User talk:Joshbaumgartner

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

Category:Hackerspaces_by_country_of_location[edit]

Hackerspaces by country of location 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Usaf serial[edit]

I have run into a problem with Template:Usaf serial. The current US Army/Air Force serial number system was adopted in FY1922, which means that aircraft ordered in FY1922/23 will have the same prefix as those ordered in FY2022/23. This will lead to problems as the serial numbers are currently categorized by the last two digits of the FY. We will need to transition to categorization by the full FY in order to avoid conflicts for aircraft ordered a century apart. However, manually transitioning to this new system would be very tedious as Cat-a-lot cannot be used with categorization templates. Do you have any ideas about how to solve this problem? - ZLEA _T\^C 21:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just learned that AutoWikiBrowser is available on Commons, so I've requested permission to use it. I think it may be the solution to the problem. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZLEA: That's an excellent point. I am not aware of anything before 38 existing under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number, but still probably best to come up with a good answer to this before some earlier serials are listed. Josh (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I did upload an FY1922 or 1923 serialed aircraft from a museum, but I never created categories for it. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here it is. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a new template, Template:USAF aircraft serial, based on your version. Feel free to fix any problems you find. Once all the existing categories are changed over, we can redirect your old template to the new one. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DDR Kategorien[edit]

Ich habe gesehen, das Du der DDR zugehörige Kategorien (z.B. "Geodesy in the German Democratic Republic", "Geography of the German Democratic Republic") in der Staatenleiste unterbringst ("topic in country"), in der nur gegenwärtig existierende Staaten aufgelistet werden. Die DDR war aber nur 1949-1990 ein selbstständiger Staat, danach wieder ein Teil von Deutschland und sollte deshalb auch nur dort mit den einzelnen Kategorien eingeordnet werden. Ansonsten müßte man mit allen ehemaligen Staaten so verfahren (z.B. Preußen, Sowjetunion. Osmanisches Reich....).--79.214er (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"By country" listings are not restricted based on the status of a country. There can be other indices such as "by current country", "by former country", etc. where countries of a particular status can be specified. Users should not be required to know what the status of a country is as a prerequisite to successfully navigating to it in the category tree. And yes, the Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and German Democratic Republic, to name few, are well represented in a large number of "by country" listings without issue, and thus you are correct that if we have a category for say, geodesy in the Soviet Union, it should be listed in the geodesy by country index. Josh (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Sportspeople from Taiwan[edit]

Hi Josh, you should kindly give help even with this discussion which is stuck in a series of political claims -- Blackcat 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help to remove an improper category[edit]

Hi, after your edit, Category:Books from Taiwan was added an improper "Category:Books from China". Could you remove this? Thanks. 迴廊彼端 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Josh (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategories in Groups of XYZ[edit]

Hi Josh

I have noticed your edits on some of the c:Category:Election apportionment diagrams files. I write this message to let you know that someone already created : c:Category:Election apportionment diagrams by number of seats. Do you think those categories should be subcategories of the "groups of XXX" categories ? For example like that ? I am not an expert on this kind of subject. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tpe.g5.stan: Yes, they certainly should--I see you added a few already. The names of those probably need to change, so I would

Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 48 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 48 seats , for example, but that's a separate issue. Thanks! Josh (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates[edit]

Hi Josh. I'm sorry to say it, but this looks really bad. It is adding unnecessary clutter to the page. The previous template is more discreet and elegant and it cannot grow as much, as it includes only the countries of a single continent. The map and country nav link are also totally decorative and unnecessary. Regards, tyk (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I agree that the map and extra country nav are extras that could go away. They are included because this is a feature added to a lot of countries. I configured it to only display if that feature has been built for a country. However, different countries' nav map/links display differently (and some problematically), which I do not like, so I am on board with just ditching this. As for the main nav list getting too long, this is already addressed by the ability to display a topic by continent if there are too many countries in the overall list. Josh (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently I spoke with Strakhov about that aesthetic issue and we also both agreed that previous continent-related templates were visually better. But I didn't want to annoy you with such details. :) By the way, template for science buildings cuts "by function" (it should be "Buildings in X by function", not just "Buildings in X"). --Orijentolog (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done They should categorize under 'buildings in country by function' now, if the category exists. As for the aesthetics, I am happy to go with some different approaches for that. I am admittedly more concerned with the functional side, but I still care about the aesthetic side. Useability is key with instant identification of where you are at with easy navigation to parallel categories being the purpose. Josh (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Josh. This looks awful.The template takes more space than the category itself. Stop spreading the use of this very large templates please. Regards, tyk (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you aware of how to collapse? Josh (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but the point of the template is that is saves you 1 click by not having to go to the page's categories. So having to click to extend the template makes the template pointless. Still, the flag is too big and imposing, as well as the frames and the lettering. It's just not good design. It doesn't look better than the other one and it does not improve navigation either. Regards, tyk (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also taken note of such changes by Josh. I don't care about the look, as long as the content is the same, but I find the templates only useful when uncollapsed. A collapsed template brings no advantage. For example, if I navigate between different districts, I have to expand (by clicking) every time to get to another district. That's annoying.

However, I also see advantages in these templates. They create the correct category structure and ensure that the categories are sorted the same everywhere.

Greets from Germany -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 11:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good point about having them already collapsed. I personally prefer the nav being un-collapsed when a user reaches the page--as you mention, making it start collapsed means an extra click to navigate which robs some of the utility of the nav in the first place. However, un-collapsing is still better than having to go to another category index, as un-collapsing a box does not involve another page load, which is still valuable for a lot of people with limited internet. Still, I think the 'main' nav at least should definitely begin open for easy use. In cases where a country is in multiple continents it can get a bit lengthy, so maybe having second, third, etc. continent collapsed is a fair compromise, at least for the moment. Note that whether a topic uses 'by continent' navigation should be set based on how many countries we currently have categories for. If it is a manageable number, then there isn't much value in breaking down by continent, but if nearly every country is covered, that list is pretty long, so 'by continent' breakdown seems to make sense.

I will say that there are some issues with display of templates in general using the new Vector 2022 skin in a narrow browser window, particularly when using a sidebar-style template such as {{Wikidata Infobox}} on the page. The problem is that Vector 2022 uses both left and right sidebars for other content and the screen width available for the 'article' content is severely limited. Add the {{Wikidata Infobox}} template which essentially becomes a third sidebar, and this means all other templates and content have to fit in a narrow remaining column. This can be mitigated to some extent by placing sidebar templates (such as {{Wikidata Infobox}}) at the bottom of the template list, but this is a bad compromise for normal use, as that infobox in particular should not be buried lower on the page. Unfortunately, Commons categories were pretty low on the ladder of concerns when developing the new Vector 2022 skin, so if you regularly use Commons categories in a narrow-window environment, a different skin such as the old Vector will give a better result. Josh (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Josh, It's a lot of work you've done with the new templates bee the "Category:Archaeological sites". But I don't find them really useful, the old templates that were at the top are much clearer. Best regard,

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, I appreciate the input. Josh (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Countries of <continent> by name" categories[edit]

Hi, Josh. About these categories you recently created:

The template you used for the setup has defined these are metacats, but they are not meta categories. I'm not very familiar with Template:Category navigation, so could you take a look and see what needs to be done to use {{Catcat}} instead of {{Metacat}}? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Perhaps I am missing something about the semantics here. It appeared to me from Commons:Meta category that 'by name' categories would be considered meta-categories, at least for Commons purposes. However, the guidelines are far from clear about these, so maybe I'm missing some other contradictory guidelines. The reason I chose {{Metacat}} over {{Catcat}} is that {{Metacat}} offers some additional functionality in setting main category, sort key, and flat lists all with parameters provided through {{Category navigation}}. I could replicate some of that alongside {{Catcat}} instead, but I am wondering what the win is. Unfortunately, I cannot find any good documentation on what the differences are between meta-categories and 'categories of categories' (or whatever the correct name for a category using {{Catcat}} should be), so hopefully you are a bit better versed than me on this and can point some out? Josh (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just had a look at Commons:List of meta category criteria. Again, as far as it appears to me on reading the rules for inclusion, the categories listed above would pretty clearly qualify as meta-categories. Thus, I remain genuinely curious to learn more as if it is true that the above are not meta-categories, than clearly the documentation we have needs to be updated as a result. Josh (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "by name" categories are confusing and often problematic. Some of them are metacats and some are not.

The whole purpose of meta categories is to group different things that have something in common. Each subcat of "Rivers by country" is for all rivers of the indicated country. Each subcat of "Vehicles by brand" is for all vehicles for the indicated brand. A by-name category that does this is Category:Hotels by name. Each subcat there (many of which are named "Hotels named <foo>") is for any and all hotels with the indicated name, so each subcat groups hotels by name. This category could have been set up to be for individual hotels, but it wasn't.

