User talk:Laurel Lodged

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Laurel Lodged!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

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

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

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Laurel Lodged,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dublin (city) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved and renamed this image to its correct identity. Easy mistake to make but College Green ends roughly where you took the image from, being a view of College Street. Ww2censor (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Laurel Lodged,

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to vote now!

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

Firstly, decisions made at English wikipedia are not binding at Commons. The two projects have different needs. Second, "(Roman) Catholic churches" and "buildings of the Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous. The Catholic Church owns buildings other than churches. Third, the whole category tree is at Category:Roman Catholic churches. There's no reason that Ireland should be treated differently. If you don't like "Roman Catholic churches", please nominate the base category for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. While they not be binding, they have a high degree of authority in the wiki world. Since there are more eyes on the English wiki than are on Commons, it follows that the categorisation comes under more scrutiny and is therefore of better quality. We should reject wii precedents with great reluctance. 2. I fully agree that "(Roman) Catholic churches" and "buildings of the Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous. It was to avoid that very error that I renamed some of the categories to more fully distinguish between buildings of the Catholic Church that happen to be church buildings versus other buildings of the Catholic Church (e.g. baptistries, bell towers, episcopal palaces). Your question precedes my work but not my thinking on this topic. I have just now created Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church in Ireland to cater for the gap. 3. Now that the scheme has been demonstrated to be successful in a few counties, it is perhaps a good time to bring it to wider discussion. @Themightyquill: Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishops of the Archdiocese of Armagh 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christians by nationality 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriates by nationality 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A category for pubs in Dublin City has already been created. There is no need to set the same category and split it up again. This project has taken me several months to complete. Can you please the Dublin City pubs back into Pubs in Dublin. Financefactz (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Financefactz: I agree that having both Category:Pubs in Dublin (city) and Category:Pubs in Dublin is superfluous. One of them needs to go. I think the one with the greater name precision should remain - Category:Pubs in Dublin (city). The Category:Pubs in Dublin cannot be merged into Category:Pubs in Dublin (city) just yet, however, as it has lots of pubs that are in the surrounding counties of Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. I have created categories for these counties and am in the process of dispersing the pubs among them. When this manual dispersion is complete, then Category:Pubs in Dublin may be deleted. I'd appreciate your help with that work. Thanks, Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Financefactz: I see that you blanked the contents of Category:Pubs in Dublin (city). That was improper and out of process. Please arrange to restore it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a Category:Pubs in County Dublin page in existence but you seem to have thought that Category:Pubs in Dublin related to the county. I have been working on this for a long long time and have create c.200 categories for individual pubs. Before re-categorising them into council areas I needed to identify where each pub was first. So far we had only made it through part of Fingal. I suggest rather than recategorize 200+pubs just leave them as Pubs in Dublin (which relates to the city). It is already a subcategory of Pubs in County Dublin to avoid any ambiguity. Financefactz (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the tidy and the eventual move to Pubs in Dublin (City). thanks for helping out. Financefactz (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand why my change was reverted? My thinking was that the redirected category would serve users better by redirecting to buildings and structures of all religions in Cork. Any insight appreciated. Thanks! --Donal.hunt (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to raise a similar point/question. And find this handy thread. As per Donal.hunt I can see absolutely no reason why Category:Churches in County Cork or Category:Churches and monasteries in County Cork would redirect specifically to the (sub)category for Protestant places of worship in the county. Not when there are other (less specific) cats available. And when, because of this redirection, at least a few RC churches had been miscategorised. Absent any logical explanation for this configuration, I have changed the relevant cat redirects. Guliolopez (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canal (1st lock) 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-- Deadstar (msg) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Laurel Lodged. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church buildings of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Ukraine 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruth Coppinger 70 days after election.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not only moving categories with a false reason (completely changing names is not "anglicization") but you're also moving the wrong village categories. "Ulu Qarabəy" and Shahmansurlu/Shahmasur are 2 different villages. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Shahmasur, Nagorno-Karabakh is also known as Shahmansurlu (Azeri: Şahmansurlu). Am I missing something? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the category Category:Ulu Qarabəy. Shahmansurlu doesn't have a Commons category. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My mistake. Too many tabs open. I rectify the error shortly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check before making moves as you unfortunately almost always leave some spelling mistake. You left one again on Category:Nareshtar, Nagorno-Karbakh (Karbakh). I fixed it for you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't use unnecessary disambiguation terms in category titles. I just moved one of your recent moves from "Kanach Tala, Nagorno-Karabakh" to "Kanach Tala". If there's no place with that exact name elsewhere, then the disambiguation term (in this case, ",Nagorno-Karabakh") is unnecessary. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Thanks for your earlier note above. I meant to reply but forgot. Regarding "Nagorno-Karabakh" as a geographic disambiguator, my thinking on this was that it was an olive branch to turkic editors. It neatly elides as to whether it is in Artsakh or Azerbaijan and so should discourage edit warring. But if you're happy to do without it, then I'm fine with that too. Laurel Lodged (talk)

