User talk:Joshbaumgartner

2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive, 2019-2020 archive, 2021-2022 archive, 2023 archive

An award for you!

		The Commons Barnstar
		Just a little thank you for all your categorizing work! Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 11:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

BabiesMaleYearbyCountry

This template still links to Babies (male) and Babies (female) despite the fact that we are supposed to use "Male babies" and "Female babies" instead

And the same thing applies to most of the templates it seems Trade (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: I've fixed the links in {{Navigation by people}} which is called by this template. Josh (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

How do i remove the colors in the side of Category:Male humans wearing lederhosen? Trade (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:People wearing leather clothing by type--Trade (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Female humans wearing leather pants by color Trade (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Trade: The colornav parameter is being set to "0" when no color is specified, which should suppress the color navigation box. Unfortunately, {{Navigation by people}} was only checking if that parameter was set to display the box. I have changed it to check that it is set to a number greater than 0, so now it should correctly suppress the color navigation box when no color is specified. Josh (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Any idea how to fix Category:Nude young adults? Trade (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, Merge Category:Nude young adults into Category:Nude young people, as Young people is the main topic category in question, so should be the name used in this category per the Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: Note, there is a CfD for Category:Young people at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Young people proposing a change to Category:Young adults. There have been no objections, so I suppose, in lieu of renaming Category:Nude young adults, we could instead close that CfD. I'll then update the template to reflect the new name. Josh (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the issue with Category:Barefoot young adults?--Trade (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Estonia_by_topic

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Places_in_Ivory_Coast

Category:Places_in_Ivory_Coast 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 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Zusammensetzung des deutschen Bundesrates.svg

Please update that file. In Hesse there is a new government with CDU/CSU and SPD. --88.70.210.100 01:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Composition of the German Bundesrat as a pie chart small.svg

Please update that file. In Hesse there is a new government with CDU/CSU and SPD. --88.70.210.100 01:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t recategorize “photography” categories as a “media type category”

“Photography” is a topical cat about a medium, not a media type. A media type is an image or video. A medium is photography or painting. I know this is good faith but it’s not only inaccurate but also breaks long-standing category navigation trees by hiding most of the categories. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Dronebogus here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit misleading here. I do not categorize any "photography" categories as "media type" categories, as Category:Photography is a topical category, not a media type category. Josh (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Parked_aircraft_by_type

Parked aircraft by type 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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sitting people/people sitting

Perhaps I am missing something, but it looks to me like your move of Category:Sitting people to Category:People sitting (and analogously for subcategories) is ill-advised on at least three counts.

1. As far as I can see, this move from a longstanding category name to a name that had been a redirect was done with no discussion or consensus. This sort of thing is what CfD is for. I would have opposed this, but unless there was a discussion that I somehow missed, I wasn't given a chance.
2. When you move a category to what has previously been a redirect to that category, the correct way to do it is to delete the old redirect and move the category. You did not do this. Now all the history is sitting on what is now a redirect. Maybe not a big deal, but now how it is supposed to happen.
3. Some of the subcategory names seem to me to lead to much worse names. The previous Category:Sitting people in the United States meant just what it said: "Sitting people" (noun phrase) "in" (preposition) "the United States" (noun phrase). Category:People sitting in the United States most easily reads as "People" (noun) "sitting" (gerund functioning as verb) "in" (preposition) "the United States" (noun phrase). It's technically still true, but it's a weird category name. It's as if the topic were about "sitting in the United States" intersected with "people" rather than "sitting people" intersected with "the United States".

