User talk:Ingolfson/Archive 2010

about User:Srittau aka User:Sebari

Hello Ingolfson, It seems like I'm not the only one having trouble with Sebastian Rittau's categorizing. Of the complaints I had about the changes he made, non been really addressed. If you can get Admin to revert his category changes, I'd be more than glad if the changes he made on my catogories (e.g. he invented the Category:RAF Berlin-Gatow for the former Royal Air Force Station Gatow) and images could be reverted, too. Kind regards Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Royal titles

Category discussion notification

Category:Royal titles 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

--Diwas (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ingolfson, i think not all monarchs, princes and princesses are royal. --Diwas (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons Delinker

Hi, I see you've put a lot of requests on the CommonsDelinker talkpage. I have requested a few of them just now.

However, there are a few requests that I feel might be controversial and I would like to change that into a discussion instead. However, the talkpage doesn't have any information about why you want to change it? Apologies if any of the below aren't your requests as they are not signed & you seem to be the major contributor in the last while.

• The Deejays one - as this is a big move (a lot of categories etc. involved) it's better to open the discussion, even if the reason you give is a logical one.
• Radio people / People associated with radio and Video game people/people associated with video games: As the new name is a bit cumbersome, I would like more opinions on it.
• Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad lines - not sure what the rule would is for going from what people probably consider the usual name to the spelled out name. I would just request opinions on it.
• Sounds of... to Sound from categories - as the move seems to go from plural to singular, it seems against the grain for commons. Definitely would open a move request as this is a controversial move.

I'm asking you to open the move request as I don't know your reasons for requesting it. Anyway - hope that helps. I'll process a few more of the ones that I don't see a problem with in a minute. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Deadstar

Re the deejays one - I am agreeable to any solution, but I am big on consistency, both within Commons, and with Wikipedia. I also found that often a "move" request on the page never gets any responses, and then I have waited two weeks and have to wait another week or two until it is done on the Delinker. But if you prefer, we can add the move request on the dj main category.

Radio people / video game people. I understand your concern, but suggest that "radio people" is not a very good term. First, it doesn't really fit the format of Category:People by association - consistency issue. Also, what IS "radio people"? Only those who are "on" radio? We already have categories for that. "People associated with radio" makes it clearer that a radio technician, or radio operater also belong in there.

"Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad lines" - not my requests, wouldn't know A from B there, I am afraid.

"Sounds of..." - again, not my requests.

Oh, and thanks for doing those other moves. Some don't seem to be fully done yet (Category:Peleş to Category:Peleş Castle, for example), but I assume the bots will get around to that eventually. Ingolfson (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what is the delay with Delinker on some of the cats. I ended up doing one by hand (DirectLine buses in the UK or sth like that) cause I could see no reason that would cause delinker to stumble on it. And I actually changed the "Clock Tower of Sighişoara" to "Sighişoara clock tower" (not "Clock towers of Sighişoara") as there seems to be only one, and it is refered to as simply that. (again, if this wasn't your request, apologies). I've also removed/seecat-ed the now-empty cats.

Please add a move request on the main DJ category & see what happens. I agree with the move btw, I always found it hard to find "Deejay" (I would have been looking for DJ or Disk jockey).

As for radio/video game people - you're right. I'll just mull it over & might just be bold and do the change tomorrow. And see what happens next. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of "Category:St John Ambulance Singapore"

Hi, I noticed that you've renamed "Category:St John Ambulance Singapore" as "Category:St John Ambulance, Singapore". Just wondering if that ought to have been done, as the official name of the organization appears to lack the comma: see http://www.sjas.org.sg. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I changed that for consistency, because the other national organisations (and general Commons structure) usually have the "XXXX, Country" identifier. If you are sure it is wrong because of the official name, please revert it. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think it is, and so have made the change. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

I posted the Sound/Sounds request with requester, and now there is a little complication - seeing that you know about cats and are native English speaker, could you perhaps cast your eye at Category talk:Sound by country which has taken an unusual turn. Well, I didn't see that one coming :). Feel free to ignore request, but any help is appreciated. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jalopy

w:Jalopy is not the same as Category:Damaged automobiles. It is unlikely anybody will be fixing a jalopy, while damaged car will likely be fixed or junked. I think those 2 categories needed sorting and explaining the difference not merging --Jarekt (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There were only two files in there, so we can recreate such a category if you feel it is needed. However, please call the category "Jalopies" or better, "Jalopy automobiles", as "cars" is not a correct term on Commons unless it is part of a specific name. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand in the 2001-present war in Afghanistan

I have reverted your recategorization changes. Reasons:

• The Categories "New Zealand in the 2000s" and "Category:New Zealand in the 2010s" are logical due to that similar categories allready exist for other countries (see f. ex.: Category:Canada in the 2000s) and these category scheme seems to be have been commonly accepted. It doesn't matter if they are "red" or not. Somebody will eventually create them.
• All countries except the United States are listed in Category:ISAF (btw: ISAF not only consists of NATO). The US are listed in "Coalition forces ...." because they not only operate under ISAF mandate but also under their "Operation Enduring Freedom". If you have a better idea about the category structure, please let me know. But then move all countries participating in ISAF into the same category instead of just moving New Zealand somewhere else. --Zaccarias (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. The main logic behind my move was that the category was called "New Zealand in the 2001-present war in Afghanisatan", when there ARE other categories also called "XXXX in the 2001-present war in Afghanisatan" - yet this category was not sitting underneath any such (except indirectly, via the ISAF cat). This makes me feel that more reorganisation may be needed to make the structure consistent, but I'll leave that to others for the moment. This was just a drive-by edit that I am happy for you to revert if you feel the need to. Have enough areas where I am working at the moment. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The current solution is not perfect, I know. There are better solutions, but for the moment it works. As long as we don't have large numbers of images which would make a more precise categorization necessary, I also have other areas to work on. If you had better ideas, I would be interested to hear them. --Zaccarias (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have ideas and opinions on everything ;-) but not enough time. Let's leave it for now. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Replica" categories

I noticed this only when the moves were actually made, but I gather they were your requests, so I'm coming to you first rather than start a general discussion. I believe the requests you made were the following; if I'm missing anything, sorry, it's a bit hard to tease all of this out of the history of a page.

Rename Category:Sailing ship replicas to Category:Replica of sailing ships (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sailing ship replicas;Replica of sailing ships;r;

Rename Category:Replica tiremes to Category:Replica of tiremes (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Replica tiremes;Replica of tiremes;r;

Rename Category:Replica ships to Category:Replica of ships (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Replica ships;Replica of ships;r;

Rename Category:Aircraft replicas to Category:Replica of aircraft (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Aircraft replicas;Replica of aircraft;r;

Rename Category:Replica buildings to Category:Replica of buildings (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Replica buildings;Replica of buildings;r;

Rename Category:Replica buildings in Russia to Category:Replica of buildings in Russia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Replica buildings in Russia;Replica of buildings in Russia;r;

On the whole, I preferred the names of the form "Replica ships", etc., and I think this should probably have come to Cfd, but mostly it's not a big deal. What I do disagree with strongly, though, is that the new names are singular. Shouldn't these be "Replicas of sailing ships", "Replicas of buildings", etc.? Any objection to my making that further change? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hesitated long time before executing that move, mainly because I felt that replica is plural too. Replica is quite common and exist in many languages. Replicas is wrong in many languages and in many English dictionaries. The advantage of the more "modular" "replica of" construction is that it is more uniform with commons naming and extensible. "Replica sailing ships", Replica Michelangelo's David", Replica Statue of Liberty in the United States don't sound right to me. --Foroa (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As per Foroa - event though I would, in talking to someone, probably use the term "replicas" myself. But I assume that this is not official spelling for plural yet (may become so in the future, as language changes, but...). As for the "Replica OF..." logic - as Foroa hints at, this is really for consistency and modularity. Also, it follows similar conventions at related categories like "Models OF...". Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Replica" as an adjective worked fine to avoid this problem: "replica buildings", "replica ships". But once we have "Replica of" it seems to me that the plural is called for. Per Foroa's remarks, this was not an obvious, uncontroversial move and should have come through Cfd, not straight to the delinker. If we still don't have agreement now, I think we should take it there, albeit belatedly. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Replica" as a noun is singular. What would be wrong with "replicas" as the plural in English? Who cares what the plural is in Swedish? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa hesitated because he was considering the Replica/Replicas issue, not the "of" aspect. I have no issue with either "Replica" OR "Replicas", but I agree with Foroa that the "of" is both standard nomenclature, as well as correct. I think the best way would be if those who want it moved to "Replicas" put a "move" tag on the main "Replica" category, and then we discuss it there. Ingolfson (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I took it to Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Category:Replica. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mascletaes

Hi, could you tell me why did you remove noise pollution category from Mascletaes? I think it's a good categorization, a mascletá produces a lot of annoying loud noise (that numbers on the video are the dB), and that is repeated day after day all over the city of Valencia for almost a month every year. Lobo (howl?) 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert it if you like, but the issue is that you are trying to put an object (if I understand Mascletaes right) into a "concept" category, which is not good categorisation practice. Also, not everyone would agree to the interpretation. One person's enjoyment is another's noise... Ingolfson (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in historical states of Germany

Category:Buildings in historical states of Germany 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 category, 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. 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!

88.77.138.74 Correcting malformed DR --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move from Category:Model steamboats to Category:Steam-powered models of steamships

A good guideline.

