The process for moving categories is not as formal as (e.g.) the English-language Wikipedia. Most any user can just move a category. Why do you think this should be renamed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed that you recently moved/merged a category, but I think the renaming may well exclude items in the new category that would not have been excluded in the old category. The star and crescent is a specific symbol used in iconography, but not every flag that has a crescent and also has stars has a star and crescent. One example, File:Anti-WTO-Protest-Earth-flag.svg, does contain a crescent moon, but those stars are part of the Southern Cross rather than part of a "star-and-crescent" proper. Another example, File:Gemonde vlag.gif contains a star and a crescent, but they are in different quadrants and don't exactly make up a "star-and-crescent".
Sure. Maybe it could be named something less ambiguous? "Flags with crescent moons and stars" and "Flags with star and crescent" is a subcategory? Or maybe just remove all of the ones that aren't "star and crescent"-style flags and just have them individually categorized by having a crescent moon and a star? The latter seems better to me, but I'm open to your thoughts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi. Noticed you moved a bunch of files from Category:Fort Gordon to Category:Fort Eisenhower, as well redirected the Wikidata item. I'm not going to push the issue at this point, but usually the better thing to do is keep both categories, Wikidata items, and just start and end dates each other marking the category for the former a child of the one for the later. In otherwards, you should kept the category for Category:Fort Gordon, just used separate Wikidata items, and made Category:Fort Gordon a child category under the new one. Otherwise if people want to categorizes files related to Fort Gordon they won't where to put them now. Plus it's weird to put images of things like historical postcards and the like fort Gordon in a category named "Eisenhower." Usually when people are looking for or organizing images related to historical places they do it based on the old name. Even with military installations. Although it's the same with businesses, localities, products, Etc. Etc. and there's really no reason to force them into doing it by way of looking for those based on the name of the new entity. Otherwise it just causes problems. Not to mention it risks deleting old, but still valid, information on Wikidata's end, if not ours. Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? You're suggesting having two items for the same thing? That makes no sense. There is not a Wikidata item for "Cassius Clay" and one for "Mohammad Ali". Why would we have two items that refer to the same thing? Where are you getting this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the same thing anymore then if any other historical place is replaced by something new it then somehow magically no longer exits as a concept historically or otherwise. So in no way I'm suggesting having two items for the same thing. I'm saying there should be two items for different forts, one for the modern Category:Fort Eisenhower and another for Category:Fort Gordon. Which had a bunch of things connected to it before this year.
The comparison between "Cassius Clay" and "Mohammad Ali" is a strawman because "Mohammad Ali" wasn't and never has been known as "Cassius Clay" outside of his immediately family. There's certainly not some 80 years worth of documents and other objects referring to him by the later name. And like I said in my last message, the important thing with categories is using names that allow people to organize media related to the subject the easiest, which I'm saying categories for both names should exist and Category:Fort Gordon should be a child of Category:Fort Eisenhower. We aren't here to create a 1/1 historically accurately category system. But we go the name that's most popular for categories and the fact is that if someone has a file with "Fort Gordon" in the title or description that's where they are going to put. Not Category:Fort Eisenhower if they even know the name has been changed. Like with File:Greetings from Fort Gordon Georgia (8367049561).jpg I wouldn't know or care that it "should" (by your personal judgement) go in Category:Fort Eisenhower if I hadn't seen you move it there because I was following the category and "Fort Gordon" is still clearly the more common name for the historical fort currently regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The comparison between "Cassius Clay" and "Mohammad Ali" is a strawman because "Mohammad Ali" wasn't and never has been known as "Cassius Clay" outside of his immediately family." It's hard to explain how wrong this is, as he was an extremely popular boxer. See, e.g. File:1961 Cassius Clay vs. Donnie Fleeman On-Site Poster.jpg. Again, I have asked you where are you getting this: what guideline or policy on Wikidata says to have two items for the same thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he boxed as Cassius Clay, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't a popular or well known boxer under that name. As to what guideline or policy I'm basing it on, well established practice and the fact that names for categories are supposed to be based on the most commonly used version. Or are you disputing that and saying Fort Eisenhower is more established and well known then Fort Gordon is? Also why would it matter at the end of the day if there's categories for both anyway? Seriously, what difference does it make if historical images that are named and have to do with Fort Gordon go in Category:Fort Gordon? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that: I'm asking you to give me any example of the same thing having two Wikidata items when its name changes. If you can answer this, I can answer your questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have the time to look right now with Wikidata. Nor I'm not as concerned with it as I am Commons since that's the project were having the conversation on. But there's plenty of examples both here and on Wikidata. Although again, I don't really care how you do things on Wikidata's end since their different projects. Nor is how we name categories or organize files dictated by Wikidata or Wikipedia. So can you answer the questions I asked you about Commons or are you just going to deflect about something that doesn't matter to the conversation? If your not going to answer then I guess I can just recreate the category and revert your edits but I rather not without at least some agreement on your side about it. Otherwise I could start a conversation about it on the village pump, but I suspect it won't turn out in your favor if they only justification you have for redirecting Category:Fort Gordon is "but Wikidata!" --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You brought it up. You were mistaken or lying. It is not Wikidata policy to have two items for the same thing. If it doesn't matter, I don't know why you brought it up. I also never said, "But Wikidata!": again YOU brought up Wikidata. What in the world are you rambling about?