On the other hand, some by-name categories are set up so that each subcat is for one individual thing. The country-by-name categories (not just the ones I listed, but others as well) are a good example of this because there are no two countries with the same name. Each subcat is for one individual country, so it is not grouping multiple things with the same name. Another by-name category that is not a metacat is Category:People by name. In cases where there are multiple people with the same name, we qualify the category name (see the entries on the disambiguation page Category:Karel Beneš for examples).

The confusion happens because we use the word "by" in two different ways. With metacats, it's a short way of saying "grouped by". The other is the way we might say "I call her by name", meaning "I use her name when I talk to her". Categories like this include people by name, TV channels by name, and many others. Because there are those two ways of using "by", looking at the category name doesn't tell us which option applies: you have to look at the contents to know. I think renaming metacats to something like "Rivers grouped by country" would fix this confusion, but of course that would be a huge job and few people would support it. Another option would be to rename the non-metacats to something like "Individual countries of Africa" (instead of "Countries of Africa by name"), but that could also be a lot of work.

There are, by the way, some criteria other than name that are also not metacats. These include (sometimes, depending on how the category is set up) by serial number, by registration number, by title (such as for books or works of art), and probably others.

I hope this helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Absolutely. So if I am reading you correctly the difference you are citing is essentially thus:

Category by criteria where ~~the~~each sub-categor~~ies~~y covers a number of topics = Meta-category
Category by criteria where ~~the~~each sub-categor~~ies~~y covers a single topic = Not a Meta-category

Is this correct? Josh (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say "where each sub-category covers", just to be clear that we're talking about each individual subcat and not all the subcats put together, but other than that I think you've summed it up well. I feel like thanking you for coming to my TED talk! -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Noted, concurred with, and changed. Josh (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I am looking into how to adjust the template and the question arises: what do we call these non-meta-but-act-and-look-like-meta-categories? Josh (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've always just thought of them as categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero, but I've never known them to have a particular name other than that. If they need a particular name, maybe "categories that should not contain files"? I can't think of a name that's short like "meta category". -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Okay, I have added a parameter to {{Category navigation}} that allows identifying a 'by criteria' category as not being a 'meta-category'. Set "catcat" to any value and it will use {{Catcat}} instead of {{Metacat}} for the selected category. I have implemented it on the three categories you listed (e.g. {{category navigation|index|Countries of Central Africa|catcat=y}}).

Since the idea that there are 'by criteria' categories that are not 'meta-categories' is not really covered in the documentation, I would expect that this situation will recur in the future (I might make the mistake myself) and so feel free to add the catcat=y parameter to any such that use {{Category navigation}}. Ultimately, it would be good to update Commons documentation to outline this differentiation so users have a way to know besides relying on tribal knowledge. Josh (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and I agree that it would be good to spell out this issue in the documentation. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created some of the red-linked missing ones but given that the categories are very incomplete, are these intended to be in use or not? I do think it would be helpful if say Category:Countries of Oceania no longer contained the nations which were in the child Category:Countries of Oceania by name category but is that the intentional or am I missing something? Australia is the sole category of Category:Countries of Oceania by name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I am not sold on the need for these 'by name' categories, but if they exist, they should be used more consistently. If not, I am fine with upmerging them. Josh (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category navigation again[edit]

Here's another one for you. Category:Science and technology by continent is showing up as missing the required parameter for the metacat template (the parameter should be "continent"). -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks, it was the result of 'by location' being added to the topic. Since 'by location' is a bit unnecessary for this topic, I've just zapped it and it should work fine now on that category, but I am going to have to come up with something to use in cases where there is a parent index like that in other topics. Josh (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

300WSM photo[edit]

There is a photo on the 300WSM page comparing for cartridges. The 300 WSM pictured is a non-standard hand loaded cartridge standard 300WSM should be the same length or 1/100 of an inch longer than the 308 Winchester picture next to it, the photo is misleading, and should be replaced. 209.52.88.211 17:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

year books from country[edit]

Hi!

I saw your edit of 12 Mar 2023 at Category:1868 books from Austria, replacing {{Books from Austria by year|186|8}} by a call to your template {{year books from country}}.

I wonder if a similarly easy-to-use template replacement exists for (e.g.) {{Scienceyear||}}, or if you could create one.

Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: I am not aware of one, but I think I could make one. I am currently having to take a bit of a break (moving houses cross-country), but in a couple of weeks I can probably work one up. Josh (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Women_wearing_complete_bikinis[edit]

Women wearing complete bikinis 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

XxakixX (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Roundel of Cambodia (1976–1979).svg[edit]

File:Roundel of Cambodia (1976–1979).svg 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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

LieutenantThanon (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Country_subdivisions_by_name[edit]

Country subdivisions by name has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Auntof6 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

category:Mirage 5 by year[edit]

After your movement [1] it's impossible to move subcategories in normal way. Fix it, please. Wieralee (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just able to move Category:Mirage 5 in 2006 in the normal way without issue see log, so I am not sure what problem you are encountering. Note that I also changed parameter 1 after the move to reflect correct parent name. Happy to help if you need any more info or have some more details. Josh (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wieralee: Actually it seems all of them needed a move, so I did so without issue. Hopefully problem solved? Josh (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's OK. Thanks :) Wieralee (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation of Drawings[edit]

I saw that you were moving a bunch of the aircraft 3-view pages. Could you do me a favor and explain both the meaning of orthographic and how "3-view 3-axis" is not redundant? I am not a draftsman by any means and I tried looking at the page on orthographic projections, it just ends up confusing me because of how similar the different types of perspectives are. –Noha307 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noha307: Sure, it basically comes down to how perspective is employed to make the image, in that ortho images are projected perpendicular at all points, as opposed to perspective you might see in a photo or drawing depicting how things look from a viewers eye. Technical drawings use ortho to avoid building distortion into the drawing, and so that they can scale uniformly without issue. I'm just talking about 2D representation, axonometric projections are also orthographic, but attempt to add a 3D look to it and are beyond what we are generally dealing with here. As to how views and axes play into it, a single drawing may contain 1 or more views of the subject(s). Each view will be positioned on one of 3 axes (the names of each change in different fields), so a given drawing can be 1, 2, or 3 axis depending on how many it uses. However, it can have an unlimited number of views. It can have many views all along the same axis (as those in Category:3-view 1-axis orthographic projections), or multiple views per axis, such as File:Airbus A340 family 2 v1.0.png, which has 6 views and uses all 3 axis. Of course, the 'classic' three-view so widely used in aviation literature is 3-view 3-axis, meaning a single view for each axis, and so the lion's share of aircraft orthos are of this variety. However, many of the files under '3-views' were some number other than three, and even those with 3 views are not always all 3 axis, so that is what I'm sorting through ATM. Josh (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I get it. 1-axis drawings would be all pointing the same direction, while 3-axis drawings would be all different directions. The orthographic explanation makes sense too. Thanks! –Noha307 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

many of the files under '3-views' were some number other than three, and even those with 3 views are not always all 3 axis, so that is what I'm sorting through ATM.

Is it worth sorting by number of axes? It seems like it may not be worth a distinction because – unlike number of views or whether the third view is dorsal/ventral – it is the same information just being presented in a different way.

When it comes to categories, the major difference I have been focused on is line drawing versus silhouette, but that's a lot easier to understand. ;)

ortho images are projected perpendicular at all points, as opposed to perspective

So would the bottom left view in the [:File:Sopwith triplane 3 vues.jpg|Sopwith Camel drawing] be considered "perspective"? Or something else?

Of course, the 'classic' three-view so widely used in aviation literature is 3-view 3-axis

It's coincidental you mention that because I have been trying to figure out a similar subject: if there is a "traditional" order of 3-views from top to bottom. I have been uploading a bunch of them recently and in my experience it seems to be overhead, head-on, profile. However, there is probably a bit of a bias because the majority of the examples I have been working with are American military aircraft. If you're interested in that sort of thing, I did come across a few cases of manufacturers setting standards (e.g. profiles should face left) that I mentioned in a forum post. –Noha307 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worth it or not? Not sure how to answer that since we kind of need to quantify the investment and the return to really get a meaningful answer. I guess I have to say I don't know, but it is probably at least worth giving it a go and seeing how it plays out.

Great find with the Sopwith example! I came across that and a few of its ilk and no its not a straightforward thing, but I figure, the one 'normal' picture is not orthographic at all, so at least within the orthographic tree, its presence can be discounted. Kind of like some also have photographs, text blocks and such. Those with insets and cut-aways or other smaller details that are orthographic in nature are a bit more complicated, but I figure make a good first go at it. There are even a few where it isn't clear whether the image is really orthographic or not. These gray zones can be refined over time with experience, no need to let that stop up the works. At the end, if it isn't clear how many views/axes are really in the drawing, or it is more than there is a cat for, it can always live at the parent level Category:Orthographic projections of aircraft until it can be accurately sorted.

