change a category, we can all do it. You don't have any authority over other users either. You will just need a better argument to convince me to reverse these edits. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. This is not about convincing anybody. This is about how we treat each other on Commons. But of course you shall have your comments.

1. As it is, a lot of artworks are organized by both subject and genre. I have argued for the subject method in the discussion pages, but was told that our users want both options. You, on the other hand, just removed the "subject" category and replaced it with the "genre" category. And now you write "if you want a category in both genre and subject parent categories, just put it in both". You might have considered doing that yourself.

2. There are far more than a thousand registered paintings by Tuxen, so it can not be a bad idea to start to build a structure that receives his works as they arrive on Commons - and they do. Your idea of having a category of works by decade is fine. We have that for many artists, and we have a number of artists whose works are organized along both lines. It does not hurt anybody - well, apparently you - to have two tracks for the chronology of artworks.

Summing up: Please do not destroy the work of your colleagues. You may think it is amateurish or irrelevant, but as long as the categories are correct and adhere to the structure used here - which they do - it is not up to you to delete categories without prior discussion. --Rsteen (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits of art categories concerning the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nîmes

Hi, I noticed you renamed some categories about the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nîmes. I don't care about how you call the museum even if I don't see why you rename the official name of the museum. Beaux-Arts museum as you called is simply awful. If you want to slaughter French names, at least, don't stop half way and call it Fine Arts Museum. Anyway, I'd love to know why you deleted [Category:Paintings by Pieter Coecke van Aelst in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nîmes] instead of adding other paintings belonging to this category? Is it your own vision of enhancing the encyclopedia? --Birdie (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Come back and ask the question again when you're willing to be polite. Thank you! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "Hi" contrary to some uneducated people... --Birdie (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Umm, I don't see that the query is impolite. Birdie raises a fair point, and it seems that they have had a brush-off.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Umm, yes, I sure did brush them off. I'm under no obligation to engage with a person like that. Again, they can come back and try once more when they can speak in a normal tone without using insults. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

one file categories

Can I ask what is wrong with single file categories? You seem to like to move the files out and request deletion. I can understand when a file is ten years old and has one file that we can review something, however, when a category new, it has to start with one file. There are experienced users creating these categories and you are gazzumping them with file moves and deletion requests. Something doesn't seem right with this picture. Can you please point me to the consensus for these actions. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, when there is a reason to have a single-file category, I will keep it, format it properly, and populate it. The problem is we have a massive number of single-file categories that are not useful, not usable, and counterproductive. A lot of these are new, possibly created automatically without the user paying attention to the actual categorization, not formatted properly, not categorized correctly into the parent categories, and causing a big mess in the parent categories. A lot of these parent categories are slowly becoming disorganized as useless subcategories are created en masse.
  • There are categories of 50 files divided into 40 subcategories each with a single file. This makes it difficult to find the file you need in that category.
  • There are users uploading huge numbers of art files and creating a new category for each one. You can see where this becomes a problem.
  • It is better to put a file into every single possible existing category first. When one category needs a subcategory, create it.
  • The categories are not categorized properly themselves. Instead of mindlessly making Category:Paintings by Ingres in the Pushkin Museum for one single file, first put the file in both parent categories, and other relevant categories, including Category:French paintings in the Pushkin Museum, and relevant date and medium categories. If you really really want to make Category:Paintings by Ingres in the Pushkin Museum, then put that whole subcategory into Category:French paintings in the Pushkin Museum. When the user does not care to do this, I will do what is the better option: recategorize the file and get rid of the single-file category. This is basic housekeeping.
  • A large number of these are orphan categories. If you make a single file category called "Paintings by Joe in the Stumphole Museum" and categorize it under "Paintings by Joe" without the other parent category, "Paintings in the Stumphole Museum", you haven't actually put the file in the museum category. I will also address this, and usually a better thing to do it to put the file into both Joe and Stumphole categories, rather than reformatting the bad category. Obviously if Joe made a ton of paintings that are in many museums and there are 50 in the Stumphole, that's a great category to have and I'll fix it and categorize it.
  • There are missing parent levels. I'll add a parent level if it is a useful thing to do. If the only subcategory of "Stumphole Museum" is a single-file category entitled "Still life paintings of squids by Joe in the Stumphole Museum" it is better to recategorize the file than to create 8 empty parent levels for it.
  • If there will never be another file in the category we should not have it in most cases. It goes back to the definition of the word "category."
  • If a category becomes empty because I have better categorized the file, do we keep thousands of empty categories? If you delete it it can always be recreated later. And yes, there are thousands.
  • There are a lot more problems with these. If I get rid of one, I'll be responsible and recategorize the file. If keeping the category and fixing it is more useful then I will do that. I'm not sure what you suggest we do with all of these categories or if you are aware of the scale of the problem. There are thousands and they are becoming a problem especially in the art categories. You can tell by the lack of attention the creators paid to the categories that they don't care and won't mind if we get rid of them. It is something we need to do to keep our categories streamlined. I don't think it could be "experienced" users doing this, because it doesn't make sense and it is so obviously unhelpful.