Again, if there was a clear consensus to do this, then I guess there was a consensus that I disagree with and I can live with that, but as far as I can tell you did this unilaterally. Am I wrong? (If so, just point me to the discussion and we're done.) If memory serves, this is not the first recent time you've made a questionable category move. Please try to get some consensus before doing things that would be time-consuming to reverse. - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

These were the result of a CfD concluded a few months ago, which I don't believe you weighed in on. The CfD was on the talk page of Sitting people, but I've moved it to People sitting so it is easier to find for people looking at this category. That said, I don't want to write off your concerns. Sure, item 1 is a moot point of course, and I do not think the history thing is really a big concern for categories. However, I think concern #3 is a reasonable one to warrant a response:

• As for intersectionality, I think your intersection comment is missing a bit. People in the United States is an intersection between all of its components, and it is a mistake to think that it can only be either an intersection between one combination (e.g. either 'people' and 'sitting in the US', or 'people sitting' and 'the US'), but instead, it has to work for all intersections of its three components, 'people', 'sitting', and 'US'. This means it is also an intersection of all possible compounds of these three components: 'people sitting', 'people in the US', and 'sitting in the US'. The contents depict all of these things in conjunction, with no particular emphasis on one over the other.
• As for sentence structure, generally in English the subject goes before the verb, not after it, so "Sitting people in the US" is a more weird way of wording, I mean who/what is it that is sitting these people in the US? I know that 'sitting' there is really meant as an adjective for the 'people', but read from a neutral perspective, it could be read either way, which is an ambiguity that the alternate phrasing of "People sitting in the US" doesn't have--there it is non-ambiguous that it is the 'people' doing the 'sitting'.
• As for being able to be consistent with sub-categories, the English noun-verb order works best for more various sub-cat types. It not only works well for "People sitting in the US" as shown above, but it works people sitting on things (e.g. "People sitting on stairs" is much better than "Sitting people on stairs"), named people sitting (e.g. "Joe Biden sitting" is much better than "sitting Joe Biden"), or when combined with other actions (e.g. "People sitting while writing" is much more clear and consistent than either "Sitting people writing" or "Writing people sitting").

So that is some of why noun-verb structure was to be implemented going forward, but if you have further issues that might have escaped that analysis, please do bring them up so we can discuss them. Josh (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad there was some sort of consensus, so I'll drop this. (If I'd noticed it in a timely manner, I'd have disagreed, but that's beside the point.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. However, just because a CfD has gone through, it does not mean that further discussion should be squashed. If you have any additional concerns, I am happy to discuss them, and if needed, we can change course to make sure we are doing the right thing. Thanks! Josh (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Female_buttocks

Female buttocks 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!

2806:261:490:8719:A908:ADAB:1352:F899 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

How far is the template for Category:Categories by topic?

What is the state of affairs of the template you promised to make with header information for Category:Categories by topic and its subcats (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology? At least one user has questions about it (see User talk Elkost)? It would help when we had such a header in each category involved. JopkeB (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB I have a preliminary mock-up at {{Category navigation/index/hatnote/topic}}. You can start using it immediately if you would like. If we want to tweak the text, that is fine and it will update all instances accordingly. Let me know any changes you would like to see. Josh (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That looks very good. I made only some small changes. I have added it to Category:Environment by topic. The rest is for tomorrow.

 Question

1. Should the template get Category:Categories by topic as a parent? (Like Template:Categories by topic by month.)
2. Elkost had a question and I do not know enough of the subject to provide an answer: Should Category:Categories by topic and its subcategories should become HiddenCats? (To avoid improper categorization.)

JopkeB (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing it in the wild. I am not happy with the layout, so I will maybe change some formatting: currently it has to be placed ahead of the Wikidata Infobox, or it creates a ton of wasted white space. It should be able to agnostic as to where it is placed in the order of templates and still look okay. I will have to work on that, but it is a minor quibble that can be fixed soon enough. As for your two questions:

1. Yes, though I think perhaps it should actually be Category:Categories by topic (flat list) since it will end up containing an absolutely huge number of contents versus the more manageable Category:Categories by topic. Essentially, I would add the flat list automatically, but only add the base index manually to select categories. See Category:Categories by country vs. Category:Categories by country (flat list) for example.
2. I would think hiddencat would be made for these categories, afterall when they are listed at the top (or bottom) of the page, they are called "Index/Non-topical categories". I in fact asked this a few years ago about some, but got a lot of push back from folks who didn't think categories should be 'hidden'. So yes, technically I do agree with Elkost that it would be the correct way to treat these (and all) index categories, but I don't think that was the consensus years ago. I have not seen the matter revisited recently, and I would still advocate for it if it came up again. Josh (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am OK with placing the template above the Wikidata Infobox.