As for a traditional order, I am not aware of any such universal standard. My experience in industry is that companies will range the gamut from those that really don't care to those where every drawing detail is in a company manual somewhere and they have document control specialists who make sure everything meets the specs. There are certainly some ISO and other standards for basics on drawings, but I don't think that beyond deciding on going with first or third angle projection, that there is any standard for the arrangement on the drawing. There was some interesting stuff in the forum link, and I think it underscores how even some of the basic terminology around this stuff can differ between countries, fields, time, and organization. A quick look at some of my library and it is clear that book to book they use different orders for front, side, and plan views. Some aren't even consistent within the book! Josh (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noha307: Also, I really think that line drawings vs. silhouettes is a good one to work on. I have noticed those categories don't seem to be consistent and am not exactly certain how they should be applied. One question I have is whether a black aircraft shape with some gray features (windows, seams, weapons, etc.) marked on it is really a true silhouette, or kind of a semi-silhouette, since it seems to me a true silhouette would obscure all features within the outline of the subject, akin to the shadow it casts on the drawing surface. Is an outline that is not filled in, but free of any 'internal' features a form of silhouette image, given it conveys essentially the same information? I haven't given this a lot of good thought, and don't have any particular proposals around them, but since you mentioned working on them, I thought I'd get your thoughts on it. Josh (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: On the last point, it something I'm not sure about either. To me anything that is black with a white outline is a "silhouette" and the inverse is a "line drawing". (e.g. Vultee L-1 Vigilant is a silhouette) The bigger question for me are drawings that have black outlines, but are also colored in. (e.g. Cessna AT-17 Bobcat) For those, as long as they are a single color that is not black (I say "single color" to exclude those depicting an actual paint scheme, e.g. North American F-100 Super Sabre) and have black lines rather than white, I've generally been considering them "line drawings". However, I will freely admit it's not a perfect distinction. The ones I'm really stuck on are those with white outlines and colored in, but not black. (e.g. Aeronca L-3 Grasshopper) I've been placing them in the line drawing category, but it is really based more on the fact they share an origin with other drawings that are considered line drawings than their actual characteristics.

Thanks for the ping, by the way. I tend to forget about conversations sometimes if I don't receive one. So I appreciate it. –Noha307 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noha307: Pings are just habit for me and I likewise greatly appreciate them because I'm the same about forgetting a conversation was going on. If it's on my talk page I get pinged automatically, but anywhere else, it is handy. At this point I think/hope that just about every file in the orthographic projections of aircraft tree has views and axis categorized. There are probably more than a couple of mistakes. After a while looking over thousands of drawings, a lot of them started to blend into each other. Making sure they are also sorted fully by general type (mono, bi, helo, etc.) will come in a bit but I'll probably let the dust settle for a bit now.

Thanks for the notes on line drawings and silhouettes, it sounds like you have a better hold on it than I do, I wish you luck in wrangling it. Josh (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I was just looking through the 3-view 1-axis orthographic projections of aircraft and 3-view 2-axis orthographic projections of aircraft categories and I realized I think I made a mistake in understanding what "axis" meant. I presumed it was the way they were pointing, rather than the angle they were viewed from. In other words, I thought a 3-view 1-axis drawing was, for example, when all three views had the nose pointing to the left side of the image, when in fact it means that, for instance, all three views are overhead. Sorry for the confusion, the terminology is difficult to understand from text without an image to reference.

Therefore, I take back what I said early about sorting by number of axes not being worth it. I agree with your decision now. The question I now have is over terminology. To me, a drawing isn't a "true" 3-view unless it includes at least one example of a head-on (or tail-on), top-down (or bottom-up), and profile view. So, I would think of the drawings in the "3-view 2-axis" category as "2-views with an extra second view".

To put it another way, aviation has traditionally defined a 3-view drawing as "three separate drawings of an object where all three are viewed from different angles", but this has shifted from (what I presume is) the standard technical concept of "three separate drawings of an object from any angle, even if one angle is duplicate". The problem, as I see it, is that the understanding that most people have is the aviation one, but the technically correct version is the drafting one.

After a while looking over thousands of drawings, a lot of them started to blend into each other. Making sure they are also sorted fully by general type (mono, bi, helo, etc.) will come in a bit but I'll probably let the dust settle for a bit now.

Given that it was taking me so long to add categories to the few that were completely missing them, I was impressed with your ability to look through so many in such a short period of time. Also, no need to deal with any of what I brought up right now, I just realized I made a mistake and wanted to make sure I explained it. (I actually initially came here to reply based on my previous, incorrect understanding and only noticed in the process of writing this response.) –Noha307 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Topic in country[edit]

Hi. On the Category:Industry in Wales I removed your template 'topic in country' as it doesn't recognise Wales as a country (which it undisputedly is). I've also added by hand the Category:Industry by country.

Where was tl:Topic in country accepted by the Community?
Please remove all instances of tl:Topic in country from all cats relevant to Wales, as it goes against our overarching COM:OVERCAT policy which says:

Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia.

I've expanded on this rule fully on my Commons user page here.

Many thanks... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: I appreciate your passion for recognition of Wales as a country. I have no interest in suppressing Welsh nationalist fervor. I only think perhaps more can be accomplished by approaching the issue cooperatively instead of combatively. In your zeal, you've overlooked some things:

{{Topic in country}} recognizes Wales as a ~~dependent~~constituent country of the United Kingdom, so I'm not sure why you think it does not.
It was already part of Category:Economy of Wales and Category:Industry in the United Kingdom, so your revert did nothing but remove the navigation bar and remove it from Category:Wales by topic. What did that have to do with anything you say above?
You added Category:Industry by country later, but you didn't need to remove {{Topic in country}} to add that category. Never mind the fact that your edit was rapidly reverted by Auntof6, which is an indication that the matter may not be as 'undisputed' as you might think. (I agree with Auntof6 here, on the simple grounds that Wales is not under Countries so it is illogical for Industry in Wales to be under Industry by country) If you feel Wales is getting short shrift here, that issue is at a higher level than industry...it needs to be done at the country category level first...subs will follow the consensus from there.
You seem to think that the only remedy for a template is removal, but if you are correct and the template is not handling a particular entity correctly, that a simple tweak to the template will fix that.
COM:OVERCAT does indeed permit a situation such as you outlined above, where a country may be in nested geographic regions. What you are not aware of, apparently, is that {{Topic in country}} actually does this! Category:Industry in Guatemala, for example, is placed in both Category:Industry in North America and Category:Industry in Central America. So your claim on that is not well founded.
Another note on COM:OVERCAT: While it does indeed permit certain exceptions, it does not require them. Your claim that removing a category from the second category would somehow be a violation of COM:OVERCAT is therefore not correct. Removing it solely on overcat grounds might likewise be incorrect, but either way, none of this is an OVERCAT violation, so you can stop making such claims.

I get using a revert to grab attention and express your outrage on an issue you feel passionately about. I prefer to at least converse with a user before going there, but you have your method. I am restoring the navbox and Category:Wales by topic to the category for now as both of those seem to be just collateral damage, as the issue seems to be about whether or not to include under Industry by country or not. Either way that is decided, the navbox and other categorization remains valid and correct, and you can just add or delete Category:Industry by country as you see fit without removing the template. Josh (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow up, here are the current parameters for Wales as used by {{Topic in country}}:

|Wales= ... |cat=Wales|cont1=Europe|partof=United Kingdom|partofindex=constituent country|status=current|type=constituent

Essentially, this code means the following:

(cat=Wales): The main category for this entity is Category:Wales so that is the model for how topics of Wales are handled. (Categorization of topics should follow the same hierarchy their main cat follows per Hierarchic Principle

and Universality Principle

(cont1=Europe): Wales is in Europe. (self-explanatory, I hope)

(partof=United Kingdom): Wales is part of a larger entity, the United Kingdom.

(partofindex=constituent country): When added to a United Kingdom category, it should be recognized as a constituent country, particularly when an index 'by constituent country' exists, it should be placed there.

(status=current): Wales is a current entity, as opposed to a defunct one. (affects some categorization)

(type=constituent): Wales is part of another entity. This means the template knows that it is not an independent sovereign country, but instead a sub-division of one.

If any of that seems inaccurate, it can be discussed and changed. However, looking at this, it seems to track with reality, so I'm not sure what problem you might have with it. If you have questions about how it works or think changes are needed, let me know. Josh (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Josh. Thanks for coming back so quickly and in quite a comprehensive way. Ad hominems like calling people 'nationalists' isn't the way forward. I don't count myself as a nationalist, and I never have. Stick to facts please. I ask you to retract that remark. Secondly, the 'reality' you mention is discussed fully on Wales:Talk. Wales isn't soley a 'constituent part of the UK'. It is also (and has been for a thousand years) a country in Europe. So removing this by adding your template was a very negative edit as it removed the place of Wales in Europe and the world. Wales has its own football team, which has nothing to do with the UK! It has, and always has had its own national Eisteddfod, its own National Library, National Museums etc, its own language, culture, identity (for the last two thousand years), its own international rugby team etc etc - none of which have anything to do with England (ie the UK). So, yes, we are (1) a part of the Uk (through military conquest only), and (2) a nation in its own right, which stands on the international stage with other nations. This is the 'reality' you mention, and this is what all the sources say; Wikipedia should reflect these sources. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, you seem out to make this difficult.