What an ugly and contrived name you've forced upon us with this latest abomination. Your single-handed and near-illiterate misuse of category naming surpasses even your dreadful record in such things. Please desist. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What an example of rudeness you have forced upon us. Please desist. Ingolfson (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And once you have vented your outrage, you are welcome to suggest improvements as to how we can disambiguate between models of steamships and steam-powered models of steamships. Can the personal attacks, though. Ingolfson (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm tired of your badly worded and needlessly authoritative changes to categorization, throughout Commons. In particular I don't appreciate a reversion of one of your simply plain, dumb _wrong_ changes being reverted immediately with the comment "correcting" categories and the clear implication that describing a boat as a boat is incorrect. Especially not after placing a clear descriptive paragraph on the category to avoid any such misunderstanding and having you entirely ignore it without the good grace to even try reading it. I, and others, work pretty hard around here. We edit within areas of subject knowledge and do careful, reasoned edits with a well-thought-out background to them. Your scatter-gun category changes here are farcical. Calling a rowboat the Queen Mary doesn't make it so. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You still barely get out of insult mode. This is a wiki. If you consider a change incorrect, then what is keeping you from either politely telling me, or reversing it? Instead, you seem to pen up all your disagreements, until you come here and engage in personal attacks.

The category you get all heated up in this specific case originally (Category:Model steamboats) contained a single image. I was intending to change it to ensure it fits the Commons logic of "Models of X" (Category:Models of steamboats). However, you had also left a description explaining that it was to ONLY contain those model steamboats that were also steam-powered themselves.

I then checked whether there was a category "Models of steamboats" and also found that the category "Category:Steamboats" redirects to "Steamships" (not my doing). So when I disambiguated the fact that we are talking of SPECIFIC types of models (who are steam-driven), not just models of things that are steam-driven in reality, I put that new category into the "steamships" category tree. I have now instead moved it into a "steamboat" tree at (Category:Steam-powered models of steamboats) - something you could have easily done yourself instead of accusing me of everything under the sun, including arrogance, stupidity and bad faith.

As for my edit summaries, with the huge amount of categories I have to change and correct (whether or not you agree I should - I have gotten a lot of praise from admins and others over the years), I may sometimes come across wrong, or curt. Fair enough. But with Commons at times not seeing any changes to files and categories for years (and certainly being unlike Wikipedia, where most articles are watched by lots of people), sometimes edit summaries can seem a bit useless anyway. Again, a polite comment would be much better than your tone. Ingolfson (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What's to stop you from politely reading a clear description, placed there beforehand just to avoid this misunderstanding? No, don't even think to look at someone else's work, you always know best. As for "politely reversing", I did that, only to have you edit-war it back again (and again, I do not appreciate your egocentric attitude that everyone else is wrong and that your changes are "corrections"). I have a load of model steamboat photographs from a recent regatta that I was planning to upload into a category structure I'd tidied beforehand. Most are models of small-scale real-world subjects (as is popular amongst live steam modellers), some used in the UK publication "Model Boats" (bit of a hint there?) and I am damned if I am going to mis-label them as "steamships".

This is a regular occurrence with your category renames. Ugly, simplistic namings to conform to narrow-minded rigid forms, at variance with any sense of the real world, or of real-world usage: "Steam cars" and "Steam wagons" being yet others.

"with the huge amount of categories I have to change and correct" Your sheer arrogance is amazing. No-one "has to" do anything around here. No-one is forcing you to rename everything. Amazing as it might seem, some categories, which other editors of perfectly good standing have already set up, might actually manage to get things right without needing your magic touch imposed upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I finally understand why you insist there was a an edit war or a double revert going on. A bot change asked for by myself (from Category:Model steamboats to Category:Models of steamboats), a revert by you, and a hand change by myself when I found the category "wrongly named" again. That at least clears up some of the history, though not why you haven't talked to me before.

As for me "narrow-mindedly" changing category names - well, we obviously have a disagreement there, and I don't think that is going to be solvable. I believe that consistency is important, and that having category names follow logical rules like "Models of X" is better than one being "Model X", one being "Models of X", one being "X models" and the next editor coming along and creating "X toy models". Commons is not an artwork, or even a work in the sense that a Wikipedia article is - Commons is a database, so consistency is important in organising it. As for "huge amount" of categories and "have" - on the first; yes, very much. I constantly find categories which are so badly sorted or misspelled in much clearer ways than in the case of our disagreement here (where you would obviously disagree with any claim of misspelling, I got that). So yes, there is a big need for maintaining/fixing those. As for "have" - no, I don't have to, and maybe I shouldn't have used the word. I do however have a passion for working on Commons (as obviously do you), and so the differences are fleeting, or we would not be arguing over what literally is only wording and semantics. Ingolfson (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys. It is difficult to distinguish between some carefully and thought out categories and the 1300 new categories that are, mostly hastly, created every day. It is equally difficult to find a compromise between good English and simple, more analytical, category names. It is difficult to clean up in the almost 925000 categories and make them consistent and not make a mistake here and there. I thank you both for your excellent work and for finding solutions that help our community. --Foroa (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy, if the problem is not solved, can you tell us what solution you'd prefer ? --Foroa (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