I am not saying that "Fort Eisenhower" is more common than "Fort Gordon", nor have I ever said that. As for why it would matter if there are categories for both, it's because we don't make two different categories for the same thing here as well. E.g. Category:Cassius_Clay. Again, give me an example of where this is done or a guideline or policy that says to do this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, I brought up Wikidata purely as a side thought that I made clear I wasn't going to push things on. Then I went out of my way to say multiple times that I'm mainly concerned about organizing files in Commons, which not having categories for both makes it harder to do. So your clearly deflecting by making this about Wikidata. Same goes for your "Cassius Clay" versus "Mohammad Ali." The reason we don't have a separate category for "Cassius Clay" is purely due to "Mohammad Ali" not popularly being by that name. That's it. We make two different categories for the same thing when doing so makes it categorize images though and the "same thing" goes by different names depending on the time period. You can keep bringing bring up policies and guidelines like I didn't cite one, but again, the guideline on how to name categories is clear that we should go with the most common name for a subject. So I'll ask you again, what actual difference does it make if there is a separate category for historical images that specifically relate to Fort Gordon? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Ali was popularly known as "Cassius Clay"! I'm still and repeatedly asking you for any example of what you claim is true or a guideline or policy that supports your claim. Do you have this or not? I didn't write anything about how it makes a difference if there is a category for historical images. It is virtually impossible to communicate with you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree about Mohammad Ali. Regardless, I literally cited a guideline and pretty widely agreed on prior consensus when I said the names of categories should be based on the most common and widely known name of the subject. What part of that are you unable to get? If it doesn't make a difference if there is a category for historical images of Fort Gordon then I'll just create one and revert your edits moving the files. It seemed like you were against that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you over and over again: WHAT GUIDELINE OR POLICY SAYS TO HAVE TWO CATEGORIES FOR THE SAME THING.
WHAT GUIDELINE OR POLICY SAYS TO HAVE TWO CATEGORIES FOR THE SAME THING. Jesus Christ, I feel like I'm being gaslit. I'm not arguing there should be two categories for the same thing! I'm saying there should be two separate categorize for the historical Category:Fort Gordon and the recently named Category:Fort Eisenhower. I'm not going to cite a guideline or policy for something I'm not even claiming we should!
If YOU think that some information is extraneous (e.g. Wikidata policies) Come on, Koavf. Your the only one bringing up Wikidata policies here. I never said jack them and I've already told you I don't care about how things are done on other projects. Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to stick to the subject. Your the one making this about Wikidata. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same thing: it's two different names for the same thing.
Please stop posting multiple comments rife with spelling errors and off-topic noise. If you have something to write in response, take your time, post once, make it literate, and stay on topic. Otherwise, just stop. Additionally, if anyone is "gaslighting" here, it's you: you never said "jack" about Wikidata policies and don't care what is done there, but you started by talking about standard practice at Wikidata. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up Wikidata once in my original message. That was it outside of repeating that I don't really care about it when you kept acting like I did. I also never said anything about "Wikidata policies." Your the who brought up Wikidata policies three messages above this when you were acting like I said they extraneous. I never used the word "policies" though. Let alone did I say thought Wikidata's were irrelevant. Although they are in respect to the fact that isn't Wikidata, but that's it. So your clearly gaslighting. Otherwise be my guest and point out where I said anything about Wikidata policies that wasn't directly in response to you bringing them up as a way to deflect from talking about Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what are you pinging me for? I thought you didn't want me wasting your time with comments anymore. I've already cited Commons:Categories that categories should based on the most commonly used name for a subject. I'm not going to cite a policy or guideline for something that to backup what's essentially a strawman on your part that I think there should be multiple categories for the same topic when I've never said anything of the kind. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buenas, con respecto a la imagen (File:Logo Alcaldía Tovar 22.jpg) ese no representa los colores de una bandera de Venezuela (o un municipio) por eso pedí para remover, según el Usuario NoonIcarus (Administrador de Wikimedia) las banderas, escudos de armas (estatales y municipales son de licencia libres (publicos) por que según las leyes en Venezuela. AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi Koavf, thanks for all your work and thanks for asking here. After 10+ years of contributing to the developing of the category structure of Wikimedia Commons I started to realize things didn't turn out right. I have been searching for images and contributing to the adding of illustrations in over four projects, and those images where hard to find in categories over 20, 50 or 100 images.