It's not that I "like" doing this; actually it's a real pain in the ass. I actually use these categories to categorize files. When the category tree is messed up, I have to organize it first. If you can improve these categories somehow, please do. If you have any suggestions about another way to clean up this mess let me know. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Seed Catalogs...

Can you do some license checks...

Many are incorrectly tagged as PD-US-Gov when they are most likely PD-US-No Notice, but need to be checked.

And thanks for the category re-orginsation, categorization efforts :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection

You may want to use the IA metadata on collections to assist the Categorizations.

When I did some inital categorizations, I was using an insource: style search with Visual File Changes?

Please feel free to continue, and if you can do license checks at the same time even better. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I will try. There are just so many that it turns into a separate task from the one I am currently doing, trying to work on categorization. I've been trying to skip over questionable ones and work on them later, but I'll try to at least put them into the license-check-needed category. I'm not sure what to do with the post-1925 seed catalogs, we had a huge collection of those already before this latest upload. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Ashburton Picken

I see that you are changing all the categories relating to this artist. Please note that not all the engravings are lithographs. Some of them are copper engravings, and I think he did woodcuts also. On some of them he provided the initial sketch or watercolour, too, so it's not all after other people's work. Some of your changes mean we no have no full set of countries illustrated by this artist, who never left the UK, so that is significant. The categories need to be organised so that that list can be seen together in one place, and so that it includes China. Also, please do not categorise everything as lithographs. They are not all lithographs. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have put lithographs into lithograph categories. Previously they were in an "engraved by" category, which suggests they were engravings. It is better to place artworks in a category for the correct medium. You can see how this is done by looking at other artist categories. You can always create separate categories for engravings and woodcuts. I am working on the country categories. We don't need a "full set" of country categories if each category will contain only one file; it is actually counterproductive, not helpful, to have multitudes of single-file categories. We should also start with general categories before making more specific subcategories; this was a problem here and it needs housekeeping. I am continuing to work on the organization of this artist category but I have to go back to real life sometimes. If you would like the project done faster, feel free to help. Thanks! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Anamarie Regino.jpg

File:Anamarie Regino.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jorge Cisne (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

the year after the category

I hesitate to communicate with you because you accused me of following you. Which I don't. I see you in my Watchlist, touching my projects.

Revision of Category:In the wilderness (Warner) <--Please don't do that. Actual books go above everything else.

If there is a reason you did that, and it is a good reason, tell me now and I will consider it. I have told you the reason I put the year there, please consider that.

Be careful with edits like this. Commons is a center point for many wikis, books are on a bunch of other wiki. That is advice I am sharing but might need to follow -- but I am pretty good with the organization here. So, worst case, it is advice to do as I say, not as I do, which I dislike, but there you have it.

I am going to roll back that edit now, and any like it. Please do not despair if you also watch a watchlist.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know you. Thanks for the threats, though. Sounds like you need to go cool off. Have a nice day Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for a language review, definition of threat:

1. a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
2. a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.

You are being threatened as the china in the store threatens the bull. I did threaten to consider your reasoning, and you are being thoroughly threatened with that. Good day!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Permissions

Hello, both Robert Plomin and J Michael Bailey sent permissions to Wikipedia for the images you tagged on my talk page. Could you check I put the tag on there correctly? :) thanks Sxologist (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Joyce Lishman image

I have added the content of emails from the source and my response. Please confirm this is now ok Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes that's probably a temporary fix, but to prevent them from deleting it I think you'll have to send the permission to "OTRS" via Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator. There are also additional directions via the link there. Sorry for the hassle but it's how they protect photographers' work here, thanks for your help Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why Delete?

Why did you remove our clients image. We are a management company with Universal Records adding our clients. We are leaning how to build a wiki page. Thegeniusmgmt (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know which file you are referring to. Also, I am unable to delete files. I might have tagged the file if there was a problem with it, and then it was deleted later. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Effects of Hurricane Arthur (2014)

Hi:

Why did you transfered all the images contained in this category to its parent category (Category:Hurricane Arthur (2014)) and then redirect it to the parent directory saying that it is empty? You caused it to be empty, it was not the case before.

Pierre cb (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes because it was an unneeded orphan category. Meaning we don't have a place for it in the category tree Category:Tropical cyclone impacts and there is no available parent category for it. It was not needed as a subcategory, and unneeded subcategories should be eliminated to make the category tree smoother and help people find the files they need. If we are going to create a subcategory for that storm, we should model it after similar categories and integrate it into the category tree. An example would be Category:Hurricane Joaquin, which has the subcategory Category:Effects of Hurricane Joaquin in the United States. If you like I will make Category:Effects of Hurricane Arthur in the United States and put relevant files there. Also it looks like Canada is relevant so I could also make Category:Effects of Hurricane Arthur in Canada. Then the files will be in a category with many parent categories and have many ways for people to find them. Let me know if you want me to do that, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seems a good suggestion. Pierre cb (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bulletin (1971-) (20396938076).jpg

File:Bulletin (1971-) (20396938076).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bulletin (1971-) (19802012053).jpg

File:Bulletin (1971-) (19802012053).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

you did not do anything wrong but....