1. Should we yet start with the flat list? Or wait until there are more subcategories? I do not think there will soon be a huge number of subcategories, because it is a lot of work to make proper ones.
2. So then we make them hidden.

JopkeB (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For your information: There is also Category:Categories by subject (flat list) with lots of categories by topic. It appears 'by subject' and 'by topic' have been used interchangeably. There are too many of them (over 6.000) to fix this manually. --JopkeB (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB I do see that, and you are right, the two terms do seem conflated a lot. I'm not sure that is accurate, so maybe should be sorted at some point. I'll see if I can give it some cycles this week. Josh (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

1. Can you point out the difference between "topics" and "subjects"? There is a redirect from Category:Subjects to Category:Topics, so I do not blame the categorizers who made the mess.
2. Can this category be used for our Category:Categories by topic (flat list) as well, can these two be 'merged'?

JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Children of [country X] Template

Coming here from our discussion on the Template:Children by country talk page to ask about a somewhat different topic: I created several country specific sub-categories in Category:Children in World War II and was wondering whether there could be a helpful navigation template for them, too, (maybe based on your Template:Children by country?). I chose a somewhat unusual category name format for those sub-categories, for one, because someone else already had created a sub-category with that naming format (Category:Polish children...) and I just stuck with the format for consistency, and for the other, because the naming format makes sense to some degree (e.g., "Jewish children of the Second World War" is not the same sample of people as "Israeli children of the Second World War"). The template would ideally include Jewish and Roma children as entities of their own in addition to children "by country", because they are sub-groups that are of particular interest in the context of World War II. So, I'm not sure whether I should just rename all the categories to fit the usual naming format of "Children of [country X]" so that I could use the regular country templates, or whether I should keep the current name format to account for the significance of Jewish/Roma children in this context. There was also a short discussion on my talk page about the category name of "Finnish children in war" that might be of interest to decide which category name would be best. Anyway, what I'm trying to ask is: what would be the best way to handle the "Children in World War II" situation from a navigation-template-point of view, and if the situation is best handled by a new navigation template, then, could you create one, please? (No obligation, of course, and no expectations for this to happen in a timely manner or anything!) Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nakonana Hi, I see there is actually quite a bit to go over. I don't have a lot of Wiki time this weekend, but I will try and dig into everything you have been bringing up here and at the mentioned template discussion and see what I can come up with. Feel free to add further findings in the meantime. Thanks! Josh (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No hurry, any help is much appreciated. Thank you! Nakonana (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to Template:CatCat

I noticed that your changes to this template removed Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. That category needs to be on the categories that use this template, so I undid your changes. In addition to putting that category back, it removed the {{Diffusion by condition}} template, which I don't think is needed here because all categories that use the catcat template should have categories only. Please let me know if you disagree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I only disagree on the basis of discussions that have taken place on the issue which were the impetus for me to make the changes I did. It has been a bit since I was involved on this matter, but one I was able to readily pull up is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Categories requiring diffusion, where the consensus seems to be that the differentiation of 'permanent' vs. 'temporary' diffusion was not needed, as in reality it didn't really impact the work needing to be done. At any rate, if you have a view on this, particularly if you can shed light on why we might actually need to maintain that distinction, perhaps you could weigh in on that discussion. I'll see if I can locate the other related discussions, all of which also had similar conclusions. Thanks! Josh (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories for people sitting needing categorization

Hi, Josh. I was looking at this file and noticed that it has a dozen or so categories with names like "People sitting needing categorization by <criterion>". These categories seem to be defined as metacats, but they aren't metacats. I can see how someone might think they are because of the word "by" in the title, but in these cases that word doesn't indicate a sorting criterion: it just indicates what further categorization is needed.

