User talk:Chris Light

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Chris Light!

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

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

Self Helps

• Coordinates

Temple Israel of Porter County 1405 Evans Ave, Valparaiso, IN 46383

Object location	41° 28′ 42.41″ N, 87° 02′ 37.17″ W	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

• Freedom of Panorama

United States copyright law does not protect architectural works before 1 December 1990. In 1990, the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act amended subsection 102(a) of the US copyright law by adding paragraph (8), "architectural works." A building that was substantially constructed or for which the plans were otherwise published before 1 December 1990, is in the public domain in the United States. For images of architectural works in the United States completed on or after 1 December 1990, please use {{FoP-US}} on the description pages of the images.

"structures that are habitable"

The depicted structure situated in or visible from public space (e.g. a building, a bridge, a signage) in the  United States is ineligible for copyright as it is a simple or ordinary work with no architectural or artistic properties that would have made it a copyrighted structure. It may also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect. In several countries like South Korea and the United States, bridges are not among their copyrightable works. Notes: Different jurisdictions have different levels of originality with regards to works of art or architecture: see Threshold of originality for more details. In a few countries like France and Thailand, bridges may be among their copyrightable works. A building or a bridge is eligible for copyright if it is a true architectural work; images of such buildings or bridges are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons unless there is an applicable freedom of panorama (that allows commercial uses) in the jurisdiction where the building or the bridge is located; see Commons:Freedom of panorama for more details. For images of architecture that are in public domain, please use {{PD-old-architecture}}. Refer to its documentation for jurisdiction-specific tags.

"Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways"

Applicable templates: For public artwork installed before 1930, use

Public domain	This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1931, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation.	United States
	This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States; this especially applies in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, Mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland. The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

or

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1931. Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.PD-1923Public domain in the United States//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_Light

.

For public artwork installed between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, use

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

Flag of the United States

or

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (70 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

Flag of the United States

.

• Speedy Deletions

{{speedy|Standardizing categories, this is now a duplicate}}
{{bad name|Category: xxxx}}

Overcat?

[1], [2]: Category:Mount Rainier National Park seems to me to be redundant to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Mount Rainier National Park. What is your intent here? - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Trying to provide easier access to the images based on how the user may or will approach the subject. 1st, Mount Rainer - the Mountain. 2nd, Mount Rainier National Park - the administrative managers and information source, i.e., tourist destination. 3rd, visitor districts, i.e., Paradise. 4th, subsection of the district, i.e., Historic Districts, views, meadows, etc. And 5th, if there is more than one structure in the Historic District, a category for the building.

• Normally, subcategories report only to the category above, unless there is a related outside category, i.e., flora or fauna species, architectural style. With Mt Rainier, I was overwhelmed by the volume of images and the difficulty in finding what I wanted or finding where to add an image I was posting.

• I agree, over-categorized. In the process of organizing, it may become convoluted, posting the desired category, before the discontinued category has been removed from a category or image. I figure, 2-5 weeks to work out this one subject area. --Chris Light (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it alone for now, but when you are done, please, these should not be in both a category and its immediate parent category.

Also, if your intent is a temporary category for your own work, you might consider implementing one or more User categories for your own purposes, which won't mess things up for anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't been following your work closely, but this is wrong on two counts (and, by the way, you gave no edit summary when you did it); I only became aware of it when I saw that Category:Bridges in Mount Rainier National Park had been deleted as an empty category.
  1. You have eliminated a more specific category in favor of a less specific one.
  2. If your new category should exist at all—which I don't think it should, because we normally have descendants of Category:Roads and Category:Bridges, not of some nonexistent Category:Roads and bridges—should not be capitalized that way. There is no reason for "bridges" to be capitalized in the middle of a category name.
• If you are willing to revert this and analogous changes and restore Category:Bridges in Mount Rainier National Park, fine. (Ask me if you need help to restore the category, I'm an admin so I can undelete it.) If you think I'm wrong about this, let's seek third-party comment on the Village pump, because I don't want an edit war. If you think I'm right but won't fix it yourself, I will reluctantly take on fixing it myself, let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It has been a week with no response. While I would rather have worked this out with you, I will take the liberty to fix it myself to what I believe is correct. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• I've been out of the country for 2 weeks. Just got back yesterday. I agree reversion of Roads & Bridges to Bridges makes better sense.--Chris Light (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look...