"Ad hominems like calling people 'nationalists' isn't the way forward." - Why would 'nationalists' be an ad hominem? I'm not interested in calling people nationalists or anything else for that matter, but I agree, you probably shouldn't label people without knowing they are in agreement. Funny you feel the need to mention this though.
"I don't count myself as a nationalist, and I never have." Um, okay? I'm sorry but I don't care. It is irrelevant if you are or aren't.
"Stick to facts please." - Oh no, please don't tell me you are one of those that thinks you have special powers to delineate fact from fiction, or even fact from opinion! Your comments above are as laced with opinions as anyone else's around here. I'm sure you are aware that just stating that something is an incontrovertible fact doesn't make it so.
"I ask you to retract that remark." - What remark?
"Wales has its own football team..." - I'm not sure why you bring up sport, as that has no bearing on the legal status of a political entity. Puerto Rico is unquestionably part of the US, but it participates in international sport as a country. That doesn't make Puerto Rico a country.
"removing this by adding your template ... removed the place of Wales in Europe and the world." - Yeah, it seems like you didn't even read my 'comprehensive' response where I described how that is not at all what the template does, and that the template is in fact completely agnostic to it being categorized as a country. How does adding the category to Wales by topic 'remove the place of Wales in Europe'? The template doesn't remove any categories, it just adds them. If you are going to blame the template, at least try and understand what it actually does.
"(1) a part of the Uk (through military conquest only)" - nice appended opinion there--not wholly inaccurate in my opinion, but a bit simplistic and salacious. Anyhow, yes, this just like Scotland, etc. (or most of the world actually) No issue.
"(2) a nation in its own right" - Yes, and a 'nation' and a 'country' are two different things. I do think that in the case of Wales, we have squashed 1 and 2 into the same category which is the real heart of the problem. If it remains that way, the problem will remain intractable.

I saw you made what seems a pointy add of a category to Wales, which caused me to notice what appears to be a sort of slow-simmering edit battle you have with some other editors. I've instead nominated the category for discussion, and once that discussion is resolved, whatever the consensus is can be implemented. I don't say this to be attack or denigrate you, but you from the start have come across as having a very strong bent in this discussion, appearing closed to idea that there is alternative way, and prone to reading personal offense into comments where none exists. I hope none of this is true and that you are actually eager to work for consensus and that you want what is best for Commons and to best curate the Wales-related content we host. To that end I look forward to your objective input on the CfD in an effort to more accurately represent Wales topics here. Josh (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Group quantity adjective subject[edit]

Hey, do you think you could add a navbox to Template:Group quantity adjective subject, so that one could navigate from Category:2 dissimilar people to Category:3 dissimilar people? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly can give that a look. I have a few things brewing, but it should be pretty straight forward. Thanks for the suggestion! Josh (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, you do NOT need to create a new template for one to navigate from categories like 3 people in the United States to 2 people in the United States.

I can do so with {{by quantity|people in the United States|People in the United States|person in the United States}}. See, I created {{By quantity}} for miscellaneous categories without "X by quantity" templates of their own, such as 3 turtles and 4 matches. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shāntián Tàiláng: Okay, it is added...no need for a new template or anything, just added {{Navigation by number}} to the layout template. Josh (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:People wearing clothing[edit]

The template doesnt work on Category:Adolescent boys wearing white clothing Trade (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: I couldn't find Category:Adolescent boys wearing white clothing. Josh (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, typo on my part. Josh (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: There was no support for adolescent boys or girls in the data, so I added it and it should work now. Side note, you were capitalizing "White" in parameter 3, which was causing some issues, so I instead added some case-fixing so that the color inputs are not case-sensitive any more. Thanks for the feedback! Josh (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that Category:Women wearing clothing by color is a redirect and yet the template keeps using the category--Trade (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's a known issue at the moment. Nevermind that in this case, the target name of the redirect is really bad, it should probably be reversed. But as for the template, I don't know an elegant way to check the category name for whether it is a redirect, discover the target category of the redirect, and then either suppress the categorization, or change it to the redirect target. If someone knows a simple code for this, I'd be happy to implement it. In this specific case, reversing the redirect should be done anyway (not because of the template), and once it is, the template won't have an issue either. Josh (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: Looking more at that specific category, maybe not a redirect reversal, but these are two different things, so I'm just going to remove the redirect and let it stand on its own. Josh (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Babies (female) wearing clothing seems to have issues as well--Trade (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: note, they must have an entry in {{People wearing clothing/data}} for the template to work. I've added several now. Also, I have added a proper nav template for stages of development so the manually-added/maintained list at the head of many of these categories can be done away with. Josh (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, this is too much for me to do manually. I think a bot doing it would be more realistic Trade (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw how many pages that list is on and how each has been changed individually...it just made me feel bad for all that labor to do. Bots are hard to get right since they can easily clobber things. Templates are a useful middle-ground...a person may need to add the template to start, but updates can be done once to the template instead of having to re-visit every page. Anyway, we do what we can. Josh (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried to create new categories with the template but for some reason it keeps creating incomplete red categories. --Trade (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw for example Category:Children wearing socks. "Socks" was not in the data template ({{People wearing clothing/data}}). You are going to a lot more granularity with these categories than I got to when I made the template. That's great, but you will have to add new clothing items to the data template for the template to categorize things properly. I can certainly add them if you provide me a list of ones you want to use it with, or you can add them yourself if you don't want to wait on me to get to it. Josh (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a guide how to add clothing to the template manually? Trade (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will admit that the documentation could use a boost. Pretty much copy how the ones there are done. Parents should match the main category's categorization. In the end, make sure that when you actually use it on a page, you get the categories as intended. Let me know if you have questions. Josh (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you make is it so Category:Girls wearing with hair flowers just says with hair flowers instead of wearing with hair flowers? Trade (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to ask for an example category, but saw it was just invisible since you missed the lead : in your link. I've taken the liberty of adding it. Anyway, I will take a look, my plate is pretty full this week but when I can I will see what can be done. Josh (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, can you make the template appear in the middle of the category window (as {{By color}} does), rather than all the way to the right? It's awfully annoying to see the "by color" part of, say, Category:Women wearing pink hats on the right where it looks like a Wikidata infobox. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working on a switch that will allow that to be set at the implementation level, but for a lot of topics, the problem is the proliferation of nav boxes. They are super-helpful, so I'm all for having them, and personally, I kind of prefer the across-the-top view for them as they seem handy and easy to get to. However, I have been told by several users that the navboxes, especially when more than one are present, push down the real content too far on the page...even to the point that several users can only see nav boxes and other header info unless they scroll down. I generally edit on a wide-screen PC monitor, but for mobile and other narrower-screen users, this is a real problem I have to acknowledge. The question is then should the user have to scroll down to get to nav boxes, or scroll down to get to the real content? That's why I want to build a switch so at least that choice is made on a category-by-category basis instead of across-the-board, but I haven't had time yet to implement that. Even better would be the ability for a user to set a preference (such as you can for whether you want categories to show at the top or bottom of the page) that works for they way you use Commons, instead of editors having to guess which will be more liked (or at least less complained about). Josh (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any chance you could hide red links from the template? Otherwise we are just going to get links to non-existent categories such as "Male babies wearing brassieres"--Trade (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, it isn't much of a problem, just add an #ifexist to each of the links, but that is an expensive parser function and those add up. Maybe best to remove the links completely and just rely on the nav box for links and the stage of development list just be an info list. Josh (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aircraft type naming conventions[edit]

Hi Josh, I see you moving some aircraft type categories to match their English Wikipedia articles (manufacturer, designation, name (MDN) for US military aircraft for example) which is very helpful and I totally agree with. The Wikipedia aircraft project renamed all the aircraft articles some years ago. I will do the same, there seems little point posting at the Commons av project as there's nobody there! It really is painful guessing what the name of a category could be (i.e. F-84, Republic F-84, F-84 Thunderstreak, Republic Thunderstreak) etc, great fun! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Clothed_babies[edit]

Clothed babies 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Headlock0225 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umkategorisierungen[edit]