I am annoyed. You can ignore this or erase it, I am unloading about something you did in 2019. Maybe decide what you will do by starting with an eyeroll....

This is not wrong, but I was keeping "commons" images separate from "flickr" images, among the many good reasons for doing that is one not so good reason: the flickr upload annoyed me greatly.

The Annoyances (you are only responsible for putting the images together; you are the cherry on the top):

1. In one way, the images are not from the same scan, because during that upload, I tried to tell the uploader that getting second or third hand images from flickr was like getting secondhand chewed food because the images were all on IA and the uploader talked down to me, citing the "bhl" expert at "flickr". So, according to that "expert" at "flickr" they are very great things and I (and you since you are under the same impression) have no clue, thinking that they are from anywhere but BHL.
2. In keeping them separate, all of the hand crafted, refurbished images from the wikimedia publication s:en:The Book of the Aquarium would be together and the two wikis working together, etc.
3. What has annoyed me so much that I come here and dump it on your talk page (2 and a half years ago, you poor little angel to be having this now) is that I tried to load the category into AC/DC to add structured data and, wouldn't you know, I get all of these darned BHL images in the list. They have to be deleted from AC/DC one at a time, and for each one, I need to re-scroll to the bottom of the stupid dialog.
4. The "uploader" is a bot; both the bot and the bot operator have names that cannot be easily typed from a keyboard. This has nothing to do with the move, or you. or anything -- except my total annoyance.

If I could have one wish granted, it would be that you become a flickr snob also. So, that while you are working your way around here, that snobbery can taint your decisions like it does mine. Some great images came from there, but that bot crap upload provided mostly good bookmarks. Do check out the book at source! It is quite beautiful. I did very little of the proof-reading. Oh, and when I am at Flickr, it is no big deal to reverse the snobbery -- when in Rome....

So, in summary:

1. annoyed, sorry
2. annoyed
3. greatly annoyed and talked down at...
4. super annoyed by gui
5. annoyed by non-ascii characters
6. a wish

So, I feel better now. We have never been friends or friendly; I surely hope that I have not jeopardized that relationship in anyway.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

In vs. of

Don't get mad because of this revert, I solved it on this way. Hope it's fine now. :)

Generally that of/in/from issue drives me nuts. For example, at the moment only Iran (and partially Italy) use all three systems for cities: Art of Iran by city as a generic one, plus Art in Iran by city, plus Art from Iran by city. But all other countries use in as a major one, instead of of. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but for the art categories we need three category trees. 1. Art in Iran is art located in Iran, whether it is from Iran or from somewhere else. We need this category for art in museums, such as Iranian art located in museums in France. 2. Art from Iran will contain Iranian art, whether it is located in Iran or somewhere else. 3. Art of Iran will contain Iran portrayed in art. We will need to use Category:Paintings of Iran to contain paintings portraying Iran, so that will need to be changed. It will need to be formatted the same as Category:Drawings of Iran, which contains drawings portraying Iran (but not necessarily from Iran). Paintings of Iran can be from any country; paintings from Iran can portray any subject, so these are two different topics and need to be separated. If you format Iran differently from other countries, it disrupts the category tree. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm... you say three, but as I see there are actually four: art in [country], art from [country], art of [country] and [country] in art (category Countries in art has 184 countries). You speak about third type (of) as it is fourth one. Generic category (of) is needed to contain other three, it's now something new & mine, many other major countries have such system (Italy, Germany, France, USA, etc). --Orijentolog (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories on manuscripts by library

Hi. Yesterday I made a category, called c:Category:Books and manuscripts from university libraries and archives. Now, after making it, I discovered there already was a category called c:Category:Collections of manuscripts by library; a category you also edited. My question is: do you think the first category has some added value as compared to the second one? Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, good idea, keep your category! Considering the large number of archives of all types we have, it will be useful. We might be able to make Category:Collections of books by archive to go in Category:Collections of books similar to the library and museum categories. On the manuscripts side I think you could fit your category in either Category:Collections of manuscripts or Category:Collections of manuscripts by library. The latter has a large number of university libraries to go in your category! Thanks for your hard work Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017 and Wiki Science Competition 2019, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in the whole world. It is now completed in Russia (active in May), but it's still open in almost all the other countries.

If you want to take part in WSC2021, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, we remind you that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, that is "astronomy".

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase, please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2020.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsubscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2021 #WikiScience #WikiScience2021

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--00:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg

File:Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Aubreyeyre (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletions of airport categories

Good morning. Why do you carry out mass deletions of airport categories, moving them to non-specific, meaningless categories?

Just one example of so many:

You just moved this file of a B707 to Category:1980 in Leicestershire and deleted the entire Category:1980 at East Midlands Airport with 8 aircraft files.

In this edit you requested a speedy deletion of Category:1981 at Pinal Airpark with 3 (three!) untrue statements:

• the category was not empty
• the category was not unuseful
• the category was not lacking a parent category.