By the way, can you suggest what to do with Category:Kiçik Qaladərəsi ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what regard? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Category:Hin Shen is a redirect. So should I name it "Hin Shen, Nagorno-Karabakh"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can manually switch their content to change which one is a redirect and which is the main category. I did it for you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walsh meeting poster during lockdown.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roderic Meeting 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thurles railway station, April 26, 1961.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga_(a)^talk 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

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

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the GAA categories! Much appreciated -- Deadstar (msg) 10:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurel, Gothick is not at all a misspelling of Gothic. Gothick is something like a variant of Gothic Revival, with the difference that Gothic Revival tries to imitate medieval Gothic, whereas Gothick applies Gothic details on buildings whose "body" rather is laid out according to a newer style, Neoclassical, Georgian or whatever.

• https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and-architecture/architecture/gothick
• Historic England, official List entry no.1063173 on the Church of St Swithin, Baumber, Lincolnshire, "The C19 choir stalls and octagonal moulded font match the C18 Gothick fittings. In the nave are 4 hatchments to the Lievesey and Clinton families, and a Commandment Board. Monuments. At the west end of the south aisle is a large ledger slab with Lombardic inscription to John Eland and his 2 wives d.1473. On the south wall is a tablet to the Barber and Rowlands families d.1776-1797."

Please repair as soon as possible all damage you caused by your redirects.--Ulamm (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Socialist Party (Ireland) poster in Dublin 2020.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски��∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reverted your categorisation because this is not the baptismal font but a mural inside the baptistry. Montserrat baptismal font is this one. Thanks! Enric (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laurel. Thanks for creating these categories. You might not have known, but some time ago it was decided that categories should not be named "Buildings and structures". Here are two discussions that were had about that:

• Commons_talk:CommonsProject_Architecture#Category:Buildings_and_structures, in 2008
• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/05#Should_categories_combine_buildings_and_structures?, in 2017

Please change the categories you created so that each category name mentions only one or the other, and please do not name any more categories this way. If you don't want to make separate categories for buildings and structures, they can all go under structures. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think that the reasoning for the decisions was flawed. I fail to see a good reason for departing from the Wikipedia standard in this area. Can you advise of the best forum to revisit this flawed decision? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at Commons:Categories for discussion, but making sure to notify the people at Commons:CommonsProject Architecture because they coordinate architecture-related things, including categories.

Note that I moved your reply here to keep the conversation thread in one place. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Larousse:
  • Géorgie. État d' Asie occidentale, la Géorgie est située dans le Caucase, en bordure de la mer Noire (à l'ouest) ; elle est limitée au nord et au nord-est par la Russie, au sud-est par l' Azerbaïdjan et au sud par l' Arménie et la Turquie. Superficie : 70 000 km 2".
• Britannica:
  • Georgia

Georgia, country of Transcaucasia located at the eastern end of the Black Sea on the southern flanks of the main crest of the Greater Caucasus Mountains.

• • 'Transcaucasia
    • The land
      • Physiography

Trending generally from northwest to southeast, the Caucasus Mountains consist of two ranges—the Greater Caucasus in the north and the Lesser, or Little, Caucasus in the south. The watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the backbone of the system, traditionally has been part of the line dividing Europe and Asia, but the whole region has been so subject to Asian influences that there is now general agreement in assigning the ranges to Asia.

You should use 2024 to learn very much.

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are already discussing the merit (or not) of the whole category tree regarding the pre-1776-US. Would you please consider stopping to add more categories to the pile? --Enyavar (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Catholic particular churches sui iuris 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings_and_structures 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You moves and edits in categories of religion is incorect! Stop it, because you do not understand what is in Ukraine! Микола Василечко (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eparchy of Buchach of the Ukrainian Greek Ctholic Church needs to be disambiguated from similarly names dioceses of other denominations such as the Category:Ternopil-Buchach Eparchy (Orthodox Church of Ukraine). There are many denominaions in Ukraine: OAC, UOK, UOC-KP, UOC-MP, UGCC, RC. It ‘s very confusing for non natives of Ukraine. A disambiguating phrase in the title assists navigation. To leave it as just “Eparchy of Buchach” gives it a primacy that it may not really have. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to administrators. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on my talk page, pasted below as well for convenience: "The Eparchy of Buchach of the Ukrainian Greek Ctholic Church needs to be disambiguated from similarly names dioceses of other denominations such as the Category:Ternopil-Buchach Eparchy (Orthodox Church of Ukraine). There are many denominaions in Ukraine: OAC, UOK, UOC-KP, UOC-MP, UGCC, RC. It ‘s very confusing for non natives of Ukraine. A disambiguating phrase in the title assists navigation. To leave it as just “Eparchy of Buchach” gives it a primacy that it may not really have." Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False thought! See en:Eparchy of Buchach - not confusing for readers EnWiki! You is banned in EnWiki for similar editing - stoping incorrect categorization here! --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. With that degree of similarity, disambiguation is necessary and desirable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Wall mounted church monuments of Germany by district. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