Since you created these categories, would you take a look and see what needs to be done to remove the metacat designation? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Either take care of what you think is needed, or please remove these categories from images already in useful categories. Most examples I've seen do not "*NEED*" multiple other variations of sitting related categorization - I'm not saying that more specific cats might not be useful, but I see no need to flag the images as having something wrong with them. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: You are correct, categories such as Category:People sitting needing categorization by view are definitely not meta categories. The contents are not actually sub-categorized 'by view'. This is a maintenance category and only intended to group files which need to be so sub-categorized. The 'meta' tag is added as a consequence of using a template that adds the navigation box, but that template was designed for use on actual meta categories, not really for this case, so it does erroneously add the meta tag. I did not pay too much attention to this technical detail as these are maintenance categories, not mainstream topical categories, but you are correct that I should probably either remove the navigation template, or add a 'nometa' flag to suppress that 'feature' of it...or create a variant of the navbox for these kinds of maintenance categories. Thanks! Josh (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I have simply removed the nav box from these categories and thus the meta cat tag is gone as well. The nav box was handy, but as mentioned, the template was not really designed for a maintenance cat, so when I have a chance, I may simply make a nav box more tuned to the task. Josh (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to inform you

Hi Josh, on Category:Pages using groups template (flat list) (and maybe other pages): instead of using

{{mbox|text=This category is automatically assigned by and used for maintenance of {{Groups}}.}}

you can use:

{{Autocat|Groups}}

which is the tool for that, if you like. Best Regards -- W like wiki  ^{Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2}  16:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@W like wiki: Thanks, I was unaware of Autocat. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Josh (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:lettercombo

Hi. Template:lettercombo is throwing pages into Category:Category pages with broken file links like at Category:M7 letter combinations. Would you mind exploring what we can do to not have that occur. I was hoping that there could be a check for the existence of the underlying file check. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I agree that adding a check to verify the file exists before attempting to display it is probably the best option.

@Tuvalkin: You appear to have taken the lead on the recent development of {{Lettercombo}}, so would you mind implementing this? I don't mind doing it but I'm still absorbed in a cross-country move and other backlog, so it might be a bit before I can reacquaint myself with this template. Thanks!

 Comment If it is desirable to flag cases where an image is missing (and ideally should be created), in addition to not displaying non-existent files, you can add a maintenance category specific to this issue. That will still alleviate the general Category:Category pages with broken file links flooding. Josh (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I can easily implement the solution I mentioned here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay — that is done (see Template talk:Symbolcombo). However the misuse of {{Lettercombo}} for combinations including digits was only a small part of the problem. Most of those missing images are legitimately expected by the template, in correct use: Looks like I forgot to create a handful of Greek and Cyrillic letter images. I’ll get on that, sorry! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin Thanks for jumping on this, hopefully this resolves the issue. Josh (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Josh and Tuvalkin. Happy with any working solution, I haven't got my head buried in the templates and their use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This template is still unresolved in its creation of errors of unlinked files. Please can we resolve it. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is best to discuss this over at Template talk:Lettercombo as it involves more folks and can be more easily referenced in the future. I look forward to comment there. Thanks, Josh (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_of_Africa

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

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_of_Asia

Category:Current_countries_of_Asia 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_of_Europe

Category:Current_countries_of_Europe 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_of_Oceania

Category:Current_countries_of_Oceania 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_by_continent

Category:Current_countries_by_continent 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries

Category:Current_countries 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_countries_by_name

Category:Current_countries_by_name 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!

Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Election_apportionment_diagrams_of_the_Congress_of_the_Republic_(Portugal)

Election apportionment diagrams of the Congress of the Republic (Portugal) 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!

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Concepts_by_region

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Text cat

Hi. Would you please be able to fix this template so we can either override the application of a category, or to have it point elsewhere than a disambiguation page, where it is incorrect. Multiple examples of issues at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. Thanks  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to worry, it is there, simply wasn't documented  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst Thanks for touching back on that, and apologies for the limited documentation. Josh (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Category navigation 3

Template:Category navigation 3 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 template, 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!