So I started experiencing with what I called second generation categorization some years ago. The category itself is upgraded from a database to a documentation center about that particular subject. With some written introduction, maybe a reference or some more and the images rearranged in a certain order, that it is easier to comprehend and to navigate.
In that particular Category:New York Agreement I just added 23 more images all in a certain order, about the political rectification of the New York Agreement in the Netherlands (about two months later). In my logic the main documents should be presented first, but they turned out to be last. Also with those keys I had brought all images in a chronological order. -- Mdd (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed that scans of the documents should come first in a category about the document, so I've categorized them with a space. Good thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for your further corrections here and best wishes for 2024. I am sorry to read about those troubles at Wikipedia-EN and hope this will turn out right soon. -- Mdd (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope 2024 is great for you! But I didn't come here just for social niceties though there is one more... Thanks for uploading Coming of age in Samoa. It is, unfortunately, extensively marked with coloured pencil - not sure if that says something about University of California students or not. There is a better copy available here which I've uploaded. Do you know a way to link the two as far as Wikisource is concerned? RichFarmbrough, 22:24 13 January 2024 (GMT).
Nice. First off, nice to talk to you, friend. Secondly, there is definitely some marking up, a bit of torn pages, etc. in my scan: it's pretty sound, but not perfect, for sure. Finally, I think there are two options here: one is that there are just two different transcription projects for the two editions, which is something I see occasionally, but as you may imagine, is the sort of thing that you usually do when there are serious differences and the other is replacing the scan of the initial one with the latter one. At the risk of being biased, I think my scan is superior because it's 1.) the first printing, whereas yours is the ninth and 2.) it has better resolution on the images instead of that eye-piercing harsh black-and-white scan. I'm open to discussing if there's something I'm missing. As usual, I rambled: maybe asking at s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium is best. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated: for some reason the "[reply]" link doesn't work after your above post and I typically only see that if someone doesn't sign a post or if it's contained inside of some weird template. Any idea what that happened? Also unrelated: correct me if I'm wrong, but her book and work are actually only about American Samoa and not Western/independent Samoa, correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is due to my custom sig. I think it works on en:wp. I think the impressions are word-for-word the same, as far as I can see, so double transcription would be rather over the top. It's quite possible they used the same plates. It's a potentially fraught question whether we could "make one good one" as my father used to say, as for older works every damaged serif is potentially important. I'm ocring them locally, as I get a much better result, but the pencil marks really don't help. Ideally one would XOR the text images, removing any spurious noise, I could try that, but there's scaling and registration to deal with. And indeed it was "American Samoa", land of the disenfranchised. RichFarmbrough, 11:13 15 January 2024 (GMT).
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Semantics and the Web - An Awkward History.webm. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.
We don't need mini essays about the law file descriptions. It's totally pointless since that's what the license and guidelines are for. Plus it screws with searches. Like if I want to use this search to find uncategorized postcards it results in upwards of 52000 results, a lot of which have the mini essay in their descriptions. The reason being that it says "the year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles." Which is why I deleted it. Along with the fact that's just completely unnecessary. So I'd appreciate it if you left my edit alone. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does "PD-PRE1978" help anyone? Is there some reason this shouldn't be converted to a template that includes the language that was previously listed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"PD-PRE1978" doesn't necessarily help anyone in the description, but it's also in the licensing section where it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice", which is more then enough to get the point across that the image is in the public domain because it doesn't contain a copyright notice.