understood Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:The World Wars, but it had been closed so I figured I'd comment here:

I support merging the three at a minimum, but agree with you that the category itself seems rather unneeded if used as it currently is, just to hold WWI and WWII. World wars is actually a broader concept covering large-scale military conflict fought across a significant portion of the globe. This could cover several wards between colonial powers up to the modern day conflicts such as the GWOT (literally has global in the name). However, while that definition is used in conversation, it's not specific enough to be a good category scope, IMHO.

Basically, while it was good to at least merge the three, I would now support going further than that and actually deleting it, so if you nominate it, I'll gladly support a deletion. Josh (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Parish_hall,_Tallow,_County_Waterford&curid=9020811&diff=860094003&oldid=91527392

This is fine if you intend to create the category, but without that all you've done is to effectively eliminate it from that part of the category tree. Please either create the more specific category or revert, I don't care which. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Есть устоявшееся дерево категорий в христианстве, перестаньте выдумывать новые! [[User:|Ыфь77]] (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77:

1. Please provide a translation of you comments in future correspondence.
2. Please don't tell me or anyone to "stop inventing new ones". You are not the King of Commons so stop acting like it.
3. Kindly assume that I act in good faith and that my edits are for the benefit of Commons.
4. While there may be established category tree for Christianity, that does not preclude the creation of new trees as needed.
5. One reason why new trees might be needed is when current trees are over-populated, making their contents difficult to digest. When this happens, it's best to devise taxonomies that disburse content in a sensible way. This is what happened in the case of the denominations. In the USA alone there are many thousands of Protestant denominations. That makes it difficult for users to navigate to Orthodox or Catholic denominations. It makes sense therefore, to create taxa of parent categories to conveniently group such content together.
6. There is an existing category structure for Category:Christianity by branch; it makes sense to use this as the model for the creation of the taxa or child categories.
7. There is a difference between a branch / denominational family and a denomination. I'm not sure that you appreciate the difference.

Please self-revert your edits in this space. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Когда есть время, я перевожу свои реплики. Вчера Вы время не предоставили. // When I have time, I translate my lines. You didn't provide the time yesterday.
2. Перестаньте нарушать консенсус и я Вас вообще беспокоить не буду. // Stop breaking the consensus and I won't bother you at all.
3. Не я написал: "благими намерениями вымощена дорога в Ад". // I didn't write, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
4. Вы не предоставили доказательства, что новые ветви и уровни категоризации необходимы. // You have not provided evidence that new branches and categorization levels are necessary.