... at what you wrote here. It's ungrammatical. I think I know what you meant, but I'm not certain, so you should probably correct it yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much text

You seem to be turning Category:George Washington (Washington pioneer) into an article. Category text like this is really meant only to provide an indication of what the category is about, maybe a one-sentence summary on a person. Articles about people belong in Wikipedia, not Commons, and should be cited. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Files with incorrect description and dates

Could you take a look at File:Union Station-Train pulling out.jpg and File:Union Station-Train waiting to pull out.jpg? You labeled these as being at Union Station in DC (which they don't appear to be) and as taken in June 2016 (clearly impossible). I'd like to be able to correct the location and date if possible. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• taken care of. --Chris Light (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! As shown below, I did nominate one of your Amtrak photos for deletion - it's a great map but appears to be copyrighted. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States - Thank You!

Hi there! Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States. We're excited to see people uploading thousands of photos from all over the country! You and others have collectively uploaded 4,929 photos so far, all of which are viewable at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States (sorted by state).

We encourage you to continue contributing through the rest of the month. Uploading your photos of monuments isn't the only way to contribute, however. If you're interested, we have compiled a list of auxiliary ways to contribute - which include improving Wikipedia's coverage of historic and cultural sites, as well as finding existing free photos that can be shared on the Commons. While these contributions don't count towards the contest, we are still keeping track of them and they are great ways to contribute to the spirit of the project.

If you are interesting in contributing to Wikipedia, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is also great place to start. The WikiProject showcases the work that has been done so far in covering NRHP sites, and can also help you find articles that need improving.

If you're on Twitter, give us a follow @WLMUnitedStates for updates, news, and more.

If you have any questions between now or the end of the month, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States – Results!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2016}} to your userpage!

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,700 people contribute over 11,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. In addition to National Register of Historic Places sites, we welcomed uploads of sites designated by state- and local-level historical institutions and societies. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate Wikipedia articles!

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States! We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret having to narrow it down to just 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other various national contests as they are announced, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winners.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all participants in the United States to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, and we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Photo-phylles

Hi Chris,

I'm an administrator of the french Wikibooks, and occupated with lots of other things.

In this period I'm organizing the Photographic Art international Salon Photo-phylles in the Botanical Garden of Bordeaux, France. As I noticed your own works, I had the idea of inviting you to participate. It's completely free of charges, and if some of your pictures are selected for the exhibition, they will be sawn by several thousands of persons, among them 2,500 - 3,000 young people who come to visit with their teachers.

Please feel free to visit my website http://www.jjmilan.sitew.fr/#accueil.A , you will find there the rules and entry form and many other data.

If you need anything else, please ask to photophylles2017@gmail.com

Best regards, Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding relevant categories

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Could you please add relevant year categories such as Category:July 2004 in Washington (state), for example, to your uploads? That would be much appreciated.

Thank you, MB298 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Task_Force_Tips

Task Force Tips 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!

Sanandros (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2017!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2017}} to your userpage!

Hi there! My name is Kevin, one of the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Last year, you contributed to our 2016 event. It was a great success thanks to you and many others, with over 1,700 people contributing over 11,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States. Over 1,000 of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, making our open knowledge about United States history and heritage all the better.

I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information, including updated tips, lists, and prizes. Like last year, you'll be able to upload your new photos of any registered historical site in the United States through the end of September (even if the photos were taken before this month).

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, and we hope to see you in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge, Wheeling

Hi Chris Light, please check my edits on the category above that you created. I am not sure sure about all. Thanks a lot! --W like wiki (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Misidentified Washington State ferries

Hello, I noticed that when you uploaded pictures of Washington state ferries, you misidentified many of them (i.e. labeled them with the wrong ferry name in the description and category). I corrected many of them, but there may be some that I missed.

However, there is one that I know is wrong, but I cannot identify what the correct ferry name is. It's this one: File:In Seattle 2016-09 1329.jpg. I know that it is not the w:MV Kitsap as you labeled it, but rather it looks like a w:Jumbo Mark II-class ferry. Problem is that the photo is not clear enough for me to actually read the ferry's nameplate so that I can identify which one it is. Would you be able to tell perhaps? Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the other images I took that trip, the Tacoma was in drydock, the Puyallup was not seen in any of the pictures, thus it must be the Wenatchee, which I have two images of it at the Colman dock, while boarding the Hyak for Bremerton. I've changed the categories appropriately. Thanks for the review and corrections.--Chris Light (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Compdude¹²³ 03:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio, category

Is something going to happen with that category? I see you're stripping it from a number of images. Is there a replacement category coming? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• No images should be lost from this group. I'm segmenting individual buildings from the general category of Buildings in Cleveland and creating their own category. That category, is then linked as a unit of photos back to Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio and the appropriate categories for that building.