I urgently ask you to stop these actions before this discussion has been concluded. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• These categories should not exist until their parent categories exist. The aircraft files are still in the airport category under multiple subcategories, no information has been removed from the files. "1980 at Stumphole International Airport" does not need to exist until "1980 in Stumphole" exists. It is more efficient to move the files to the latter than add more levels of empty categories. This is basic housekeeping. If I move a file I am responsible about it, adding it to any relevant category that adds the same information to it. Making millions of categories containing 1 or 2 files is counterproductive, making it more difficult to find the files, not easier to find them. If you have a specific file in mind that is missing some information, let me know and I will add the necessary categories. "1981 at Pinal Airpark" has one file, making it unnecessary. It is also missing a geographical location parent category. To find out what the location is, go to Category:Pinal Airpark and find the geographical location, and add the appropriate geographical location in 1981 to the category. If you aren't sure how to do this, go to other airports-by-year and see how they are sorted into their parent categories. I will make these fixes if the category is worth keeping, e.g. it has lots of files. If it only has one file and it is missing parent categories, it is better to delete it and add more categories to the actual file. This is a basic cleanup task, it does not require discussion. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is completely illogical. You are destroying countless categories just in order to move their contents into higher, but non-specific and - for the files - meaningless categories.

You moved 8 (eight) aircraft files to Category:1980 in Leicestershire, which does not have any other files. Instead, you destroyed their previous Category:1980 at East Midlands Airport which was exactly where the aircraft files belonged to. This is is counterproductive, making it almost impossible to find the files, since nobody would be searching for aircraft files in the plain Leicestershire category. Why not directly put them into "Category:1980 in the UK" or, even better, "Category:1980 in the world" ? You could have easily put the previous category under their "new" Leicestershire category as a sub-category, which ist the case in thousands of other cats like Category:1988 at London Luton Airport.

Your deletion of lomg-standing categories is neither "basic housekeeping" nor "a basic cleanup task", but is very close to systematic vandalism which definitely requires discussion.

I had asked you to stop these actions before this discussion has been concluded at 11:31, 14 December 2021. Instead, you just continued to destroy dozens of categories intentionally and aggressively. Unfortunately, this matter has to be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard unless you immediately stop your disruptive editing and restore the categories you've already destroyed. --Uli Elch (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. You seem to be most upset about Category:1980 at East Midlands Airport, so let's address that first. "1980 in Leicestershire" is 100% relevant to every file in "1980 at East Midlands Airport", being the direct parent category of it. You should have created that category, because it was missing, making Category:1980 at East Midlands Airport disconnnected from the category tree, making the files harder to find. If you want me to recreate the category and move the files back there, just say so. You can have a temper tantrum and threaten to call the authorities if it makes you feel better, or you can ask me to put the category back and add the new parent category to it. Did you know that getting rid of empty categories is not a permanent change? I'm not destroying anything. They can always be recreated when they are needed. I will continue to recategorize files to make them easier to find. If this results in an empty category, I will continue to nominate the empty category for deletion. You haven't given me a good reason not to make changes, you just don't like it. That you don't like it doesn't make it vandalism. If you have a problem with a change other than the one above, tell me your exact problem with it and give me a valid reason not to make the change. If you have a good reason to reverse a change that I make, I will reverse it. That you don't like it is not good enough. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum- there is a lot of work to do on these categories, I'm willing to do it but if I'm going to have you on my ass the whole time I'll leave the work for you to do. Here are some of the tasks that need to be done; 1. add geographical parent categories to each airport subcategory, for example, your East Midlands problem: each file there needs to be connected to the geographical location i.e. Leicestershire. Could you make sure this gets done. 2. The category "Airports by year" did not exist, making the thousands of airport-by-year categories disconnected from each other. Could you please add all of the airport-by-year categories to the newly created parent categories, for example "2000 at Stumphole Airport" should be in "2000 at airports". There are thousands of these. 3. There are many highly specific categories with layers of empty parent categories, these should be refined to their least specific category so that someone looking for all the files of one topic doesn't have to click through 30 empty categories to see them all 4. Categories with one file should be populated, or the single file should be recategorized. A lot of these are missing their parent categories, so an efficient fix would be to actually rename the category as its parent. Could you help with this task. Again I'm willing to do all this work but I will leave it undone if you are just going to follow me around. The airport categories really need these changes to make sense, could you please start on it. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion and merge of Postcards of Texas by location category