5-7. Я понимаю разницу между семейством деноминаций и единичной деноминацией. Первых в христианстве 4 основных (ещё выделяют семейства парахристианских и новых деноминаций), вторых намного больше. Но не все семейства деноминаций представлены во всех странах (особенно исторически первая - Церковь Востока / несторианство), поэтому такая вложенность избыточна, к тому же большая вложенность может быть не обработана ботами. Поэтому достаточен уровень единичных деноминаций, который к тому хорошо встраивается в существующую категоризацию: а) восточное христианство в единичные деноминации включается, в семейства - нет, б) со Свидетелями Иеговы и мормонами ситуация аналогична. // I understand the difference between a family of denominations and a single denomination. There are 4 main ones in Christianity (there are also families of parachristian and new denominations), the second ones are much more. But not all families of denominations are represented in all countries (especially historically the first one is the Church of the East / Nestorianism), therefore such nesting is excessive, besides, a large nesting can be not processed by bots. Therefore, the level of individual denominations is sufficient, which is also well integrated into the existing categorization: a) Eastern Christianity is included in individual denominations, not in families, b) the situation is similar with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Пока не придём к консенсусу, либо вдвоём, либо с кем-то третьим, заслуживающим уважения, отменять ничего не буду. Вы должны доказать, что нововведения необходимы. // Until we come to a consensus, either together or with someone else who deserves respect, I will not cancel anything. It is up to you to prove that innovation is necessary. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77: Every editor in Commons enjoys the presumption of respect and good faith. In denying this presumption to me, you break two of the pillars of Wikipedia. I feel obliged to report your behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Не забудьте также сообщить, что мои отмены были реакцией на Ваши неконсенсусные действия. // Don't forget to also inform me that my cancellations were a reaction to your non-consensual actions. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider reading Commons:Assume good faith when you have a spare moment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolises of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church are not only in Ukraine! Ыфь77 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See d:Q11041194, d:Q11778056, d:Q11777938, d:Q110390184. --Ыфь77 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that it looks like a tautology. However, it is necessary to preserve the integrity on the tree structure Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Вы сделали ложный вывод, что если части множества совпадают, то сами множества равны. Online translation: You have made a false conclusion that if the parts of a set match, then the sets themselves are equal. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really you need to modify your language. Make less use of "false" for a start. To the matter: it's not a question of equality but categorical inheritance and logical parenting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I get your point now. Some metrpolises are outside Ukraine and so cannot be in Ukraine. Sorry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue has been resolved. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am here to shed light, as an Italian, on the situation of church-related buildings, be it Catholic, Orthodox, but also Waldensian, Protestant (in general) and Lutheran, not to mention all those born from the cultural integration of immigrants. You will already imagine that, I'm going to go out on a limb here, more than 95 percent of these are Catholic (we have the Pope in the house or almost) so thousands and thousands of churches should end up in that category, not to mention monasteries, convents, abbeys, seminaries, bishop's seats, which we also call episcopio... I wonder then what would be the point of having a category to be filled with thousands and thousands of individual categories of all these buildings when there are already categories of churches, for example, differentiated by diocese, or by region, province, and municipality (the latter non-religious territorial subdivisions). In any case the ones you have created so far really contain an infinitesimal part of the architectural heritage related to Christianity in Italy, are you sure you want to continue? With sympathy. Threecharlie (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ваші уявлення і знання про категоризацію в структурі УГКЦ є помилковими! Припиняйте свою деструктивні дії в цій площині категорій! Микола Василечко (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Це показує ще один бік абсолютного нерозуміння української мови та її словотворення, в тому числі і прізвищ! Не треба показувати свій низький рівень освіченості в цьому питанні. Перед тим треба бодай мінімально розуміти тему, а вона докладно розписана тут uk:Українські прізвища, зокрема і щодо -ра: Бандера, Барбара, Валігура, Ванжура, Гайдабура, Гандера, Говера, Дідора, Дудидра, Дядюра, Кузюра, Кучера, Магера, Мандибура, Петлюра, Піндюра, Пітра, Пригара, Сосюра, Стецюра, Танцюра, Хмара, Цюцюра, Черепара, Яцура. І всі ці категорії Category:Ukrainian surnames that ends мають під собою цілком логічне лінгвістичне підґрунтя. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Микола Василечко: Please refrain from leaving abusive messages on my talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of senseless arrogance is this? Is this how you react to factual notice of your ignorance and your mistake? --ŠJů (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: Please refrain from leaving abusive messages on my talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The town is called Khankendi today and all categories should contain the name Khankendi not Stepanakert. So, please do not revert "Stepanakert" back. Interfase (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Interfase (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read Commons:Categories for discussion#Listing multiple categories on this "Categories for discussion" page. What is the point of simultaneously opening 20 discussions about one your opinion and proposal, which concern 20 categories of the same type? Do you expect all comments to be copied twenty times? You are adding work to someone who will have to merge your twenty talk pages.

Open only one discussion per issue. But make sure that your reason and arguments have good rationale and that you do not only show your ignorance about the issue. A meaningless cry of ignorance is not an argument. --ŠJů (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: It's not done to annoy you. I use the left hand menu to generate discussion requests. It creates a separate request for each one. It does not merge them. If you have the skills to amend the functionality, I would welcome the development. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Laurel Lodged. My name is User:OperationSakura6144. I have moved all subcategories under Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese by country to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country by diocese.

I can't move two categories Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in Italy and Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in the United States to match the "Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country by diocese" format because those categories has too many subcategories for me to move them to new categories very quickly. Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in Italy has 249 subcategories while Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in the United States has 185.

I think you have to move these categories, Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in Italy and Category:Bishops by Roman Catholic diocese in the United States yourself to match the "Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country by diocese" format, if you have enough time to do that job. I'm sorry if I couldn't do it good enough or I have to tell you to do it yourself. I've done the best as I could, and I hope you're happy about it.