• Example;
  • HAER OHIO,18-CLEV, 25a takes all the HAER images for Winton Motor Carriage Company and places them into a single category. This category is then available in Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio, but as a group under sub-categories. The only issue I'm concerned about is that maybe the category name HAER OHIO,18-CLEV, 25a should include 'Winton Motor Carriage Company' in the title, or it should be in a group called Winton Motor Carriage Company, Cleveland. Creating a Cleveland titled sub-group would allow other images for Winton Motor Carriage Company in Cleveland to be grouped, but then the stacking becomes too deep, i.e.,
    • Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio
      • Winton Motor Carriage Company, Cleveland
        • HAER OHIO,18-CLEV, 25a
    • Currently I've set it up as:
      • Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio
        • HAER OHIO,18-CLEV, 25a, See why I'm considering adding the building-company name to the category. Users don't necessarily know what this is.
• The intent is not to eliminate any pictures, but to group related pictures of a single buildings into a single category. Thus If you're interested in the company w:White Motor Corporation you'll find all the building image for Cleveland in one category, included in the Corporation group, as well as the category of White Motor Company vehicles. Possible, even images of stock certificates and other documents.
• I find it confusing to look through 200 images of 'Buildings in Cleveland, Ohio', when I want pictures of the Terminal Tower or of the Illuminating Building. To me, it's easier to look at a group of 5-20 images of a single building to find the one I want, rather and look through 200+ for the 5 or 10 images that are of interest. I briefly considered renaming images by the building name. That's a lot of work and requires the system to be used and denies the contributor their own naming process.
• Suggestions: I'll listen. Thanks.--Chris Light (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're doing yeoman's work: Good job!!! I normally don't create a category unless there are three or more images. But that's just my own rule of thumb. Is there a guideline somewhere? I admit, I'm awful when categorizing images on Commons. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• • • Agreed, about 3 images or more, just that I was seeing a similar HAER number and thought it was dozens. Turns out to be only 3-6 for each specific structure. But, I started it, so I'll continue with the HAER files, atleast.--Chris Light (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Poorly named category

Category:Jellyfish Seattle Aquarium. (1) There is no such thing as the "Jellyfish Seattle Aquarium", and if you mean something like "Jellyfish at the Seattle Aquarium" it should use actual genus or species name: e.g. "Aurelia at the Seattle Aquarium", if your intent is specifically Aurelia, but I can't even be sure from a colloquial name like that. Also, certainly there should be a parent category related to the genus or species.

What is your actual intent here, so I can help sort it out? - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Category:Seattle Aquarium has over 200 images and locating anything specific is difficult. So, my category was a 1st attempt as how to sub-categorize the entry. I like your suggestion for "Aurelia at the Seattle Aquarium" as it can them like to Category:Aurelia aurita as a location for people to go to to see this species. Also, the Category:Seattle is poorly organized, but I don't have time to deal with that, only with the area where I've got images to contribute.--Chris Light (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with creating the category, just didn't like the name. Sounds like "Aurelia at the Seattle Aquarium" is fine with you, so that's what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. When I get back to adding images for the aquarium, I'll create sub-categories in the same way.--Chris Light (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for...

	Quincy Smelter Photos
	Thank you for uploading your 2004 and 2006 photos of the smelter. There's some good stuff in there showing buildings without roofs and the 2nd smokestack that was removed in 2008. I've been doing work on the article and just went on a tour today getting on-site photos. Chris857 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Boy Scouts yearly categories

Hi. I noticed on my watchlist you splitting up Boy Scouts of America photos into yearly categories. I would suggest naming them something like "Boy Scouts of America in 2018" rather than just "Scouting ...". There Scouts in lots of other countries (and Girl Scouts in the US) all of whom consider themselves "Scouting". --B (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Good Idea. I'm trying to reduce the uncategorized Boy Scouts of America from nearly 500 images to specific sub-categories. I've begun to see the Scouts from other areas in cross referencing.