Hi. I really don't understand why you deleted and merged the category when it contained Category:Postcards of Texas by city and Category:Postcards of Texas by city and [[Category:Postcards of Texas by county. Especially since you merged the category with Category:Postcards of Maryland by city in the process. Which makes zero sense. They have nothing to do with each other as categories. Can you explain why you deleted the category and did the nonsensical merge? Same goes for your deletion of Category:Postcards of boats by location and Category:Postcards of Texas by publisher. Both of which shouldn't have been deleted. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just because it contained something doesn't mean it was useful. It was actually not formatted properly, missing 2 levels of parent categories. That means it was not connected to the category tree, making it more difficult to actually find the subcategories it contained by removing them from the category tree. In order to fix the problem I would have had to create at least 2 parent levels, and in turn 2 parent levels for each of those. As you can see this would make the problem worse. The point is to make files easier to find, and burying them in continuous levels of subcategories does the opposite. The extra levels needed to be removed, and since there are more categories that need to be created it is easier to move it over than to leave hundreds of empty categories for someone else to deal with. No matter what I do someone would get on my ass about it, so I'm going to build up the category tree so that all the branches are connected to each other, even if it means weeding out orphan categories that might contain a file or a subcategory. Whoever created the category might get mad, but they should have formatted it right in the first place. The postcards categories were a total mess, almost all of them were missing at least one parent category, and there were tons of orphans. These are not functional categories. Sorry I cleaned up the mess, you should have seen it before I started working on it. Now if you want to recreate one of the categories I got rid of, I just ask you to please format it properly. Add it to all the necessary parent categories, and if the parent categories do not exist, create them; then populate the category. This might mean adding a lot of subcategories, so if you don't feel like doing that just let me know what your needs are for a category and I'll try to create one in the existing category tree. The postcards categories still need a lot of work. If you see categories that are orphans, can you please help out and format them. Also maybe help me go through and identify more obsolete and redundant categories if you feel like it. If there is a specific problem that needs to be fixed, go ahead and fix it or let me know and I will do it, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously just because it contained something doesn't mean it is useful, but having location categories for postcards is pretty well established. While I agree that they might not be useful in some cases, they were in the cases we are discussing here and that doesn't negate that your merge was completely wrong. Outside of that, I'm not sure what you are referring to about the categories not being in parent categories or how it's relevant. Can you explain what your issue with the categories was in a less obtuse and more specific way that doesn't involve a 15 line diatribe? Just going off about postcard categories in general and how they are a "mess" or whatever isn't really the best way to explain things. I'm aware postcard categories in general could be improved and I'm willing to have that discussion in another forum, maybe Commons:WikiProject Postcards where other people that have been involved in creating the "mess" can participate, but this is about specific edits you've made to the categories. Not the postcard categories in general. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'd add Category:Postcards of Coasts of the Pacific Ocean in the United States published by Brück & Sohn to this also. It's only not useful and empty because you took the files out of it. You should really start a CfD about how postcards are categorized more broadly before you start indiscriminately gutting the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave too detailed an answer to your question. Can you be more specific about the problem you are having so I can provide a more concise answer? How about you go over to Category:Postcards of Texas and show me where we need more navigational subcategories. It looks much better to me now that I've cleaned it up. Easy to find what you need. You seem to think there is something missing there, if you could point it out to me and give me good reason to create more categories, I'll do it. You say that "location" categories are "pretty well established", but can take a look at Category:Postcards by location and then tell me what your specific problem is and what you want me to do with that. If you're just mad that I'm making changes you don't understand, that's not helping me address your issue. As for Category:Postcards of Coasts of the Pacific Ocean in the United States published by Brück & Sohn it actually is useless until you put parent categories on it. Please do the work and repopulate the category, or get rid of it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been pretty specific about what my problem is. What don't you get about "the categories were useful and your merge was incorrect"? In the meantime I don't really care if Category:Postcards of Texas "looks much better." The point in categories isn't to look nice. Your "cleaning the categories up" came at the expense of navigation. I don't want you to fix the problem by creating more categories. I want you to re-create the useful categories you've deleted and discuss it first before you start indiscriminately gutting things next time. In the meantime, I don't really get what your point about the parent categories is. I don't see why you can't just explain it either. It seems like something that would be easy to explain in a concise manor if you've thought through. Also, what makes you think I'm made and why would it matter if I was? Looking over other discussions on your talk page your default to people asking you questions seems to be claiming they are just mad. Which is pretty middling. We aren't here to be psychoanalyzed. I could really care less what your feelings about this are. Nor do I think mine matter. Not that I'm mad though. That's not why I asked you about your edits. It seems like claiming people are just angry about things is the only response you have. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand what I mean by parent categories? That might be part of the problem. Please feel free to keep reading my talk page if it makes you feel better. That's a little weird, though. It would be a better use of your time to figure out what parent categories are and add them to orphan categories to improve them. Help me out here. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum. I have a good example! Can you fix Category:Postcards of Bellingham, Washington for me? It is one of those "location" categories that is not functional, being an orphan. That means it is not connected to its parent subjects. I like to fix categories like this so they are useful. Can you help me out with some of this work. Thank you! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I know what parent categories are. I just don't see how they are relevant in this specific instance because you haven't explained how they are. Your response is like someone saying one of your edits was vandalism, you asking how it was, and them responding with "well, you not knowing what vandalism is might be the problem here." Which would be a none answer. So instead of answering that way why not just tell me how exactly parent categories relate to your deletion of the categories? As far as Category:Postcards of Bellingham, Washington goes, I added Category:Bellingham, Washington. I don't see what's wrong with that, why you couldn't have done it, or really what it has to do with this. If you think certain postcard categories should be in other ones, just add them to the other categories. It's not magic and a category being an "orphan" isn't a good justification to delete it. Especially if it's just because your unwilling to put in the footwork so it isn't one anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning!