Mike Peel (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Topic in country and Template:Topic by country

Hi! What these is two separate similar templates instead of alias with redirect? --Kaganer (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Hi and thanks for the question. {{Topic in country}}, {{Topic of country}}, {{Topic from country}}, etc. all are specific front-end templates for specific prepositions (in, of, from, etc.). Each then loads {{Topic by country}} with different parameters depending on which one is used. So essentially, they are like a redirect, but with certain unique parameters. If they were just a straight redirect, then {{Topic by country}} would not recognize which preposition is in use and a lot of the logic in the sub-templates would not function correctly. Thanks, Josh (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. IMHO, this should be explained in the template documentation, with cross-linking between all these sister templates. --Kaganer (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea but something doesn't work

Hi, seeing yet another picture of overcrowded motorcycles in Africa, I wondered if there was a category devoted to how many people could be on a single two-wheeled vehicle, finding the "your made" Category:1 man with motorcycles by quantity. Thinking I understood the mechanism, I then created the Category:5 man with 1 motorcycle but clearly I'm off the mark, so you who have already thought of categories like that, does it already exist or is there any way to create it consistently? Thanks for reading :-) Threecharlie (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Threecharlie, thanks for bringing that up. Right now there is basically only a structure for "x objects with x objects", which includes images of "x objects on x objects". If you want to categorize for the number of people on a vehicle, the creating a tree of Category:People on motorcycles by quantity, and Category:5 men on 1 motorcycle would be under that tree. I note that you have used singular nouns with quantities greater than one...these should be changed to plural, so your 5 man with 1 motorcycle should be changed to 5 men with 1 motorcycle. The parent categories should be 5 men with motorcycles & 1 motorcycle with men to start. Josh (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

An additional note. Looking at the image, it appears that 2 of the people on the motorcycle are boys, so it should probably actually be Category:5 male humans on 1 motorcycle. Josh (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the chance to go ahead and start that category and see what the structure starts looking like. Not saying we have to go this detailed, but if you have a good number more images of lots of folks on motorcycles to sort, at least we will have a prototype. Josh (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories Science by continent and Science by region

I don't understand Template:category navigation, so could you take a look at Category:Science by continent and Category:Science by region? The template isn't setting the metacat sort criterion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems a user has used parameter for the layered category for organization (science by location) instead of the actual topic (science) as is the intended use, and did not set the index parent (ipar) parameter to their intermediate criteria (location):

• Syntax used: {{category navigation|index|science by location}}
• Correct syntax: {{category navigation|index|science|ipar=location}}

I will work up a routine to check for this kind of situation to warn users about this issue. Josh (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Space Jam: A New Legacy by character

Hello Josh, thanks for the quick deletion of Category:Screenshots with Bugs Bunny in Space Jam: A New Legacy and Category:Screenshots of Bugs Bunny in Space Jam: A New Legacy. You say "if the contents have been legitimately removed leaving the category empty, it can be speedy deleted without need for a CfD" but I doubt that any content was ever there. The anonymous creator seems to enjoy to make huge category mazes without checking if there is any use for it. I ask you to look at the other subcategorie of the main Category:Space Jam: A New Legacy because there are more useless categories there and hardly any content. For example Category:Space Jam: A New Legacy by character. I would do it myself if I had the time but all my Wikipedia time is already spent on Dutch Wikipedia. Primarily on the category system there. Thanks in advance, LeeGer (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If there was never content there, all the more reason a speedy delete is completely fine...I thought maybe this was a case of copyvio files getting deleted leaving an empty category tree. A little bit of pre-building some category structure might be tolerable if it were soon populated with useful contents. However, these have been around far too long to worry about that so they can all be deleted. The creator appears to be anonymous and so if they keep it up, we may need to request admin action. I get the time limitation thing. My plate is pretty full as well, but I'll see if I can't cut down that forest a little bit. Josh (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:People_wearing_female_clothing

People wearing female clothing 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!

Nakonana (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump#RFC: Automatic categorisation both bane and gain; work needed to identify source of categorisation

Hi. Hoping that I saw you a specific ping about a particular issue. Thought that I should start the overarching conversation and thought  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Partially_nude_girls_crouching

Partially nude girls crouching 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!

186.173.152.252 02:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current_country_subdivisions_of_Asia

Category:Current_country_subdivisions_of_Asia 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!