Thanks.--Chris Light (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Umbrian Hill towns 10-13 795.jpg

File:Umbrian Hill towns 10-13 795.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Umbrian Hill towns 10-13 795.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Adelfrank (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Issaquah Theatre

What is your basis for calling this the "Issaquah Theatre"? It's been the "Village Theatre" for at least the several decades that I've known it. Is that a prior name, and if so why prefer it to the current name? - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not knowing local naming history, I used the Nat'l Register of Historic Places standard of using the first name of the place. That would be what? 'Glenn Theatre" or an unidentified name, unavailable to me.
• The use of 'Village Theatre', even if several decades old, 1950's(?) would leave out the earlier 20-4 years of a previous name. It would be acceptable, with prior information needed. But, I've seen signs at the Gaudette Theatre and Google Maps identified the Gaudette Theatre as the "Village Theatre". I'd defer to your suggestions, except for the Google Map identify, right or wrong. It would add confusion.
• The Historic Downtown, Issaquah, Walking Tour by the Issaquah History Museum, lists it as "First State/Issaquah Theatre (1913), Copyright 2000, revised 2006. Assuming that they are an acceptable source, I took the Issaquah Theatre name from them, seeing that First Stage appears to be a modern appelation, not from historic use. Without information on an older given name, I chose to use Issaquah Theatre for lack of a more historically appropriate name.
  • Note, I'm not going to suggest to Google that they change the Gaudette Theatre name from Village Theatre to Gaudette, nor add Village Theater or Issquah Theatre or First Stage to Google Maps.
• I'm happy to follow local custom, which isn't clear at this time. A specific reference to an older earlier name would be acceptable. To a clarification through Google maps would be accpetable. Otherwise for lack of information, I'll let this stand.--Chris Light (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Sister City (Issaquah, WA)

This category is just wrong. What is it supposed to represent? If it is specific to the door, then it is poorly named. If it is not, then it has the wrong parents. Also, Chefchaouen is not Issaquah's only sister city. Unless you have a concrete suggestion (to which I'm certainly open), I think things would be improved by just deleting this category and reverting the two photos in it to their previous categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, it was a quick idea. Trying to create a category that would readily link all (well 2 is a small number) 'Twining' or 'Sister' cities categories, whether Category:Town twinning in the United States, Category:Chefchaouen, Category:Town twinning in the Morocco, Category:Town twinning, or Category:Issaquah, Washington.
• It is as acceptable as the U.S. Categories:
  • Category:Sister Cities Bridge, Rochester, New York
  • Category:Los Angeles sister cities sign
  • Category:Tacoma Chinese Reconciliation Park
  • Category:Twin towns of Seattle
• It does create a problem when additional Towns are added since this category is linked to Category:Chefchaouen. That can be changed with sub-categories, individual categories for each twinned city, or by linking this category to any and all Twined Cities regardless of whether all or some of the image are relavent. Since you've posted much of the images available and seem to be locally knowledgeable, I'll defer to you. Commons shows that this has been used elsewhere, but it's minor and I won't have a long term investment. --Chris Light (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing a standard header

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Enumclaw,_WA_-_Trommald_Building_01.jpg&diff=342857625&oldid=138940566: you removed "== {{int:filedesc}} ==". As I understand that, if you upload without that header, Special:Upload adds it automatically, so it would seem to be generally desired. Do you have a reason to remove it here? - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Miss understood the nature of that header. --Chris Light (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on Notre Dame cross-section

Sorry, but I"m confused by the copyright info on File:Notre Dame 531.jpg. Can you tell me what edition this image is from? If 1946, the edition number and copyright notice seems wrong; otherwise, the source metadata seems wrong. Thank you for uploading it, it's a really useful image and I've made some derivatives. HLHJ (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Green River Trail

What is the advantage of breaking down Category:Green River Trail into separate categories for each municipality it passes through? - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't know if it would be advantageous to users to be able to find the segment of the trail that they would be hiking. Maybe at 19.6 miles (31.5 km) the trail is fairly uniform and it doesn't need to be split by jurisdiction.
  • I usually like to keep category content limited to a specific type/item and limit the volume that gets placed in a general area. Here, the 25 Green River Trail images under Category:Kent, Washington, cluttered up the Kent category, and could be gathered together into a trail group, allowing the general listing for a variety of image related only by their location in Kent.
  • The choice was then to create a category within Kent, Washington for the trail and thus sub-dividing the Category:Green River Trail. The new category is over-kill for the Green River Trail category. Alternatively, putting the Green River Trail as a sub-category under Kent, Washington, bringing trail images from the other jurisdictions along. Since there were 25 images, I choose to create the trail specific category, rather than putting Green River Trail, under Kent, Washington. Here, the 25 Green River Trail images under Category:Kent, Washington, cluttered up the Kent category, and could be gathered together into a trail group, allowing the general listing for a variety of image related only by their location in Kent. --Chris Light (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I see. Yes, I was coming from the Green River Trail side of things. It does make more sense if you are starting from Kent.
    • I think, though, the category ought to be called Category:Green River Trail in Kent, Washington. Category:Green River Trail (Kent) looks too much like it is disambiguation and indicates a different trail of the same name. Consider how we handle this for Interstate 5. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Similarly, Category:Parks (Kent, Washington) ought to be Category:Parks in Kent, Washington. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• I like your suggestions. Thanks. --Chris Light (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Issaquah Valley Trolley