Das Einfügen von jpgs in "videos from venus" finde ich ja einigermaßen bizarr. Aber das Entfenen von "selfies from venus" bei Bildern, die zeigen, wie Menschen ein Selfie von sich auf der Venus machen lassen ohne das Einsetzen einer passenderen Kategorie (assisitierte Selfies from Venus????) ist Informaitonsvernichtung. Wie sollen diese Bilder denn gefunden werden, wenn die Information über das was dargestellt wird fehlt???? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn: Thanks, placing JPGs in that category was an error and they have now been moved. As for images showing people taking selfies, those were left in Selfies at Venus Berlin 2019, so I'm not sure what destruction you are referring to. Do you have an example of a selfie that should be included but was removed that we can look at? I removed images such as File:Venus Berlin 2019 792.jpg, as they neither are selfies themselves nor depict people taking selfies. If I accidentaly removed one that was actually a selfie, I'm happy to review it and correct it. Josh (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re No 792. It is a visitor posing for an image. He could have used a selfie stick, but instead had someone else taking the photo on his behalf. This may technially not be a selfie. But as the (not visible) person taking a photo is acting on his behalf, this is from a content perspective a self portrait he is posing for. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, that sounds like a very big stretch at best. I get what you are saying, but a selfie is by definition a self-portrait, and moreover, one done in a particular style. Posing for a picture taken by someone else, and especially one not done to even look like a selfie, seems the opposite of a selfie. I get that the subject may have asked for or directed the photographer to take the shot, but I can go to a photo studio and pay a photographer for a set of head shots, but that doesn't make them self-portraits. Also, one of the key parts of the selfie style is the inherent interaction between the photographer-subject and the camera. This is missing in a photo such as 792. Josh (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorizing images without nude people as "nude"[edit]

I noticed some of your recent edits have changed images categorizations in ways that I don't understand, for example File:StAnne98Feathermask.jpg moved into Category:Nude women with masks. I don't see any nude women in that image. I have recategorized it in what seems to me to be more appropriately. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation: Thanks for improving the categorization on that one. There are plenty more that need attention. I have been cleaning up the categorization structure, but when a name change is made, I simply move the contents of the old category to the new one. That means sometimes there are images that didn't belong in the original category, but get moved over to the new one with everything else. If I happen to see an obvious case, I'll fix it of course, but I won't see all of them. The image you cite is a good example. It was already categorized in the nudity tree. I agree with you, nothing about it screams nudity to me, but someone else may feel it does I guess. As I'm going through, I do see a LOT of images that need better categorization, but my main effort is the structure first. For example, moving categories from 'males' to 'male humans', there may be images that don't even have males in them, but those get moved over in bulk when the name is changed. It might look like I'm categorizing the offending image in 'male humans' which would seem odd if there are no males in it, but really its just a result of the category change. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have this issue, but we are a long way from perfect. Josh (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For adults, I'd suggest "men" and "women" whenever practical over more convoluted constructions. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation: Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I mean, of course if you know the subject is a man, then it should be under 'men', and the same for women, boys, and girls, but that's the current standard, so is there something else you are referring to? Josh (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not referring to something I've seen you do. Just a remark; you mentioned some category names, which brought to my mind that I've repeatedly run into images categorized as (activity or posture) "female humans" when "women" would have been accurate and simpler. Cheers, and let's keep improving categorization! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation: Oh I see, and yes I agree--in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle

, images should be categorized in as precise a category as possible. Images in a 'female humans' category should ideally be sorted into 'girls' or 'women' subcats in any case where age is determined. Josh (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation and Joshbaumgartner: The age of adulthood highly varies by country and culture. Your recent edits are parochial and relativistic. The categories you splitted into "female human" and "women" should be merged. Daniele Fisichella 02:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Est. 2021: that would go against the existing consensus in COM:CFD discussion. Female humans and Women are two different things and two different categories, thus that categorization is maintained down through sub-categories in accordance with the Universality Principle

. It has nothing to do with cultural variation or parochial relativism. We can't merge Female humans into Women because not all female humans are women, so I presume would like to merge Women into Female humans but then do you propose just merging all of Women, Girls, Adolescent girls, Young women, Old women down into Female humans? If so, why? Josh (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment All post-puberty "female humans" are "women" in common parlance. Yes, they might be "young women" or "old women" etc, but all some type of women. If somehow it was not clear: I do not argue that little girls be called women. I do not argue for the complete elimination of "Female humans" categories. I simply note that I have rather frequently found images in "Female humans" categories which could accurately be "women". In such cases, I think would think for the sake of both categorical accuracy and linguistic simplicity the latter term should be preferred. Clear? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that images of people in "female humans" categories should be further diffused into "girls" and "women" categories as appropriate. Josh (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Country label[edit]

Please don't remove the "cat" value in templates like {{Country label/S}} as you did here [2]. That caused problems today with categories like "Slovakia photographes take on [date]" (same for Singapore and Slovenia) as they were not correctly recognized and appeared as redirects (many files were unnecessarily moved out of those categories as a result). It's fixed now - just be careful not to remove those values. --Fundacja Nomos (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. It shouldn't, so I will take a look at it. Thanks for letting me know. Josh (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fundacja Nomos: Can you share a particular category which you noticed this behaviour on? I'd like to see what is going on. Josh (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Alaska_by_topic[edit]

Alaska by topic has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

RadioKAOS (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Clothed_women_by_type_of_clothing[edit]

Clothed women by type of clothing has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

186.173.202.213 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media needing categorization question[edit]

Hey there. Just wondering why you're adding the technical multi-views to categories like this. Three-views are almost always going to portray multiple orientations, and country of location is meaningless for them. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was an oops. I think I'd already removed most of them by the time I saw this note. Josh (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male and female babies[edit]

Hey, do you mind moving the rest of the categories? Trade (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Through Template:Country label its parameter field status=former and paths there is the population of Category:Aircraft by former country as can be seen for category:Aircraft of Czechoslovakia‎. Would you mind doing some exploration so that we can nullify the categorisation of "former country" as it now appears redundant and imp[roperly populating category redirects. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it were up to me, I'd just get rid of the whole 'former countries' thing and just put them under countries. However, there are other users who see value in keeping the 'former country' segregation in place, and in CfDs over the last couple of years, there has been no consensus to eliminate categorization by 'former country', so I had to account for that in the template design. As for the technical issue of populating redirects, the quick fix is just to remove the redirect, as I did with Category:Aircraft by former country. It is easy in a template to identify a non-existent category (using #ifexist) and avoid a link to it, but unfortunately I am not aware of a way to identify if the target category is a redirect, or else I would build such a check in to prevent pointing to a redirect. Josh (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nude" women who are not nude[edit]

I don't understand why you have been categorizing photos of women who are not nude (eg File:Coney Island Mermaid Parade 2012 2.jpg) as "nude women". I don't think that's appropriate, and suggest you not do that. Thanks. Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't decide to categorize it under nudity, it was already there. I just moved it along with all of the contents of the category while doing category maintenance. If you don't think it is appropriately categorized under nudity, it certainly won't bother me if you remove it from there. Josh (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Men_with_1_object[edit]

Men with 1 object 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Brown women's eyes[edit]

Hi. Can you please explain why you have moved the unambiguous Category:Women with brown eyes to the ambiguous Category:Brown women's eyes? The first one clearly relates to eye colour while the second will start to attract entries showing the eyes of women with brown skin. That is creating more maintenance work for the future. I can't see this as an improvement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you made a few moves in the last day and the category was previously sitting at Category:Female brown eyes. Other than the potential for attracting some entries for female animals instead of female humans, this looks like a reasonable name. Putting Women as the first word though would be the least ambiguous option. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skin color shouldn't have anything to do with this category, but I suppose your hypothetical could be plausible. However, Women with brown eyes is not as unambiguous as it may seem. In that name, 'women' is the primary subject and thus any media depicting a woman who has brown eyes would be a valid content. Brown women's eyes makes 'eyes' the primary subject, and thus the content should be media in which the eyes are at least prominent if not the primary subject of the image. Women with brown eyes could work well as a sub-category of Brown women's eyes as a place for people categories such as Category:Lily-Rose Depp. Josh (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to dismiss your concern about encouraging categorization by skin color, but I don't think we should see much of that as no one should be seeking to categorize people pictures by skin color on Commons in the first place, as far as I aware, beyond the very limited Category:Human skin color tree. Josh (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eye colour categories[edit]

Please undo all your recent moves of categories relating to eye colour, and the recategorising of images in them.

The moves are very problematic. For example, Momo Yaoyorozu is a woman with black eyes; she is not a black woman's eye. The same applies to the woman in File:Gary Todd & Student (10417105066).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this suggestion. If you think eye colour categories need major reworking and renaming, please bring the issue and your suggestions up for discussion before taking potentially disruptive major changes. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recategorizations[edit]

IMO your work on categories seems enthusiastic and well intentioned, but sometimes seems to run into problems due to issues you apparently hadn't considered in advance. Let me suggest that when you think existing categories should be renamed, and many used and existing categories should be deleted, you open discussion FIRST, at least on the category talk pages. Really, that's supposed to be the procedure anyways, even if it isn't always done. I suggest you wait for feedback before making bold changes. This may avoid problems. Thanks for our attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation: Understood, thank you. I was perhaps too bold out of the gate on this one. As I'm sure you have noticed, I am a regular CfD participant, so I'm all on board for what you are saying. I will be putting in the work to rectify the issues. Josh (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could i convince you to remove Preteens and Toddlers from the template and just change children to (~2 to 12 years) instead? That have always been the norm

I know Preteens and Toddlers are both categories but Commons have almost never used the terms other than these two categories Trade (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also change Adolescent children to just Teenagers because very few people actually call teenagers that.--Trade (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: I agree with the idea here. There is some confusion between adolescent children and teenagers since they are not heavily used, and both can be found. Teenagers technically includes 18 and 19 year olds, who are not children, as well as all of the ages who are, but I agree, it is the more common usage term. The whole point of the new template was simply to replace the existing individually-added list that consumed a huge amount of space at the top of tons of people categories with a more compact and easier to maintain one that played nicely with matching navigation and wikidata templates. My intention was not to re-think the existing categorization, as that would probably require a broader discussion. I am certainly happy to make updates to reflect any such discussion that happens. I do think that a discussion on how we categorize people by stage of development is probably warranted, and I would be interested in a CfD covering that topic.