I'll ask you though, how exactly does it help anyone to have multiple paragraphs in the description about the law pertaining to derivative works, compilations, dramatizations, translations, greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys Etc. Etc. when it's an original photograph? Or should we just include a mini-book in file descriptions covering every possible copyright scenario no matter how irrelevant it is? I don't really care if there's a brief statement that the image doesn't contain a copyright notice, but again, it's already stated in the licensing section and there's no reason to include the rules for other types of media along with it. All people really need to know is that's the image is in the public domain. No one looking at the iamge cares about or wants to read how the copyright status of jewelry or dolls works. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It helps them know why it's in the public domain and acceptable to upload here. Another option is to create a template (again: why not?) and link to a relevant page here on Commons that explains it without necessarily reproducing the text? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that already being met by the template in the licensing section though? I'm not necessarily against clarifying the wording in the exiting template or creating ones for specific types of media, but that's a separate issue to if files should have mini-books about ill relevant copyright laws in their descriptions or not. Be my guest and propose something to clarify "PD-PRE1978" or see if anyone wants more specific templates then that, but again, it's a separate issue and they aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversions of the two X files is not productive. I simply sorted all the files where they should be. If you disagree, please start a discussion someplace. Otherwise, you're not being helpful. Evrik (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The "Members of" categories are for media and categories about individual members, not media about the band at large. This is not how these categories work and it is you who must propose the discussion since you are trying to change things. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The category should not be speedily deleted through SD#C2 (Unuseful empty category; "If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted"). It will probably have files soon. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Can't you copy paste the updated SVG version to the PNG file? You did also simultaneously update the PNG version back in 2023. I used to do it, because I am "SVG illiterate" and when I had a functioning laptop. I am writing from my mobile phone, where I don't have Microsoft Paint or other similar apps. 31.200.23.18507:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Updating the SVG is just changing a few bits of text, but updating the PNG involves using an image editor which is much more cumbersome. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you very much for the update. The original uploader of the SVG file, User:Numberguy6, looks fairly active. His/her last activity was on 23 April 2024. I will ask him/her to update the PNG file. 31.200.23.18507:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all. There is no need to add this disambiguation and I know no policy that requires that postcard series in particular have them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if you are going to rename a category, please move the category page so that whomever was watching the old name will now be watching the new one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit that "Category:Don Quixote in the 20th Century" is a little ambigious for people who don't know that it specifically relates to a series of postcards. For all anyone knows it could just be images of Don Quixote that were created in the 20th century. Per Commons:Categories (which happens to be a policy BTW) "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." And sure that doesn't specifically have to do with postcard series, but so what? "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone must follow." So what's your actual issue with having it disambiguated aside from Wikilayering or "I just don't like it"? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Commons categories are not in title caps, it is not really that obvious that someone would think that this is about the book Don Quixote and what has happened to it in the 20th century. Were there some scheme like Category:Books by media by century and we added media related to Don Quixote in the 20th century then, sure, maybe. What is the reason why postcard series in particular need to be name "x (postcard series)" other than you like it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said why, becuase the names of postcard series are often extremely ambiguous. Like if the thing was just titled "San Francisco" then it has to be disambiguated and that's often how postcard series are named. It also help separate categories for postcard series from ones for postcard booklets. Since they aren't inherently the same. It's not like we don't already do that with other things either BTW. For instance Category:Video game franchises has plenty of categories that are disambiguated with "video game series." There's plenty of categories in Category:Film franchises that are disamibugated with "franchise", Etc. Etc. It just makes sense in certain instances where a good percentage of the titles are just going to overlap with other stuff or otherwise not make sense on their own. And sure I like it that way, but it's for a reason and is already established practice that follows policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how are postcard series any different than books or movies or any other creative work which could be named anything? Should Category:Coming of Age in Samoa be renamed Category:Coming of Age in Samoa (book) because that title could refer to a magazine or a documentary series on CuriosityStream or something? What makes postcard series names uniquely ambiguous? Note that those media franchises you mention are almost always named after a piece of media in said franchise, so "[[Category::Alone in the Dark]]" could seemingly refer to just the game itself and not the series of games that came out subsequently and were named after the original. You are comparing apples to apple franchises. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can stick your fingers in your ears but I've already explained it twice now. Postcard series are usually extremely ambagious and have titles that overlap with other things. I don't really care about books. Take that up with whomever edits in that area. I guideline was clarified to say category names shouldn't be ambagious like 6 months ago. So maybe they haven't caught on to it yet. That's not my problem though. Categories for books are often disambiguated using the date of publication, author, or some other thing though. Doing it with "postcard series" just happens to make more sense in this case and I've been organizing images related to postcards for like 3 years now. So I'd know. Again, what actually issue do you have with disambiguating them that way? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially you have no argument or reason why it's an issue outside of citing categories for books then? Good to know. You can call it "needless disambiguation", but your personal opinion doesn't overule the guidelines or previous consensus. If you feel the need to discuss it outside of that then take it up on the village pump or something, but I've given you plenty of legitimate reasons why "Category:Don Quixote in the 20th Century" was disambugated and I'm not going to talk in circles about it. I will say though that there was already a conversation about making sure category names aren't ambiguous like six months and whatever your personal opinion is that was the clear consensus at the time. So it would be cool if you just dropped it instead of trying to make an issue out of me creating [[:Category:Don Quixote in the 20th Century] (postcard series)]] when there clearly isn't one. Otherwise your just going to be wasting everyone's time, including ours. At the end of the day I could really care less about this either way. Except that you obviously have no argument and categories with "postcard series" existed in them before I got involved anyway. So this isn't even my issue to begin with. You can't just ignore the policy and how the categories were already being named by talking in circles. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, it's not necessary or used on any other kind of thing: books, presidents, anything. My question remains why postcard series uniquely need these. You also just straight up ignored:
What is the ambiguity in "Toasts of To-day"? There is no need to append " (postcard series)"
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I reverted a crop you had made to [2]. Please use lossless crop whenever possible rather than precise crop, especially if you don't fully crop the image. Thanks! I think commons will be a good place for your wikipedia efforts. Smasongarrison (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally it should be parented to Franciscan churches. But that does not necessitate a category with a double intersection of name * country. Especially as it's not even a recognised sovereign state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SADR has more recognition but Western Sahara does not. And unfortunately Saint Francis of Assisi Cathedral, El Aaiún, Western Sahara is not in the SADR. Which brings us back to over-categorization Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Western Sahara is coterminous with the area of the SADR. Again, I don't see it as over categorization, since it's diffusing two different schemes due to their intersection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki says that it is not coterminous. "Western Sahara is a disputed territory in North-western Africa. It has a surface area of 272,000 square kilometres (105,000 sq mi). Approximately 30% of the territory (82,500 km2 (31,900 sq mi)) is controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR); the remaining 70% is occupied and administered by neighboring Morocco." Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You sent me a message saying I had made a mistake in an edit: Revision of 706200527. Sorry, I can't see an error made by my edit. The edit was made with a script, not a manual addition. Please explain the error. But there is an error made by another user before: Revision of 360136891. My script can't see this and can't fix it. Thank you for fixing this error. And there was a minor fix for your edit: Revision of 924677368. --XRay💬08:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
We have many thousands of caricatures. Very few categorised by gender. Unless we are going to work through all of them it doesnt seem very significant, especially as most link back to biographies which mostly dont categorise by gender. Rathfelder (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they very much should be there to diffuse it. I think that Category:Caricatures of men by century/Category:Caricatures of men by year are a good way to break them up as well and we can have Category:Caricatures of men by name to house the ones for individuals, thereby making the category much cleaner and just reserve it for unknown dates or maybe caricatures that have several individuals and can't be neatly put into any specific category (e.g. imagine a collage of George Washington categories across several years or several heads of state that are several individuals). I don't agree with emptying the subcategories from the category as such. Does this seem reasonable to you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯10:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could take a look at photos of Mahathir from his younger years, and at the same time learn more about him as a person. He was Malaysia's longest-serving Prime Minister, holding office from 1981 to 2003 and again from 2018 to 2020. Mahathir played a key role in transforming Malaysia’s economy, promoting industrialization and modernization, which helped drive the country's growth and development. His vision and leadership continue to inspire many.♥️♥️♥️♥️
Can you help me click on this Facebook post and upload the post first orange photo? The photo is have Mahathir Mohamad and Siti Hasmah Mohamad Ali inside. Copyright compliant
You can refer to this image. The photo is same, but different colour
Do not upload other photos, as they can be confirmed to be from after 1962. Since COM:Malaysia requires photos to be published before 1962; otherwise, they are copyrighted in both the USA and Malaysia. 218.208.8.12317:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Merci, amigo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg#mw-jump-to-license)){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0703-021,_Berlin,_Alexanderplatz,_Straßenszene.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}