Stop vandalizing files from categories! --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi! Which file are you referring to? Thanks! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Art categories of Italy (in, from, of)

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff. Please don't merge art categories of Italy distinguished by OF, IN, or FROM like here. All the art categories of Italy are organized as follows: Art IN Italy (for works of art produced or found in Italy and still located in Italy), Art FROM Italy (for works of art produced or found in Italy but now located in another country), Art OF Italy (for works of art produced or found in Italy but of which it is not known where they are actually located. And the category OF is too the top category that contains IN and FROM). So don't merge other art categories of Italy. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• This would work better if the Italy categories were formatted the same way as all the other country categories. It is not consistent with the contents of Category:Bronze sculptures by country. The problem there is that we don't have many Category:Bronze sculptures of (country) categories, and you'll need to create one for every country already present there. Then find a parent category for all these. I could do this if you want. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Italian situation is not comparable to those of other nations. Italy has an artistic history of 3000 years of different cultures, different eras, different peoples, different artistic periods. No other nation has this diversification and this richness and density of works of art like Italy. The current arrangement (OF, IN, FROM) was created collegially by many Italian users more than 10 years ago, to make order in the extreme confusion that reigned in categories and files. And this system works well. So it shouldn't be changed. The problem you raise does not exist. There are many categories by country that do not have a "by country" parent category. When there are two or more categories of bronze sculptures from different countries, then you can create the mother category. Otherwise they remain in the simple category "Bronze sculptures". --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the level of diversification and richness it is still a member of our category tree, so it should be placed in the correct location on the tree so people can find the files they are looking for by navigating the tree from level to level. It also doesn't matter who started the tree, it still needs to be maintained over time. Anyone can do this, Italian or not. If the collegial Italians started the categories more than 10 years ago, they should notice that the rest of the category tree has grown up around them and is no longer connected to them, making them actually less usable than other country categories. Assuming these mystery Italians care about the categories, they should be motivated to keep them functional as the tree changes over time. Then other users can access the glorious and dense artistic history of this country by using the art categories, rather than by blindly searching. Some of us culturally dilute non-Italians are willing to help make this fix. Step one might be to create a parent category like I suggested earlier, but another useful step would be to go to Category:Bronze sculptures by country and create a Category:Bronze sculptures by country of location for most of the categories present there. This would be equivalent to having Category:Paintings by country of location in Category:Paintings by country. Then all your OF and FROM and IN would actually make sense, exactly as you describe it. Draw a picture if you have to. Again, I'm willing to take the time. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand where the problem lies. If you think that some categories are missing and you want to create new ones, do it. The important thing is that you respect the distinction between IN and FROM and OF in the sense that I have explained to you, and do not create confusion with their contents. This order, which more than 10 years ago was created in a very exhausting and painstaking way by a group of Italian users for all art categories of Italy, and which developed in this way, was caused by huge confusions where statues or paintings or other works of art categorized IN Italy were located in Rome, Florence, Naples, Paris, New York and Madrid, simply because they were by Italian artists. This confusion can no longer be accepted in any way! Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: You seriously think the average lay person or anyone outside of the original Italian users that created the categories are going to get the difference between IN, FROM, OF? My guess is that they wouldn't. I don't even get it and I've spent a lot of time organizing works of art into similar categories. Aside from the parent category issue that Ruff tuff cream puff brings up it's needlessly obtuse and un-helpful make the distinction. Not mention un-maintainable since works of art move around a lot. Categories shouldn't be used for completely salient characteristics like the location of the warehouse or someone's fireplace wall where a particular piece of art is being stored at. Literally no one gives a crap. It's just nationalistic nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: The situation of art in Europe and especially in Italy is not comparable with that of the United States. DenghiùComm (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: Where in my comment did I say anything about the United States or it's "situation of art" whatever that means? Also, if the current category scheme for art in in, of, for from, whatever Italy was created collegially by many Italian users more than 10 years ago I assume there's a discussion somewhere on here about it that you can link to. If so, then I'd like to read through it. Otherwise, I'm going to call BS and recommend to Ruff tuff cream puff that they continue improving the categories however they feel like until you can provide evidence for what your saying. Although, I agree with Ruff tuff cream puff that whatever was said 10 years ago by some mystery Italians is completely irrelevant now since the trees have been expanded, but providing evidence is always better then not providing any. Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: "works of art move around a lot" is not an european situation, and sure not italian. But only of country that have a very short history and few local art. Like the United States. You talk about other places and other situations. Sure not of the artistic reality of Italy. DenghiùComm (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Galleries all over the world rotate their art and feature different art collections. Plenty of museums also loan out pieces from their collections to other museums. Even in Italy. Sure, maybe a statue outside a building isn't going to be moved around, but that's an edge case. It's ridiculous to claim something like a painting or art installation will stay in the exact spot in the exact same gallery for perpetuity or not eventually be moved into storage. Especially with art installations. 99% of art installations in the world are temporary showings and then get taken down. One example I'll throw out there from Italy, Galleria Borghese literally has a section of their website called "past exhibitions." Which includes a showing of some art in Fall 2019. It might just by ignorance of Italian culture or whatever, but I'm pretty sure "past" doesn't mean "current." Nor is "fall 2019" a long period of time. Obviously it would be unsustainable for people to change the categories for Italian art every two or three months to accommodate when galleries there change their exhibitions. Also, where's the link to the discussion about this that you I asked for? Or should I take that you didn't provide one as indication that none exists? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: What you say is absolutely irrelevant. When a work of art is loaned from a museum to an exhibition in another city or country, this is a temporary fact, the piece continues to belong to that museum and at the end of the exhibition it will return there. So in our categories it will always be a work of art IN that Museum. Commons is an encyclopedic project, not an insurance that follows works of art when they move. In the categories of our art museums there are subcategories of temporary exhibitions held in that museum in which files and images of objects of all kinds and various origins that were exhibited in that temporary exhibition are collected. DenghiùComm (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure but the category we are discussing is "art IN Italy", not "art IN so and so museum." I don't really care what categories (temporary or otherwise) exist for museums because that's not what the discussion or disagreement is about. Let me ask you this, with Category:Bronze sculptures in Italy you added the description "For bronze sculptures which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Bronze sculptures of Italy", but then if I click through to Category:Bronze sculptures of Italy it just has Category:Bronze sculptures from Italy and ‎Category:Bronze sculptures in Italy‎. With both of those categories we are pretty likely to know where the sculptures in them are located. So how does that fact jive with your description that the "of" category is for sculptures "which are not sure where they are"? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The art museums of a country are part of the art of that country, in fact they are one of its sub-categories. For the question you ask me, perhaps an example is useful. In the category "Art of Pompeii" we have the subcategory Category: Ancient Roman frescos of Pompeii which contains the subcategories FROM Pompeii and IN Pompeii. The files and images that are in this category OF Pompeii are all frescoes whose location has not yet been clarified, if they are in some house in Pompeii or instead in some deposit of the Archaeological Museum of Naples. When this is clarified for the file, the category OF Pompeii will be substituted to replace it with that of the Archaeological Museum of Naples or that of the Roman house in Pompeii. DenghiùComm (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really, a museum is an organization preserves that and displays art. That's it. In no way does that make a museum art. Unless your talking about something like the Vatican or a castle where art is displayed on the walls, but those are edge cases and them being "art" has nothing to do with them also being museums. Anyway it's a mute point because like I said the museum categories are not what we are discussing. More on topic, I can see where FROM and IN might make sense for categories, but the purpose served by an OF category in addition to the other two isn't clear. Supposedly Category:Bronze sculptures of Italy is for "sculpture whose location has not yet been clarified" yet the category contains Category:Bronze sculptures in Italy and we know the sculptures are in Italy, because that's literally the name of the category. So the OF doesn't make sense. Even if you look at a file in Category:Bronze sculptures in Italy, for instance BG 306 Ranzanico monumento ai caduti.jpg, it has the category Category:Statues in Ranzanico