One question, which template/category are you looking at? Just so I know exactly which form/version we are speaking about for me to look into. Thanks, Josh (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just looking at the eye and hair color categories in general Trade (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well they should at least not be linked any more and are much more compact, so no red links to wild combinations anymore. Josh (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a bot for Categories requiring temporary diffusion[edit]

Dear Josh, What is the state of affairs regarding the bot you would make for Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06/Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion? JopkeB (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: I am not a bot maker, so I don't really know much about that portion of things. I think an appropriate bot for these would make sense, though. However, if there is something that can be done with a template, that I can make a stab at. Josh (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It turns out I have misinterpreted your contribution to the discussion. Sorry for that.

Yesterday User:Auntof6 has made a request on Template talk:Topic of country#c-Auntof6-20230927232000-Protected edit request, per CFD for changing the standard limit of 50 to 200, so perhaps that will solve a lot already. I'll wait until that change has been made to see what more needs to be done. JopkeB (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and implemented that change. If there are others you want tweaked similarly, I'm happy to make that edit. Josh (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Joshbaumgartner and Auntof6: for both your actions. This action made already a big impact: the number of subcategories in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion went down from 3.350 in June to 1.914 now. I'll see what else can be done and perhaps come back to you. JopkeB (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: I was also thinking if we could perhaps add some code to {{Diffusion by condition}} to categorize it in separate maintenance categories for cases where a non-default (200) threshold is set. Perhaps creating something like

Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion
- Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (50-item threshold)
- Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (500-item threshold)

This way, we still allow flexibility for users to set limits appropriate for specific categories, but maintainers can focus on the level of congestion they want to focus on first. Any thoughts? Josh (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, good idea! This might be indeed be a solution for maintenance. Questions:

Would/Can the (50-item threshold) category also include the 20-item treshold and other numbers under 50, so one category for all tresholds of 50 and less?
Can there also be categories for (51-100-item threshold) and (101-199-item threshold), or for (51-199-item threshold)? I would like to focus on the categories with 200 or more items.
I am not sure about the (500-item threshold) category: for who/what would that be a good category?
Can you make these changes this yourself?

JopkeB (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB:

-- Auntof6 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I have added a threshold parameter to {{CatDiffuse}}. This will change from placing it in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion to Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (xx-item threshold). The xx can be specified when directly using {{CatDiffuse}} by adding |threshold=xx, but I would suspect this will rarely be used. Thus, I also added a pass-through to {{Diffusion by condition}} so that whatever number is set there is passed through as threshold to CatDiffuse. This means if a category has 70 items, and {{30}} is set on it, it will show up in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (30-item threshold). In answer to that first question, the answer is yes, it will support any number that is selected. The only issue is that those categories will be red-links until created, so I created the 50 and 200 ones but didn't quickly find any other live examples to add other numbers. Maybe next time the "Wanted categories" page is updated, they will show up there and can be made. My 50- and 500- item examples were not intended as proper numbers, just ones I picked to show one number below the default and one that is above. I have never seen 500 used for {{Diffusion by condition}} (I agree it seems not a great idea), but theoretically if there were such a case, this parameter would support it.

As for grouped thresholds, I thought about that but decided against implementing it on the first pass. It will require a bit more expression set up (not a big problem), but I thought it might be better to see what has actually been used first and then based on that data we should have a better idea of what kinds of groupings will make sense. The new parameter would theoretically create a category for 589274 items is someone was silly enough to add that as a threshold, and having that kind of precision wouldn't be very useful. But I doubt that kind of thing is anything more than a one-off if it even exists, so we can just deal with that directly. I think the vast majority are probably at 50 if not the default 200.

It is a work in progress but I think we will soon see some results. Josh (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are quite a few out there now, including some where the threshold is zero. I could see it really getting out of hand, especially since it looks like the categories disappear from the main category when a threshold is specified. For example, Category:Cosplayers from Switzerland is in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (300-item threshold) and not in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion any more, so someone looking for things to diffuse wouldn't find it.

I wonder: would there be any value in just putting all the ones that have a threshold specified into just one category, instead of making it threshold-specific? That is, have something like Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion (threshold specified) instead of separate categories for different thresholds? That way, they wouldn't get lost if they specified an unusual threshold. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Josh, for these changes. But I am glad that this is work in progress, because some things you only see and realize after it is implemented. In line with the comments and requests of Auntof6: I would rather have all the categories with 200+ items together in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion and all the ones with less than 200 (because they have a threshold under 200 AND the number of files is under 200) in one other category. Do you both think that this a good idea and if yes: is it feasible? JopkeB (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it looks like a grand total of 1 category getting reported above 200. Seems like an outlier. So I've made the red links into real cats for all of those, so we can see them laid out at Categories requiring temporary diffusion. It seems like only a few are actually in use beyond a very small number (only 1 reporting for several of them). Josh (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have a way to avoid the issue of getting lost in the cracks. Now since I just created categories for the ones being called, this will probably be empty for a bit. However, as you clear the less-used numbers, go ahead and mark them for deletion. When the category goes away, if it gets called in the future, it will dump into the non-standard threshold category. This also may serve as a bit of a guide to those picking numbers that 62 is probably not a preferred choice.

I see the 0-item one, and I get what they were probably thinking, but that should be handled by Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero, not the temporary diffusion cats. I might suggest leaving the 0-item threshold category however, as a place to identify categories improperly given a 0 threshold. I might even add a note when 0 is used warning users they should probably use a different template for that effect. Josh (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh, do you know how in categories with {{CatDiffuse}}, this template can be replaced by {{Diffusion by condition}} (with a standard limit of 200)? You suggested a bot. How is the procedure to get such a bot? What should I do? JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this calls for some research. I am up for learning something new, so I'll dig around a bit and let you know what I find out. Josh (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on a quick look at Commons:Bots, it seems there are currently only 4 bots taking public requests and none have the ability to do what we are looking for. Thus it would be up to someone to write a bot in whatever language and get it approved to run. I know I saw some way to identify in a template if a template is being called directly from a page or via another template, but cannot for the life of me remember where I saw that. If I could find it, I could use that to directly flag uses of {{CatDiffuse}} based on how they are implemented. It might still be a manual process to start changing them, but if a bot solution was in reach, it would certainly make the that task easier too. Josh (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh, Thanks for your research. I'll put it on the next Community Wishlist. Then it might take some time to implement (my wish to automatically log in at sister projects when I am already logged in at one, took 1,5 year, about a month ago it was implemented), so it be. JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or can I also make a request on Commons:Bots/Work requests? --JopkeB (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Or can it perhaps be done with Help:VisualFileChange.js? Isn't it just replace one template by another in files? JopkeB (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

I would think it should be that simple. I'd never seen Help:VisualFileChange.js before, that looks potentially pretty useful. Josh (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry, I made a mistake, Help:VisualFileChange.js is only for files, not for categories. So that is no solution.