An additional comment. Commons can have 40000 new categories added per month with less problems than say one year ago. This is to a great extent possible because some people try to get proper top level structures and consistent naming in place. Sometimes, it needs several attempts before finding a workable compromise. --Foroa (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Winter Trees And Some Weird Oxen.jpg

Hoi Ingolfson, kyloes have distinct forms of long horns, and the sexes differ by direction (best seen here). The ones of females point up, the ones of males point down :-) --:bdk: 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Did my reword change it to some wrong form? Or did I imply I did not believe you (wasn't my intention)? If so, feel free to rephrase. I just wanted it to sound a bit better. Maybe too much Wikipedia editing, that I even want my image descriptions on Commons to be "just right". Ingolfson (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Meta cat confusion

Hi Ingolfson. Sorry for my sloppy correction of your template this morning. I think that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of Meta cats, which happens quite often (See User_talk:Foroa#Extinct_Birds discussion and Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION for the meta cat definition). It is not because you want it to be a meta cat that it is a meta cat. You would like to have a Category:Photographs of vehicles as a meta cat, but a casual user (that hardly read category descriptions) will see the "Category:Photographs of ...", will not find his subcats and just drop his pictures somewhere.

I think that the title of "Category:Photographs of ..." already will create a lot of confusion and troubles, as you can already see in Category:Photographs of automobiles. I have no outspoken idea about an alternative, maybe "media categories of ...", "Photographic categories of ...", ... --Foroa (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think applying it like that (removing the metacat template because it doesn't directly fulfill the criterion rule) is a bit rigid - a small semantic change (i.e. "Vehicles by photographic technique") would certainly fulfill the MetaCat criterion, without being substantially different in the contents logic. Maybe we should change it that way? As for me reinstating the MetaCats separately after you modified the template to remove it there - I was only reinstating the status quo, ante my template... The whole exercise was to get some standardising to have users understand these categories better, and also reduce the number of templates used. Ingolfson (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to remove hundreds of categories from the meta-cats as people think that by making their category a meta-cat, people will categorise deeper. You can hardly say that Category:Photographs of automobiles is a meta cat.

I'm still not convinced about the name and remain reluctant about the name, especially when the word photographs is in it. Problem is that you want to combine photograpic techniques, photographic media and photographic styles (and probably later old pictures, postcards, stamps, ...). Maybe "vehicles by media" would be a more generic top level solution solution that includes "vehicles in art", so you would have a proper solution for technical drawings and models too. --Foroa (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree that "Photographs of automobiles" is not (or cannot) be a metacat, just because some people throw pics into it. But I understand your wish for a clearer option and better title. Not sure about the "vehicles in art" being included though, as that has a lot of cross-over with a "by media" category already... Ingolfson (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Impact still.jpg

Hello, Ingolfson! How come that you categorized this image in the Category:Fountains? I can't see any connection? --romanm (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A "fountain" of material, ejecta, erupting upwards. Since the "Fountain" category is probably overwhelmingly for physical fountains of water, this could possibly be better categorised elsewhere, but at the moment, I don't have the time to search for / create such a category. In a few days... - or you could do it. Ingolfson (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

QI suggestion

Hi Ingolfson, I thought you may like to nominiate File:Heritage Building In Auckland CBD.jpg as a Quality Image. It's 2 megapixel, which the guideline says is the lower limit - if you have higher resolution I think it would have a better probabilty of success, I've had 3MP count as a mark against. Linking the (rough) Google Street View photo as a comparison could also help. Benchill (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NZ location maps mass deletion

Hi Ingolfson, the New Zealand location map File:NZ-KaitaiaBluff.jpg that you uploaded has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/04/01#NZ_location_maps. Benchill (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regions of New Zealand CfD

Hi Ingolfson, I've nominated the New Zealand region categories, some of which you created, at CfD. The discussion is here. Benchill (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Astronauts from China

My answer is late and I'll not make an issue of it, but you may be interested in my reply here, it would have been nice to have been warned of it (as the creator of the initial category) and to have been able to make my reply in a timely manner.KTo288 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Boundaries

I liked your recat of Boundaries, much more appropriate in Category:Places. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I have also moved "borders" into "boundaries" now. Ingolfson (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackhammers

I assume you are right in the fact that the particular jackhammer where you added Category:Hydraulic tools again is a hydraulic tool. I had removed it, because jackhammers can be hydraulic as well as pneumatic, according the text. That's why. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a hidden commentary on the file (one of the downsides of using java scripts to add and remove categories - you probably didn't see it) stating that I actually researched it, to find that it is a hydraulic one. As long as jackhammers isn't split into subcategories, it needs to be retained to keep the specific info. Ingolfson (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, you are right. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've since created that category I was talking about. Always good to fix such things. Ingolfson (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Consulate General categories

hi there,

you proposed to move the categories to "Consulate General of France, New York City" format, is that correct? Why would the current format be wrong? Gryffindor (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor - I was proposing to move them that way, yes. As per my explanation on the DeLinker, all parent categories (including Category:New York City itself) use "New York City" rather than just "New York" - because New York is a US state, not a city. So that part of the rename request was simply aligning with parent categories (categories should be consistent in their nested naming). All the rename-requested categories are in Category:Consulates in New York City

The second part is less important, but also proposed as a matter of consistency on Commons - we should not use Countries as adjectives. Therefore "Buildings in France", not "French buildings", "Vehicles of France", not "French vehicles" and so on. Therefore the proposal was to change to "General Consulate of X", rather than "X General Consulate".

Hope that explained the reason behind my change requests. Ingolfson (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. About the "New York" thing, the city is officially known as simply "New York", not "New York City", even though it is used in order to differentiate between the state. Therefore I don't think it's necessary to add a "city" to the category name if it is clear that only the city can be meant. However I won't be dogmatic about it. But the "something of country xxx" is not totally correct. It is "French Republic" and not "Republic of France". Also it is "British Embassy", and never "Embassy of the United Kingdom". Also by using the format "Consulate General of France, New York City", it makes it unnecessarily long and cumbersome, a simple "French Consulate General, New York" should suffice. Sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor - I see the sense of a number of your arguments, but I can't really agree. While "New York" may be the official name, Commons is a database - and thus consistency with other parts of the database (such as the parent categories which use "New York City") and with Wikipedia is quite important, I feel. And since both Commons and Wikipedia use "New York City" to disambiguate... - also, what about the fact that there may be (at least in theory, or in the past or in the future), be a "General consulate of X Country" in BOTH New York and one in New York State? So I don't agree with you that it is automatically clear that it means the city.

As for the "French Republic" - well, that is a proper name, and on Wikipedia, it redirects to... "France". On Commons, it is used for categories such as "French Third Republic" - because those are specific accepted terms in political and historical discourse.

I don't think "Consulate General of France, New York City" is any step change in complexity above "French Consulate General, New York". However, the second form follows the Commons rules. As I explained, I am pretty keen (maybe a bit pedantically so) on following the Commons rules, because it's a database, rather than an artwork or article - and thus consistency is key to organising it in a logical and scalable fashion. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs

Category discussion notification

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force

re diff note that Category:Aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force is a member of the Category:Military aircraft by operator scheme, and although its true that there maybe Eygptian aircraft which do not belong to the Eygptian Air Force it would be better to include them by creating Category:Aircraft of the navy of Eygpt etc then by moving Category:Aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force to Category:Military aircraft of Egypt which is misused. Please look at the intro to Category:Military aircraft of Egypt. The category is intended for aircraft that it designs and manufactures, not ones it has in service.KTo288 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonn ambassator vehicle.JPG

You added the Category:Desertification to this file. I'm surprised because the next desert seems to be very far away :-). Was this an error or did you add the category intentionally? Best regards,--Leit (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the image text will explain this mystery? To reduce confusion I have now created a new subcategory, though. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't look at the image text. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers--Leit (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I should have done this (subcategory) immediately, for it was a natural reaction to seeing this kind of file in a "desertification" category. Ingolfson (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bamboo scaffoldings

Category discussion notification

Category:Bamboo scaffoldings 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!

--KTo288 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Requests at category-bot

Hi, I got a problem with my box so I wont be able to the requests soon. You might want to request them at SieBot instead. Sorry for not updating the description page before. -- User:Docu at 11:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

rename of files

Hi Ingolfson, you marked 2 pictures on the User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands as (to be) renamed. You don't have the right to rename pictures by your self actually, you can ask for that right on Commons:Requests for rights. But for now if you suggest these pictures should be renamed please use the rename tag {{rename|suggest new filename.ext|reason for change}} on the file page, this will then be approved by an admin or already trusted user and done in a coupple of days. NobbiP talk 23:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have put them on the delinker because I can't do it myself - are you now telling me I am not even supposed to do that? Seeing that these are my own photos, that would seem rather bureaucratic. Ingolfson (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename, though. Ingolfson (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rename are only allowed by admin and so called "file mover" (like me). All you can do is to place the rename tag on the file page. But as I stated above, you have many edits and uploads on commons and should become the file mover rights when you agree to do some "housekeeping" in the rename section too ;-) NobbiP talk 00:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, not interested in formal rights - apart from being heavily involved in housekeeping already (correcting wrong categorisations, creating new subcategories in the hundreds each year, and putting hundreds of categories for renaming onto the delinker), I also have a backlog of several hundred of my own images which need to be uploaded and categorised. In other words - enough on my plate! Ingolfson (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Vatican City

Category discussion notification

Category:Vatican City 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!