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Illuminated structures in Dubrovnik

Hello. As I see this discussion is over. Is it necessary to copy this discussion to the talk page of this category: Category:Illuminated structures in Dubrovnik, as you have done in previous cases? Vhorvat (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vhorvat, I agree that discussion can be closed. Linking the discussion on the talk page of affected categories is part of the closing process because the talk page is often the first place folks go to see any history of discussion. You can use the method you prefer. I generally add it as you saw with the other cases because it is both easy to add and easy for future users to see the discussion without having to navigate additional steps. You can alternatively use the archive box, kind of an older way to do it, or even just make a comment with a link. Josh (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never done this kind of thing before. I wasn't sure if you forgot or if you let someone else do it. I thought, maybe it's not time yet. Thanks for the information. Vhorvat (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Josh, would you like to do the honors and remove the CFD template from the category? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6, @Vhorvat, looks like I did forget that part...sorry, I thought this was one of the ones that hadn't closed yet. I've added to the talk page and removed the tag. Thanks for the offer and reminder! Josh (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Green spaces in Dubrovnik

Hello. So far, we have clarified the common problem in five of the six categories, and you have done further work. I wonder if you noticed this sixth category? The discussion here is a bit longer and if you haven't noticed it, I'm interested in your opinion all things considered. Vhorvat (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely saw that one as well, and I would have closed in it on the same grounds (category not actually empty) but I saw some discussion happening and didn't want to step on that. If Enyavar and you are satisfied at this point, I'm happy to close that one as well. Josh (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay further attention to this matter. My comment was intended to be on all six Dubrovnik-categories which I think are all justified to exist. --Enyavar (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I waited a while giving other users a chance to respond. In my opinion, you can close this as well. Vhorvat (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Concepts by region

Category:Concepts by region is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD C1 (improperly named 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.

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Structures in the Netherlands

In Category:Structures in the Netherlands you replaced the parent categories with a template. But this template has two issues:

1. It is not in accordance with the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Kingdom of Denmark:
   1. It adds automatically Category:Structures in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while this category should only be added when a similar category is made for at least one of the six island of Category:Dutch Caribbean. We (editors from the Netherlands) will do that manually, but we wait untill all the current discussions about countries and states have been closed (and we have got the final green light to go on).
   2. It adds automatically Category:Structures in North America by country while there is no similar category for at least one of the two involved island of the Category:Caribbean Netherlands‎.
   3. It does not treat The Netherlands as a full-fledged country in Europe, the template {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Structures in}} has not automatically been added. So I did it manually, which I do not mind doing, but perhaps it is better to let it stay when the template is being added, for as long as all those discussions about countries and states has not been closed.
2. It adds automatically Structures in the European Union, while I don't see the point in why these kind of categories should exist at all. It is enough to have all those categories for Europe, but not for the EU. For me the EU on Commons is only a political (and economical) organization, it should have all the subcategories that are just for the EU (like parliament, government, legislation, and so on) and that is it. Who is going to search for Structures in Ireland via Structures in the European Union? The only structures the EU has of it own, are the buildings in for instance Brussels and Strasbourg (and in several EU countries for its institutions). And adding this kind of categories to the category structure means a lot of extra work nobody wants.

So:

1. Is it possible to wait with adding templates to country categories until the discussions about countries has been closed and, if necessary, the templates have been adjusted to the conclusions?
2. Can the European Union be removed from templates for countries?

JopkeB (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There are a few things going on here, so let me try and boil this down a bit to the key issues, and we can discuss resolving them:

1. Category:Structures in the Kingdom of the Netherlands: Yes, this is added at the moment, because "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is set as one of the region parameters for "Netherlands" in {{Country label}}. I believe that someone did this in an attempt to comply with the CfD you are citing, but perhaps we should go about it a different way. I don't think their edit was necessarily wrong, but in reality, we will need a more nuanced approach to redlinks. The real gist of the CfD is that Category:Structures in the Kingdom of the Netherlands should not be created if there are not going to be multiple contents within it. Thus the issue of whether the template links to that category and whether that category should exist are really two separate questions. I think it would probably be best if we do suppress redlinks to categories which should not exist, but redlinks to categories that maybe should exist? That's a fair question, but probably requires a nuanced solution.
2. Category:Structures in North America by country: I'm sorry, but perhaps I just don't understand the details here. Why is this an issue? The Netherlands (the constituent country, not just the Kingdom) is in North America, unless I am misunderstanding things here.
3. {{Countries of Europe}}: This is a superfluous and redundant addition, and should not exist on the same page as any of the {{Topic by country}} templates. I'm not sure what you mean by "It does not treat The Netherlands as a full-fledged country in Europe" in relation to this template...{{Topic by country}} lists the Netherlands under Category:Structures in Europe by country and lists it in the Europe navigation box (for topics which are by continent). What else do you want it to do? I have removed the redundant {{Countries of Europe}} from this category, so you can see what I mean.
4. Category:Structures in the European Union: Yes, it does this as well. I am not thrilled by the whole region linking thing, but someone added "European Union" as one of the region parameters in Category:Country label, so it comes through like this. I particularly did not intend the region parameter to be used for international organizations, but technically, it kind of works if that is what we want to do. I don't think we've had a good discussion on how regions fit into our geographic diffusion scheme at large. I added the whole region functionality to support the regional diffusion that I've seen for some topics, but I'm not very invested in it, as I see it as somewhat dubious. As a limited thing, I think most people are okay with it, but sure enough, now that the functionality is there, I've seen a lot of new regions being added and the number of these kinds of links are now increasing.
5. Waiting on current discussions to resolve: I am a big proponent of allowing a resolution before proceeding with any significant changes, but at the same time, stopping work which is in accordance with current standards on the idea that a discussion might change things doesn't make much sense. In any case, I'm not sure what current discussions would change adding {{Topic by country}} to this category, so I no reason not to.
6. Removing the European Union: I'm fine with removing it, though it should be removed from all countries which have it listed in {{Country label}}. You might want to find who added it and discuss the matter with them first though.

I hope this has captured your concerns...let me know what your thoughts are. Josh (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've looked more at the CfD you cite, and there are some issues with how that was done. I think there is some more discussion and clarification needed. I generally agree with the idea of the constituent countries being treated as countries and the kingdom as some sort of agglomeration or region, but some of the details have flaws that need to be worked out. Josh (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who added the European Union, since there are certain region-like categories associated with the EU, like Nature of the European Union, Geography of the European Union, Politics of the European Union, etc. Also, it would be better for some end-users if we provide categories for the region covering all 27 members of the EU to navigate across those nations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 I was about certain it was you who did that but didn't want to say for sure without double-checking first. I don't think there is any violation here, I just wonder if expanding 'region' to cover international organizations (EU, NATO, OAS, etc.) is really the best way about it. In any case, I just wanted to be clear that while I am not personally convinced that this is the best way forward, I am certainly not dead set against it either, and probably on balance, I'm fine with letting it play out a bit before really coming to an opinion one way or the other. I also did not want EU to be removed from the Netherlands, but not from say Belgium or France...either keep or remove for all EU countries.

I can certainly see the utility of region-based navigation lists. As personally I don't know how useful that is, I haven't invested a lot in creating them, but the framework is there, and I could work up a specific one for demonstration at least. Josh (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of these issues will be solved after we have accepted your conclusions in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales, and some others we are discussing in the reopened Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Kingdom of Denmark.

So then we still have {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Structures in}} and {{Countries of Europe}}: now I see it, I expected a navigation box on top of the category, but it is now on the right. I am sorry, you are right, the one I added is redundant.

I think the subcategories of the EU deserve a seperate discussion. I'll spark it. JopkeB (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:European Union. JopkeB (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nude_female_humans_crouching

Nude female humans crouching 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!

81.40.189.171 12:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Works of art of women smoking (activity)

Works of art of women smoking (activity) 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!

--Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Works of art of penile-vaginal intercourse

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

--Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories

Whatever you’re trying to do here, please don’t. The longstanding category tree was fine, but your attempt to replace it with something similar to Wikidata without asking anyone else has done nothing but make it harder to find stuff. I know this is good faith but if it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians_by_country_of_origin

Category:Mathematicians_by_country_of_origin 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!