It is a tool for making the same change in a lot of files at the same time, for instance for nominating for deletion all or a selection of uploads by one user, of a category or of a search. JopkeB (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:VP[edit]

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:Village pump#Bad category-renaming. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Animals_with_dissimilar_subjects[edit]

Category:Animals_with_dissimilar_subjects 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Prototyperspective (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Energy_(resource)[edit]

Energy (resource) 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

JopkeB (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:AN/U[edit]

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

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Number on object[edit]

Hello, I've noticed there's an issue when {{Number on object}} is used with, say, Category:White number 13 on green rectangles or White number 5 on pink rectangles. It involves a link to (for instance) Category:Number 13 depicted by white numerals on green rectangles or Number 5 depicted by white numerals on pink rectangles. Can you do something about that, please? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eyes[edit]

I see you are back actively editing. You had promised to fix the mess you made around categories for eyes (e.g. "gray women's eyes", etc.). Have you started addressing this? If not, when will you do so? - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, back from a few weeks on a Mexican beach, thank you, but I wonder, is there a point to your continued badgering on this matter? If you really had any valid concern, you could simply look and see the continued progress, instead of sitting about on your high horse acting like some kind of self-appointed task master. You might even find that the category you are blaming me for (gray women's eyes) doesn't even exist (never did). Your need to try and tell me your version of what I 'promised' is telling. The fact is that the eyes categories were all messed up long before I ever got involved in them, so please do not pretend like I created some great travesty here. I mean the sheer time you and a few others have spent making this process as absolutely difficult and excruciating as you can is mind-boggling to me, what in the world are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to browbeat me into kowtowing to your shrill demands or something? If you had any real interest in the betterment of this category tree, your approach seems counter-productive to getting that done, undermining the opportunity for actual discussion and cooperation. Josh (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some changes you are making are still not an improvement. People in pink, or green, or gold body paint are not pink, or green, or golden people. Don't be afraid to use an extra word or two in order to get a sane category name.- Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Different topic... can you provide a specific edit that you have an issue with there, and what exactly your issue is? Josh (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2015_Fremont_Solstice_cyclists_462.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=820942537. Category is kind of a mess (a mix of statues and body-painted people). - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Thank you for providing that detail. I agree, the category in question has an issue with whether it is for women who are gold in color or women who are made of gold. However, all of those images were there before my edit, which was merely to rename the category from 'gold' to 'golden'. I renamed the category because the correct adjective for objects of a gold color is "golden". Additionally, the main category for statues of gold is Category:Golden statues. Thus whether it is merely a gold coloration, or it is made of gold, the current correct adjective is "golden". Obviously I can see the problem, as I'm sure you do as well, in that this still means we have women with gold coloring in the same category as women made of gold. That shouldn't be the case. However, this is an issue well beyond the renaming that I did, which was correct. I believe a discussion at the "golden statues" level to determine what the correct adjective to use for 'made of gold' is would be warranted. It should not be 'golden' as that is the established adjective in category names for things that are merely the color of gold, but for statues, it currently is, so until that is changed, the Universality Principle

dictates that be followed by children categories. Do you understand what I am getting at here, and why it was correct to change the name from 'gold' to 'golden'? Josh (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an aside, I completely agree that a better convention for structuring and naming categories for images of body paint is well warranted, and that something like People wearing blue body paint is probably far better than just Blue people, but that is beyond what I've been tackling so far. If you have ideas on that, I'm more than happy to discuss them, as I think we are on the same page as far as wanting an improvement of that sort. Josh (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I thought this was still part of your self-cleanup, but I gather it wasn't. I'm in an airport, on my way home soon. I'd be glad to work with you on this, but not right now. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel No problem, safe travels! We can talk more on this whenever you have the chance. Josh (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please participate in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology[edit]

Josh, now you are back, could you please participate in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology? In Category talk:Energy supply you wrote that you do no agree with the current implementation of this category, but you did not indicate what is wrong and how it should be improved. So I started a discussion about it. JopkeB (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Topic in country[edit]

Architectural elements in the United States[edit]

Your work, and undocumented, so I thought I'd ask here.

Is there any way to override the default behavior so as to eliminate the analogous "Topic of country" category as a parent? Have a look at Category:Architectural elements in the United States. The situation is typical of the Architectural elements in [country] categories: either the Architectural elements of [country] category doesn't exist or you get something like Category:Architectural elements of Malaysia (which in turn has no parent). - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Good question, and the answer is yes. First, apologies for the skimpy documentation...it could use some attention. More importantly, the template is set up to support topics with multiple prepositions, or just one. In this case, it looks like architectural elements only has the "in", and no "of", at least for countries (I think Category:Architectural elements of Malaysia is an abberation and should be deleted). In cases like this, where the preposition is not "of", there is a parameter that needs to be set in {{Topic by country/data}} for the given topic ("architectural elements" in this case): |pro=in. This tells the template that there is no 'of' parent category structure for this topic. In this case as well, the 'in' categories are not in 'by country of location', but instead just in 'by country', so you also will need to set: |indexin=country in that same line to let the template know this. I've made the changes for architectural elements, and I can update any others you come across. Josh (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed on the Malaysia one: that's what got me looking at this, so I went looking for how it was handled for other countries & discovered the broader problem. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories:Science[edit]

Hi! Category:Science in Ternopil Oblast should not be in Category:Science in Ukraine! Correct Category:Science in Ukraine by region - same Category:Science in Ukraine by city. Template {{Topic in country}} not correct.
Also exist Category:Science and technology in Ukraine. If it exists, why shouldn't it exist Category:Science and technology in Ternopil Oblast--Микола Василечко (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Correctly subcategory «... in Ukraine by region», not in Ukraine! --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, putting them in Category:Science in Ukraine by region is correct. The parameters for Ukraine have been updated so it should now categorize it that way. Josh (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic in country template[edit]

Please note that I usually prefer to have the map template on top of the infobox: Category:Watermills in Denmark. Hjart (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the template {{topic in country|Subject X}}[edit]

Dear Josh, I'm slowly starting to wonder more and more whether the template {{topic in country|Subject X}} causes more problems than it solves. Now, for instance: Category:Watermills in the Netherlands:

You had to create Category:Watermills in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while I wonder if there are any windmills in the rest of the Kingdom outside the Netherlands (= the country in Europe; the rest of the Kingdom are isles in the Carribean).
So now all the usual parents that go along with the template are situated at the Kingdom category and no longer at Category:Watermills in the Netherlands.
Three of the seven parent categories are in red in the category for the Kingdom, while they do exist for the Netherlands category.
{{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Watermills in}} has been deleted from Category:Watermills in the Netherlands, so no links in the top of the category to the same category in other European countries anymore.
A lot of the parent categories of Category:Watermills in the Netherlands that are not in the template, has been gone also: Category:Industrial heritage in the Netherlands, Category:Renewable energy in the Netherlands, Category:Water management in the Netherlands and Category:Hydraulic engineering in the Netherlands. I think they are important and should be added again.
Category:Water wheels in the Netherlands is now a subcategory (what it should be) as well as a parent category of Category:Watermills in the Netherlands. That cannot be correct.

How can this be solved?

I would be glad to add the former categories and the former template to Category:Watermills in the Netherlands again. Done by Josh on 2-12-2023.
Category:Water wheels in the Netherlands should be removed as a parent from Category:Watermills in the Netherlands, but that is in the template, so I cannot do that.
How do we prevent this happening next time/for other subjects?

JopkeB (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was there a discussion about the template? How appropriate is it to replace others? --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: A number of good questions, permit me to elaborate best I can:

Creating Watermills in the Kingdom of the Netherlands: This is really not relevant to the template, though using the template did highlight this situation. Kingdom of the Netherlands is the Commons main cat for the sovereign state (covered on Commons by Category:Countries). Netherlands is the Commons cat for the constituent entity within the sovereign state (i.e. not a sovereign state itself). Using "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" interchangeably in category names is incorrect. So what to do when approaching a 'topic of the Netherlands' category? Does it really refer merely to the constituent country, or to the entire country? It is not always obvious. Thus, I err on the side of caution and unless I can say for certain, I leave the 'Netherlands' category as is and create the parent 'Kingdom of the Netherlands' category. Technically, a rename to 'Kingdom of the Netherlands' would not be an outright violation, as anything under 'the Netherlands' is also within the 'Kingdom of the Netherlands', but I understand that in most cases, these categories are in fact usually specific to 'the Netherlands', not the whole country, so I am not eager to undo that distinction. Hence, if there is Watermills in the Netherlands, I will generally leave that as-is and simply create the country parent Watermills in the Kingdom of the Netherlands above it. Now maybe we want to change this around and make 'the Netherlands' the one for the sovereign state, as we changed from using People's Republic of China to simply China once upon a time. If that happens, the template can rapidly be recalibrated to match the new consensus. In the meantime, it merely reflects the current Commons categorization of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and adding it to topics highlights categories that are incorrectly aligned.
"All the usual parents that go along with the template are situated at the Kingdom category": I'm not entirely certain which exact categories you are referring to. As I note, I've been leaving 'the Netherlands' categories names as they are, so if they are correct parent categories, they should show up as parents. Perhaps I can take a look at an example and see if there is an issue I'm missing here.
"Parent categories are in red in the category for the Kingdom": Again, this is a problem that the template highlights, but does not create. The fact that a large number of categories have been created and populated using 'the Netherlands' as an erroneous synonym for 'the Kingdom of the Netherlands' is the real issue. Hopefully, this brings attention to fixing this problem, and yes, I do try and make a dent in that by building the correctly named 'Kingdom of the Netherlands' categories. As alluded to above, I think simply renaming Netherlands to Kingdom of the Netherlands is probably a bit to simplistic of an approach and it is better to leave the Netherlands categories and just create the parent level, unless there is content I know is somewhere else in the Kingdom outside of the Netherlands itself.
"no links in the top of the category to the same category in other European countries anymore": "The Netherlands" categories should not navigate horizontally to other 'countries' (Commonese for sovereign states) as "the Netherlands" is not a sovereign state itself. By the same token "Alabama" should not have horizontal navigation to "Canada". The nav templates do entail a significant number of expensive parsers, so we can't just have navigation to everywhere at every level without putting a lot of load on the system. Instead, it is appropriate for horizontal navigation to be to other entities at the same level in the same scope, so for "Alabama" to other states and territories of the USA, and "the Netherlands" to other constituents of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands".
"parent categories of Category:Watermills in the Netherlands that are not in the template": Additional categories can of course be added beyond what the template adds, so this is not a problem. However, the template places categories based on the placement of the topic in the topical tree, and that same organization should be mirrored best as reasonable in the topic by country tree. Watermills, for example, is not a subcat of Industrial heritage as far as I can tell, so I think it is valid to question why Watermills in the Netherlands is under Industrial heritage in the Netherlands. The answer may be that Watermills should be under Industrial heritage, I don't know. That said, if watermills should be under industrial heritage, do mills not belong there? Watermills are under mills, so then if mills are under industrial heritage, watermills shouldn't be. But either way it is not a template issue, as whatever we decide is the correct place for watermills in compliance with the Universality principle can be done with the template. And if really there is a specific reason to do something for one country but not the topic as a whole, then as stated, additional categories can be added at will in the normal way. Also, let's not be afraid to use {{Cat see also}} for related categories which warrant a connection, but maybe not a parent-child/class-subclass one as with categorization (the template can actually support this as well).
"Category:Water wheels in the Netherlands is now a subcategory...as well as a parent category": There was a recent CfD that placed Watermills under Water wheels, so the template merely reflects that current state of affairs. I do think that there are some issues with this and that CfD maybe should be re-opened, as looking at it, it makes more sense to me for Water wheels to be under Watermill parts under Watermills as it previously was. However, note 1: since the CfD has been done to go one way, it is not responsible to just undo it because I feel that way but instead, a new CfD would really be appropriate to undo that one, and 2: the template supports the current consensus and can support a new and different consensus once arrived at.