See you later. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Ireland in the 21st century category from 2 GAA categories I added it to? At least 1 one of them should have it. Darren J. Prior (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J. Prior: Dates are only appropriate for individual images, not for entire categories. It is to be assumed that categories span years and even centuries. So "1884 in the GAA", "1885 in the GAA" etc would be over-catgorisation and would contain an unwieldy number of categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between a date like a day and a century. Given all the other subcategories that are in the category I think that 1 or both of those (GAA) categories merit being in it also.

I know that there are 2 links at the bottom of the category for Gaelic football and hurling but the GAA / GAA league categories are unique and notable in themselves to be included I believe. Darren J. Prior (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J. Prior: There is nothing inherent in the 21st century about the GAA. Stuff happened in the 21st century. Stuff also happened in the 20th century. Why not "20th century in the GAA"? It's not inherent to the category. On the other hand, if there was a tree structure of "21st-century establishments in the GAA", then I would support such a categorisation. That points to stuff actually happening, not just that the organisation existed in that period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the GAA category(ies) in question should be included as the parent category in this sense is Ireland in the 21st century.

I would agree there is not need for a "GAA in the 21st century" category. Darren J. Prior (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J. Prior: I don't understand what you are saying. Give me a concreate example. Say why you believe it is the right thing to do. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"then I would support such a categorisation. That points to stuff actually happening, not just that the organisation existed in that period"

The GAA football league category I created (and the other GAA category in general) is stuff that is actually happening. They make up a significant part of Ireland in the 21st century. Darren J. Prior (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J. Prior: The league exists. It is not limited to a point in time. It may span many years / decades. A year / decade category for each year of the existence of the league would be excessive. If a category existed called "GAA competitions by year of establishment", then the league could be a member of that category. But it doesn't exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Apse and tower of La Seo of Zaragoza. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is not really the right way to go. You seem to want to rename a set of categories. Please merge them into one request where it can be discussed. Multichill (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill:

It was not my intention to bombard you. The bot automatically sends a notification for each request. I will group them in the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid creating more than one discussion subpage for related discussion, unless you present a distinct argument:

• e.g. for "Ivano-Frankivsk Raion" on Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11 instead of just Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Ivano-Frankivsk Raion
• e.g. for UK, multiple times on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/10
• etc.

Also, do not add comment directly on the month subpage, e.g. at done at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11: [1], [2]

Please cleanup by merging the subpages or complete the arguments on each discussion page, by explain how it would be different from the argument presented for the parent category.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3] By "general category" (which I should have phrased as "broad category"), I am not referring to whether there are any subcategories, but rather to the fact that the category "Statues of animals in Qəbələ" is too broad to be tagged with NoFoP. It’s unclear whether every animal statue in Qəbələ is new enough to be copyrighted (and two of the images in that category appear to be photos of someone’s own work). The NoFoP tag should be reserved for categories of specific structures that clearly fall under copyright, such as a recently constructed statue where every photo of it would be subject to copyright restrictions. — Golden ^talk 20:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: I think that I have a good understanding of the meaning of the template. In the case of the "Statues_of_animals_in Qəbələ" category, I see two pics of wooden eagles and one pic of dinosaurs. I conclude that it is not general, it is not broad, the statues are new, it is quite specific (a triple intersection of art (statue), subject(animals) and location (Qəbələ)). So as far as I'm concerned, it meets all of the criteria and accordingly, I have restored the template. Please start a discussion on the cat category if you disagree with my assessment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on the Village Pump for further clarification. You can follow the discussion here: Commons:Village pump#Use of NoFoP-category template on broad categories — Golden ^talk 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

— Golden ^talk 14:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently started discussions in a large number of categories related to the same issue; I'm complying my comment from Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:Demonstrations and protests in the United Kingdom in the 18th century here instead of copying it to every discussion page: This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum in multiple other locations. It's the same as the United States/Germany/etc. in the 1660s, etc. Yes, the political entity didn't exist, but the geographical entity did, and we want to be able to navigate through historical categories. Hyperaccuracy (yes, that's a thing; consider shoreline measurement) can get prohibitively complicated in some cases. That said, if you want to go through and accurate subcategorize the files by constituent country (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or Ireland) to be more accurate, I think that would be fabulous; I just found that too time-consuming myself. Alternatively, while United Kung and Great Britain are not completely interchangeable, in many cases it's 'close enough,' so I wouldn't oppose renaming the categories. BUT -- please retain/create redirects for United Kingdom -> Great Britain! Partly for relatively seamless navigation and partly because some templates don't account for change in 1801. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]