. So in no way has the location of the statue not been clarified. Nor should it be in a category/sub-category where it's insinuated that we don't know that information.

To me it seems like you clearly didn't think through the reverts of Ruff tuff cream puff edits before you did them and now your trying to post hoc justify your actions because you were upset Ruff tuff cream puff messed with categories you created 12 years ago and didn't bother to think through at the time. Which is fine. The category trees were less developed back then, but there should be a better reason to keep things how they are then a none existing consensus and "because Italy." Especially in the case of the "OF" category. Which is clearly nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Can only agree with Adamant1 that "The Italian system" seems way too complicated. A few years ago I tried to give a short explanation of the "in, from, of" system, which is found here: Category_talk:Paintings_by_country. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is your very personal interpretation of the IN-FROM-OF system developed for the art of Italy (and also adopted for other countries) which absolutely does not correspond to its reality and only creates confusion in users. After all, you have not participated neither in creating this system, nor in arranging all the files in this way. DenghiùComm (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you find it all ironic that your saying Rsteen's interpretation creates confusion when there's three people in this discussion that are confused by your system? Because I do. At least Rsteen hasn't implemented their confusing way of doing things (Personally I think it's less confusing then what's currently being used). Whereas, you have. Repeatedly ignoring questions and going off about how none of participated in creating the system you implemented isn't going to improve things any. If anything it will just lead to you getting reported to ANI when we decide to change things and you refuse us to allow us to like you've already done with Ruff tuff cream puff a few times. Which wouldn't be a good outcome for anyone. Personally, I rather you just admit your way of doing things is nonsense so we can come up with something better instead of continuing to argue over meaningless off topic nonsense like if a museum is a piece of art or not. It shouldn't be that hard to just create a less convoluted way of categorizing things. I say we go with Ruff tuff cream puffs. If you have an issue with that then propose an alternative that isn't just the status que or ranting about how Italian art is special. Otherwise, I'm just going with how Ruff tuff cream puff says the categories should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you and two other people can't understand a well-explained, tried and tested system that has been well established for more than 10 years, and widely applied in Commons, the problem is not mine. I have nothing more to add. I just advise you not to upset this system because I should report you as a vandal. DenghiùComm (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better about it. I'd love to see you report anyone in this discussion for vandalism over it. Good luck with that. I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of vandalism unless your willing to back it up with some evidence. In the meantime, it looks like your the one going against the consensus, at least in this discussion. So if anything you'd be the vandal. Although, your not worth the time it would take for me to report for it. That said if I ever get the time to change the categories and you screw with me about it I will. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with Hi-Res upload of Audubon 'American Elk' reproduction