As for solutions, I think for the most part I discuss them above, but in summary:

The categorization scheme for Watermills should be re-opened for discussion in a CfD. Where watermills, wheels, et al. go in the scheme should be defined, and if different from the current scheme, I can quickly tweak the template to match the consensus reached. This will implement the consensus much quicker than manually having to edit and maintain each 'watermills in ...' category individually.
We can discuss the Netherlands, ~~but I think it is pretty clearly set up already.~~ (apparently it is worth a chat, so a CfD has been raised at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Kingdom of Denmark) We should recognize the correct names for the sovereign country (Kingdom of the Netherlands) and constituent country (the Netherlands) and stop using "the Netherlands" as a stand-in for "Kingdom of the Netherlands" as that is inaccurate and misleading. Both country and constituent trees should be properly set up and structured per the Universality principle.
Cleaning up our category structure to comply with the basic Commons category policies is the best step to avoiding problems. Sometimes the solution is to bring 'unique' categories in line with the standard scheme. Sometimes, the standard scheme needs to change. Occasionally, there are even reasons to have exemptions.

In short, applying the template has highlighted the various situations mentioned, but it is not the root cause of any of them. Both the Netherlands and watermills are categories which had a variety of underlying issues prior to applying the template to them. It may be seen as disruptive to shine a bright light on these issues, but I think it is a healthy process which calls us to actually give some of these issues the attention they deserve. Josh (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Josh, for your comprehensive answer. The matter of the Kingdom is broader than me, so I'll take it to the Dutch Village pump. JopkeB (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the category structure of Category:Water wheels: I did not know about the CfD. Usually I respect outcomes of discussions. But Category:Watermill parts is (still?) a parent, so Category:Water wheels is a parent as well as a grandchild of Category:Watermills:

Water wheels

Watermills

Watermill parts

Water wheels

That cannot be correct either.

Personally I would suggest to rename the water wheels that are not part of a watermill (something like "Stand alone water wheels") and skip Water wheels as a parent of Watermills. Shall I start a new discussion to discuss this? Or do you have a better idea? JopkeB (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: I think the CfD was just a 'no objection' one, not really much discussion. It is normal to close and move forward with those, but if issues are discovered later, no reason not to open a new CfD (probably kind to ping the user who made the original proposal) to cover those issues. I do not have any particular solution in mind but it seems there are some different ways to do it, so for me I would like to see one settled on so we can move forward with getting the structure set to that and not have the current loop. If you start the CfD, I will make a point of looking into it and sharing my observations. Whatever the outcome is, I will help implement it both in the template and on the categories as need be. Josh (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact I think I will go ahead and open the new CfD. I was the one that closed the original one a couple of days ago and it just seemed like a simple request that had no objections. However, as I got into it, I saw it was more problematic than that, and then obviously you also recognized some issues with it. See new CfD at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Watermills. Josh (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Watermills does not appear under Hydropower, as far as I can tell. I know it is different from Hydroelectricity (a form of hydropower), though I suppose some watermills can produce electricity, but they certainly use water to create power, so it seems it should be under Hydropower, no? Josh (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree Category:Hydropower should be a parent of Category:Watermills. Watermills generate energy and are about hydro/water. The parents of Category:Hydropower are not explicitly about electricity. So why not? JopkeB (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added hydropower as a parent of watermills in the template and on the main cat. I've left water wheels on the main cat for now per the CfD, but I'm thinking this will soon be addressed by a new CfD.

This puts, for example, Watermills in the Netherlands under Hydropower in the Netherlands, which is in turn a sub of Renewable energy in the Netherlands, so I have had to remove that category from Watermills in the Netherlands to avoid an overcat violation. Josh (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, also for noticing the overcat and solving it. JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see new CfD at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Kingdom of Denmark Josh (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mississippi[edit]

What is this about? What other "Mississippi" required a disambiguation here? - Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mississippi (state) is the main category for the state. Mississippi is a dab page which shows other uses. It seems logical, given the other uses for the base name, but I wasn't part of that decision so I really can't comment on why it was set up that way. Josh (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ameti_(text)[edit]

Category:Ameti_(text) 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you![edit]

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

BabiesMaleYearbyCountry[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly,

Merge Category:Nude young adults into Category:Nude young people, as Young people is the main topic category in question, so should be the name used in this category per the Hierarchic Principle

. Josh (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Category:Estonia_by_topic[edit]

Estonia by topic has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Places_in_Ivory_Coast[edit]

Category:Places_in_Ivory_Coast has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zusammensetzung des deutschen Bundesrates.svg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Parked_aircraft_by_type[edit]

Parked aircraft by type has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitting people/people sitting[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Female_buttocks[edit]

Female buttocks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

JopkeB (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

JopkeB (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

OK, thanks.

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

JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Children of [country X] Template[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Hackerspaces_by_country_of_location[edit]

Template:Usaf serial[edit]

DDR Kategorien[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Sportspeople from Taiwan[edit]

Please help to remove an improper category[edit]

Subcategories in Groups of XYZ[edit]

Templates[edit]

"Countries of <continent> by name" categories[edit]

Category navigation again[edit]

300WSM photo[edit]

year books from country[edit]

Category:Women_wearing_complete_bikinis[edit]

File:Roundel of Cambodia (1976–1979).svg[edit]

Category:Country_subdivisions_by_name[edit]

category:Mirage 5 by year[edit]

Explanation of Drawings[edit]

Template:Topic in country[edit]

Template:Group quantity adjective subject[edit]

Template:People wearing clothing[edit]

Aircraft type naming conventions[edit]

Category:Clothed_babies[edit]

Umkategorisierungen[edit]

Categorizing images without nude people as "nude"[edit]

Country label[edit]

Category:Alaska_by_topic[edit]

Category:Clothed_women_by_type_of_clothing[edit]

Media needing categorization question[edit]

Male and female babies[edit]

"Nude" women who are not nude[edit]

Category:Men_with_1_object[edit]

Category:Brown women's eyes[edit]

Eye colour categories[edit]

Your recategorizations[edit]

About a bot for Categories requiring temporary diffusion[edit]

COM:VP[edit]

Category:Animals_with_dissimilar_subjects[edit]

Category:Energy_(resource)[edit]

COM:AN/U[edit]

Template:Number on object[edit]

eyes[edit]

Please participate in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology[edit]

Template:Topic in country[edit]

Architectural elements in the United States[edit]

Categories:Science[edit]

Topic in country template[edit]

About the template {{topic in country|Subject X}}[edit]

Mississippi[edit]

Category:Ameti_(text)[edit]

An award for you![edit]

BabiesMaleYearbyCountry[edit]

Category:Estonia_by_topic[edit]

Category:Places_in_Ivory_Coast[edit]

File:Zusammensetzung des deutschen Bundesrates.svg[edit]

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

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

Category:Parked_aircraft_by_type[edit]

Sitting people/people sitting[edit]

Category:Female_buttocks[edit]

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

Children of [country X] Template[edit]

Navigation menu

Search