--Teofilo (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Category move request

• Category:Maps of former countries -> Category:Maps by former country

Hello Ingolfson. The above categories were not moved via CommonsDelinker because the suggested name changes the meaning, is redundant, or is controversial with its many files and subcats. Would you mind taking this to COM:CFD or use {{Move}} it would be appreciated. Thanks, ZooFari 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I'll think about an intermediate cat rather than a rename. Ingolfson (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Books by function

Category discussion notification

Category:Books by function 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!

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing redlink categories

Hi Ingolfson, I'd like to ask what's happening here

I'd found some images with redlink categories, and was trying to put them into existing categories, for example:

• Category:Roads of Kolkata, 6 images which belong in Category:Roads in Kolkata
• Category:Russian students, 12 images which belong in Category:Students in Russia

I was using Commons Commander, it was good but had a problem, it deleted half the description from 14 files without warning[1]. I asked about this and was told to use SieBot [2]. Benchill (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I am not quite sure what you are referring to. If I deleted stuff from the discussion page on CommonsDelinker, I apologise - I may have done so because I thought it was already sorted, and the redlinked categories already deleted (i.e. forgot that sometimes red / nonexistent categories can still have files in them). Sorry about that, if that is what you are asking. If that isn't what you are asking, I don't think I can help you as I have no admin rights or experience in using any assistance bots or scripts beyond HotCat. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, that's fine, I just thought I might have done something wrong and wanted to check. Benchill (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Closure

Hi Ingolfson. What is your opinion on this?  Docu  at 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to my current work on Category:Lakes of New Zealand by name - my bad, wasn't aware that there had been a majority decision to go with "by name". I am happy with that, as long as we are moving ALL such categories over. The reason that I moved the "Lakes" cat back to "by alphabet" was specifically because it was still sitting in a "by alphabet" PARENT category, and shouldn't in this case, if we are consistent. Still, not too unhappy about my work on the "Lakes" cat because it only included 2 categories before I started in on it, and now it's all of them, so the bot will move them all over... Ingolfson (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The work isn't lost, a bot can move them over fairly easily.

Thanks, aware of that - that was what I was saying.

The main reason I hadn't moved, e.g. Category:People by occupation by alphabet, was that I wasn't too sure about the resulting name to pick. Already the "by occupation by alphabet" isn't that great. Docu  at 11:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Category:People by occupation by name is a problem. It may not be perfect, but it is three elements together, and so is bound to be SOMEWHAT clunky. Let's make it all consistent - I'd hate to have it end up with us having BOTH "by alphabet" and "by name" floating around. Ingolfson (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's have it moved then.  Docu  at 12:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Men by occupation

Hello Ingolfson, why do you redirect Category:Men by occupation to Category:Males by occupation? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Men_by_occupation&diff=prev&oldid=41594495 --Diwas (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, out of seven categories within it, four belong into "males by occupation" (I will actually move them directly, now, but they were Male models, male police officers, male dancers and male artists).

Second, there's no logical reason why we should have "men by occupation" and "males by occupation" both. They are 100% the same. So the rest should be moved into "males by occupation" too (and renamed accordingly). Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, I added a link at Category:Men.--Diwas (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you okay with renaming the remaining categories? I.e. "Male sportspoeple", rather than "Sportsmen"? Ingolfson (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good.--Diwas (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the gender-categories are ambigous, see User talk:Foroa#Categories: Gender - Females - Women - Males - Men --Diwas (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, not sure if you are objecting or supporting the change to "male X" from "Xmen". I think you are, but... Ingolfson (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Foroa is watching this discussion. I have no objection to the change. I only remembered the mismatching human to animals in the gender categories not depending this changes. --Diwas (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Decategorization

Hallo. What should mean this decategorization? Did you want make a redirection or moving instead? --ŠJů (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Category: Craters on Phobos

Category discussion notification

Category: Craters on Phobos 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!

File source is not properly indicated: File:Karl_May_-_Sascha_Schneider_-_Selmar_Werner_-_Wilhelm_Kreis.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Karl_May_-_Sascha_Schneider_-_Selmar_Werner_-_Wilhelm_Kreis.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Karl_May_-_Sascha_Schneider_-_Selmar_Werner_-_Wilhelm_Kreis.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Masur (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Category renames