Rathfelder (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(maybe) closing a discussion

Hello.
I noticed that you have experience in closing category discussions, which I don't have and don't know how to do.
Could you please check if the following discussion can already be closed?

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Rio Carnival First Division discography

If yes, could you close ir for me? Minerva97 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not very familiar with the topic, but it appears there is more or less a consensus to delete. It is a bit confusing as the final comment seems unsigned. It also seems like some changes have already been done which always makes it a bit less clean to implement. I wouldn't be comfortable making the proposed changes, but I think it can be closed, and you can make the changes once that is done. I'll give a chance for last comments before I close just to make sure. Josh (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:People cat

The documentation on this is nearly vacuous. I suspect that the one statement there -- that this takes no parameters -- is wrong. It is certainly not working as expected by User:Trade at Category:Barefoot young adults, and I have little hope of fixing it when its intent is undocumented. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that there are parameters that are needed in some cases. There is something wrong with {{Documentation}} or more specifically {{Template box}}, which is both way above my level and affects the documentation of nearly every template on Commons, which is giving that message for every template instead of correctly showing the parameter table. You can see if you view the source of {{People cat/doc}} that there are 3 documented parameters. Until someone fixes {{Template box}} so these display correctly again, I don't really have a fix for this.

As for this particular category and template application, I am in the process of developing a replacement for {{People cat}} with the {{Category navigation}} series of templates. The front-end template for this to use on this category is {{Appearance people}} (note the parameters don't show up in documentation there either right now), which I have implemented there so you can see. I know that you don't think barefoot should be a sub of nudity, but please don't be phased by that here. I have designed these templates to be easy to quickly modify to match whatever consensus hierarchy comes out of the discussion over at nudity on this. Josh (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a shot at it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at VP so hopefully someone more familiar with the doc templates might look into it. Josh (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, I believe we have tracked down and fixed the issue for now, so you should see normal parameter lists again for template documentation. Josh (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you please remove Category:Watermills in the European Union from {{topic in country|watermills}}

Josh, Would you please remove Category:Watermills in the European Union from {{topic in country|watermills}}? Centuries before the EU was even thought of, people all over Europe built and used already watermills. So I think there is no relation at all between those two subjects. Category:Watermills in Europe by country is enough. JopkeB (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB You know what, I think I will just suppress all redlinks for regional categorization. That way it will still support existing categories, but won't prompt creation of categories such as this one if they don't already exist. Josh (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea! JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sasquatch with arms raised

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2015_Fremont_Solstice_parade_-_Sasquatch_01_(19289530146).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=909604650 seems wrong to me, because one would not normally consider "people" to include this imaginary creature. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Josh (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edge case I never would have thought of either. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT issues with human hair categories

I have seen that the {{Bodypart people}} template automatically categorizes Category:Hair on babies, Category:Hair on children, and so on under Category:Human skin, while only Category:Hair on people should belong there. Can you fix this issue? Thanks. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that. There is a lack of consistency in the naming of people-level body part categories, which is causing some havoc. You've kind of looked at it in the middle of the operation, so I guess I would just say stay tuned, things should be ironed out soon enough. In the meantime, I would not go adding the new template to a bunch of pages just yet, there is a reason I've been proceeding kind of slowly with that at this point, until I have all of the kinks worked out. Josh (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be patient. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Still not perfect, but a bit improved. Josh (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Visual works by color

Category:Visual works by color is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: paintings are visual works but not included here? 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.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Topless people by background color

Category:Topless people by background color is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: No subcats in this 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.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 No problem with this of course, just wondering if you know what happened to the categories that were there. Josh (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I'm wondering about it too. If you can categorize them there, the SD tag can be removed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Appearance people}}

While modifying the subtemplates of this template, I found that there are subcats in Category:People by appearance that don't follow the "appearance people" pattern, like Category:People with dwarfism. Its tall counterpart is simply Category:Tall people. Such euphemistic category name for dwarf people is problematic, since I want to implement this template for both tall and dwarf people. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dwarfism isn't just being short, it also involves having a head that is relatively large compared to the rest of the body. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)