Hi, as you have worked on File:Brooklyn Museum - American Elk - John J. Audubon.jpg before, I would like to draw your attention to this help request: Commons:Help_desk#Tiled_Audubon_deer_image_download. I said I could upload the new hi-res version, as the guy wanting help has no access to the download file. However, I now realized that I am out of my depth with this task, in particular providing a correct name for the newly made file. It has to be a separate file according to Commons upload tool, as it is a completely different source (Michigan Digital Library or the like). Hence, I would be glad if you could overtake this or to redirect this request to whomsoever. Pittigrilli (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: Yet I did it. See File:American Elk - John J. Audubon - hi-res.jpg. Feel free to adapt/change if required. Pittigrilli (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

University and college yearbooks

University and college yearbooks 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!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Scrub

Category:Scrub is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

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.

---

Palosirkka (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Agricultural spraying

Hi Ruff_tuff_cream_puff,

I would suggest splitting and recategorizing the whole content of this category into:

• Category:Pesticide application (spraying pesticides)
• Category:Irrigation ("water spraying" if this exists)

because currently it's an ill-defined mixture of things.--Mormöse (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Enclosures

Category:Enclosures, which you set up some time ago, doesn't seem to make much sense given it's parent and child categories. Care to work out & fix this, or should I do it? If you had a clear intent here, I figured I'd give you a first chance to sort it out. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: This user doesn't work since january 2022. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Books about mineralogy

Hello Ruff tuff cream, wondering why you added this image to the category. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Shade

Shade 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!

JopkeB (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File tagging File:Apple vivo.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

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

 

Solomon203 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Apple vivo.jpg

File:Apple vivo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Solomon203 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:1733 books from Great Britain and others

Category:1720 books from Great Britain
Category:1733 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1741 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1748 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1755 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1756 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1783 books from the United Kingdom‎
Category:1783 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1791 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1795 in the United Kingdom‎
Category:1800 books from the United Kingdom‎
Category:1824 books from Great Britain
Category:1832 books from Great Britain
Category:1835 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1851 books from the United Kingdom‎
Category:1862 books from the United Kingdom
Category:18th-century paintings from the United Kingdom‎
Category:18th-century people of the United Kingdom‎
Category:1914 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1915 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1917 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1918 books from Great Britain‎
Category:1921 books by country‎
Category:1921 books from Great Britain
Category:1922 books from Great Britain‎
When you move a category, you should move subcategories based on templates, too. It must be done manually. Fix it, please. Wieralee (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

While I believe a bot will eventually make the moves, it would be good to speed it with the delinker. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's impossible to do it by bot. As I said before: "move subcategories based (created) on templates. It must be done manually". Wieralee (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Wieralee: Sorry, I missed your point. Yes, that has to be done manually, and should be done by the person who moved the cat. Either the template needs to be fixed accordingly, or this has to be done on an equivalent non-templated basis. My apologies for getting involved. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 18 August 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Consolidation of citrus packing houses in the Ontario-Cucamonga area (1953) (20657290416).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Aralia tibetana.jpg

And also:

• File:Aralia excelsa.jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Amphidasya amethystina.jpg

And also:

• File:Mosannona pacifica.jpg
• File:Grias longirachis.jpg
• File:Chlorocardium venenosum.jpg
• File:Exarata chocoensis.jpg
• File:Klarobelia megalocarpa.jpg
• File:Patinoa almirajo.jpg
• File:Gasteranthus tenellus.jpg
• File:Rustia bilsana flowers.jpg
• File:Rustia bilsana inflorescence.jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Cyclops strenuus tatricus; C. scutifer (Figs. 1540, 1541) (British Fresh-Water Copepoda (Vol. 3) (1933)).jpg

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2023

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017, Wiki Science Competition 2019 and Wiki Science Competition 2021, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2023 has started in almost all the countries.

If you want to take part in WSC2023, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, we remind you that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase (such as Russia), please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2024.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsubscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2023 #WikiScience #WikiScience2023

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--20:08, 27 November 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:The birds of the Republic of Panama (1965) (20358786656).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

File:James Hutton (NYPL Hades-269271-EM3262).jpg

Hello Ruff tuff cream puff, since you changed the Category:Emmet Collection of Manuscripts to Category:Emmet Collection of Manuscripts: The Signers to the Declaration of Independence and I do not seem to find back his name on the Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and checking on Science Museum Group, i was wondering if you could give me a helping hand. thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Terminalia_catappa_-_Flowers

Terminalia catappa - Flowers 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!

—  Junglenut | talk  08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:DOCUMERICA_photographers

DOCUMERICA photographers 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!

Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Gadwall (Mareca strepera) in Nepal.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)