Hey Ingolfson! Good work in the category renames. But just a question, why did you remove the crawler-transporter category from this image? In that image, both are clearly visible; the MLP and the CT... Or is it because you intend to put it back after the rename? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - that was because the MLP category is already a subcategory of the CT category - and normally, you should not put a file in both the category and a subcategory (Commons rules). So I suggest leaving it off - or moving the CT MLT out of the CT cat. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Per your second option, I have removed MLP out of CT, as they are pretty much totally different structures only used together, thus doesn't really make sense as subcategories. Hope I did right. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the new category Category:Mobile Launch Platforms, there is yet another typo. The structure is called "Mobile Launcher Platform(s)", per Wikipedia and several NASA websites (example). Category with the fixed title can be found here. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad, yes that is best. Ingolfson (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Constellation Program

Hello, Ingolfson. You have new messages at Rehman's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Mobile Launcher Platforms

Hi Ingolfson. Do you know why on earth was the above category deleted and renamed to Category:Mobile Launcher Platforms (NASA)? I know you didn't do it, but I just want to know why this was done without our consent (as we are currently dealing with it). Also, I have never heard of a MLP that is not NASA's... If you oppose this too, I am ready to move towards restoring it. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to disambiguate because as you can see in Category:Mobile launcher platforms, there are many mobile launcher platforms (and not only for satellite lauching). I believe that most other launch sites have such platforms (at least Ariane) while the speciality of Category:Sea Launch is a mobile launcher platform. Of course, if you have better (and more precise) names, you are welcome. --Foroa (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my tone above, I was little upset on the lack of notification. Yes, looking at your current structuring, the arrangement is best. Only thing, it would be better to bracket "NASA" (i.e. "Mobile Launcher Platform 1 (NASA)") in the subcats. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of Category:Volvo Ocean Race 2001-2002

Hi,

you added 2 categories Category:2001 in New Zealand and Category:2002 in New Zealand on this category. In my opinion this addition is a bit untrue as the Volvo Ocean Race is a worldwide event and furthermore some pictures in this category were taken in Germany (Kiel) and not in New Zealand. Could you please move these categories to the pictures taken in New Zealand only or add the categories depicting all the places the pictures were taken. Regards. Badzil (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - done. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ship's hangars

Category discussion notification

Category:Ship's hangars 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!

Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

clothing racks

Thanks for the categorization cleanup. I was wondering, how did you find the other images that you added to that category? --Waldir ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Found the images probably just by searching a few related terms, can't exactly remember. When I create or correct a category, I like to fill it with at least some content, so it's not too empty. Ingolfson (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a good search, you must have had to pore through dozens, if not hundreds of images, to find those, since none of the extra ones used specific terms related to racks. I know I had some work getting the original ones together even searching for the correct terms, so I really can appreciate your effort :) --Waldir ^talk 10:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Flip-dot displays

Hi. Please could you clarify this your edit? Flip-dot technology is very different from LED technology. Flip-dot displays are based on the electromechanical principle, LED surely not. Ony some of flip-dot displays are combined with LED lighting. Please be more carefull when making any changes.

Look, it's a Wiki. I make many thousands of changes, sometimes per week, so if sometimes I get it wrong, correct it. And tell me, fine. But I didn't do it to annoy you, okay? Ingolfson (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw., do you really think that the full wording "liquid crystal display" is more understandable? At least in many non-english-language countries, the abbreviation is the most known and basic name of this display technology, probably also for English speaker. Was there any discussion before the renaming made by you? --ŠJů (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Better category doc avoids this type of problems. While we are against abbreviations, I have no problem using real common abbreviations/shortening words like LED, LCD, plasma, RF, UHF, ... in subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm on the fence on this one, because I dislike it when naming style changes halfway down a category structure, but no problem. Do we need a policy for this? Like "the top category has the spelled-out name, everything below uses the abbreviation"? Ingolfson (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that in principle, subcat names should be consistent with parent category names, but for very popular short names, we can tolerate exceptions. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it likewise. Hovewer, if the short name is very popular and the full name is used already only as an explanation of the origin of the routinely used short name, then the short name should be preferred. Expectability and international understandableness of category names is here at Commons just more important than at wikipedias. --ŠJů (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Douchebags

I was wondering how long it would take this to happen! It was completely and utterly adolescent of me to have put this image in such a category (but I was annoyed at what the jackass was doing to my hometown), but my later guilt at my actions was overcome by an interest in seeing how long it would take someone to notice. Five and a half months! Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol - don't tempt me to create a category structure in which "Douchebags" might find a logical position! I live for such challanges ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unidentiied subjects and by condition categories

I noticed that you moved many categories of unidentified subjects into categories "... by condition". Please perceive that the attribute "unidentified" says nothing about the subject and its conditions. It says only something about our knowledges about such photo. Mostly, the attribute "unidentified" means "... of unidentified type" or "... of unidentified species", "...from unidentified place (location)", artworks of unidentified authors or meaning etc. Categories "...by condition" have utterly different meaning and purpose. --ŠJů (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you say - but I consider your opinion of "condition" to be too restrictive. "Condition" is not a material status only. Ingolfson (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ships by operator goes only on subcat

I'll work on that too. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good. It's a heap of work though, so I'll probably only do a few here and there, every now and then, slowly improve it. By the way, I hope we can all go to the "Ships of X-company" logic, rather than the "X-company ships" logic too many use now? CHeers Ingolfson (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File move

• 
• 

I moved your files to the correct name, Schirn instead of Staedel. Greetings --Eva K. ^{is evil} 12:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories of Belgium by location

Hi. A city in Belgium is a honorary historic title that is not necessarily related to the importance of the place. To avoid all sorts of complex names (we could say "transport in Belgium by municipality, village, district or city region), we use location as you can see inCategory:Categories of Belgium by location. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But that argument holds true for lots of countries in the world, including the country of my residence, New Zealand. Every country tends to have more, or less, involved definitions for what makes a city - should we ignore the Commons sorting rules for all of them, and give them all specialised, deviating structures (or move them all into "by location" categories) despite "cities" being an instantly understandable, and very wide-spread structure on Commons? In general terms, I would prefer the whole muddle of "cities / villages / whatever" categories replaced by a "settlements" category structure or something similarly generic - but the de facto standard is "cities". Even the boundary line between towns and cities is very indistinct in most places of the world, and in the heads of most people in the world. I also note that since Belgium clearly HAS cities (the exact definition aside for a moment), a category "by city" is clearly not non-existent nor illogical for Belgium!

You will note that I intentionally did not attempt to delete the "by location" category - however, I find it very weird that we should have a "Transport by location" category and a "Transport by city" category, yet "Transport in Belgium by location" is to somehow sit in the second category. Makes limited practical sense to me to have such inconsistencies - rather I suggest we should try and find ways to fit the special status of cities in Belgium within the general structure. Maybe a subcategory based on the logic expressed in en:City_status_in_Belgium. Such as Category:Transport in Belgium by city (royal decree).

Alternatively, if the above is a bit cumbersome, how about we keep categories like Category:Transport in Belgium by city but create a template within any "by city" category for Belgium stating something like this:

Template:BelgiumCity "City", in Belgium, is a title historically given only to select municipalities, as described in en:City status in Belgium. This category should only contain files and subcategories related to the cities having this royal decree status. For other municipalities, see the appropriate "by location" category.

Basically, what I am saying is let's work within the existing structures, rather than step outside of them - my argument has always been that Commons is first and foremost a database, and that therefore, consistency, even to the point of boring predictability, is hugely important. Ingolfson (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am agreeing on database consistency, but there are major historical flaws. When looking in en:City, it becomes clear that there is no single city definition that works worldwide, it changes from country to country and even from one state to another in the US. Roughly, we have the following definitions:

• Towns with a population of more than xxx inhabitants (sometimes, the limit is official, sometimes arbitrary)
• Towns that have received the privilege by royal decree or another official instance to carry the name. This honnor is not ncessarily related to its importance: in Belgium, we have small cities (40% smaller than 15000 inhabitants), down to less than 1000 inhabitants. 20 to 25 % of the municipalities are cities too.
• Towns that used to be major centres or city states that includes several surrounding towns (Greater Manchester, most major (local) province/district/former country capitals).

Many subcategories in Category:Cities by country are (nearly) empty because cities are not official designations and cannot be used in the organisation of structures. In France, Belgium and Germany, those categories don't exist and in Italy, they are almost empty. In many countries, the mix between cities and municipalities/communes/... creates a big mess and inconsistent categorisation.

Nevertheless, many "xxx by city" categories have been created. I guess that the reason is precisely because "by city" is so open and undefined and attracts first the bigger cities that have many images and larger category structures. In Belgium, we avoided the "by city" cats and use the "by location" because several people threw out municipalities that don't have the honorary city title and it makes no sense to make all categories in two versions: one for the cities and one for the rest. The more city/town category structures will grow, the more we might face that problem in many countries.

I agree that settlement might be a better name, but I doubt that bigger cities will accept to be called a settlement. In the en:wiki, I see more and more categories by "populated places", which might be a clumsy solution. --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I worry that "by location" is still too ambigous. Because while some would, like the usage in Belgium, use it as a placeholder for cities/towns/municipalities, the general usage could also include the "by country" categories and various other categories, like, say "XXX on ships" or "XXX on space stations" or even whacky ones like "XXX on ship's masts" or "XXX at riverbanks". Whereas "settlements" is clearer in the regard, and even "populated places" is better, I guess. I'd be happy to support the last if we can't find a better option.

What would be the best procedure to get some more unified structure here on Commons, i.e. as standard, official schema? You seem more knowledgeable than me on the formal processes in Commons. And if we don't find a good structure, it's not going to become any easier down the line, what with all the sub-structures proliferating in each country... Ingolfson (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming ship categories

For your information: Started a discussion on Commons talk:Naming categories --Stunteltje (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)