It seems to me that in terms of parent categories Category:Issaquah Valley Trolley mixes the one surviving trolley car (and where it is on display) with the defunct trolley line. At the moment, all the images we have are of that one surviving trolley car, out of use and on display, but this categorization won't work if we were to get older images of the trolley line back when it was functioning. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I made a few changes, preparing the grounds for the time when there’s more photos (cp Category:Lisbon tram 730 and Category:Former Lisbon trams in the Sóller-Port tramway, e.g.); the Milan tram should go on a separate subcat, too, but I wont have time to do that right now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I didn't know there was a second trolley, previously. --Chris Light (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yoda This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:EMP SW 2015-06 Yoda.jpg

Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chris Light,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Chickamauga

Hi Chris, I visited Chickamauga Battlefield earlier this year and took quite a few pictures of the monuments there which I have begun to upload. I created the category Monuments of Chickamauga Battlefield as a subcategory of the category Chickamauga Battlefield. Shortly after that I realized you had already created a broader category on memorials and monuments of both Chickamauga and Chattanooga NMP. Having already made the category strictly about Chickamauga, I added it as a subcategory to the category you already created as well. Hope you are OK with this. If so, I wanted to suggest that you create a second subcategory on just Chattanooga monuments to separate the pictures for those who are not familiar with both sites. I would be happy to do it but unfortunately have not had the chance to visit the Chattanooga portion of the NMP, and am less certain of the memorials there. Hope this makes sense. DrStew82 (Dan).

• Works for me.--Chris Light (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

File names

Hey, i've seen that you uploaded some media of Munichs S-Bahn and U-Bahn stations, and i've noticed that some of them seem to have incorrect names.

• File:Hauptbanhof (S) 19-05-20 1114.jpg (shows the mezzanine at Marienplatz station)
• File:Hauptbanhof (S) 19-05-20 1115.jpg (also mezzanine at Marienplatz station)
• File:HauptBanhof (U) 19-05-22 511.jpg (shows the lower level of Sendlinger Tor U-Bahn station, platform of lines U1/U2)
• File:Odeonplatz 19-05-23 556.jpg (shows the platform level at Marienplatz U-Bahn station)
• File:Arrival odenplatz 19-05-23 557.ogv (also shows Marienplatz U-Bahn station)

Maybe you can check the files and request a rename, as i just got a rename request declined. Best regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick update: File:Hauptbanhof (S) 19-05-20 1114.jpg, File:Hauptbanhof (S) 19-05-20 1115.jpg and File:HauptBanhof (U) 19-05-22 511.jpg already got renamed. File:Odeonplatz 19-05-23 556.jpg has its rename request pending. File:Arrival odenplatz 19-05-23 557.ogv had its rename request declined. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Never worked out the rename request procedure. I agree with most of your suggestions.--Chris Light (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Yellow Butterfly (Papilio glaucus).jpg

Hi Chris Light, may I ask what makes you identify this butterfly as Papilio glaucus rather than as the closely related Papilio canadensis? The location is near the contact zone between these two species, but apparently slighly more in the canadensis zone. Thanks and best regards --LamBoet (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Always appreciate better taxonomic information. It's not really my area.--Chris Light (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Tamarack - nope, Witch Hazel

I made the necessary corrections. Famartin (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Chris Light (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Russian Thistle P5310693.jpg

File:Russian Thistle P5310693.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russian Thistle P5310693.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

2600:100E:B028:240E:4CCF:9305:5893:74A6 19:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:HAER_images_of_Going_to_the_Sun_Road

HAER images of Going to the Sun Road 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!

Ooligan (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Golf course / park?

I think this is wrong. We don't normally call a privately owned golf course a "park". Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• • You're correct. Debated it with myself. Usually only public golf courses. Not a problem to revert back to the original category of Auburn, Washington.Chris Light (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Logging_in_King_County,_Washington

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

Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of categories

Please keep in mind that the main purpose of categories is to make images easier to find, not to do some sort of epistemological/ontological classification. Yes, I suppose that it is epistemologically justifiable to interpose Category:Nature of King County, Washington above the individual bodies of water in the county, but it's not likely to help people find them. While most bodies of water are mostly "natural", someone is equally likely to thing of then as "geography" or even "geology", and the county doesn't have those subcategories. I'm not sure if someone was looking for, say, a bay, they would expect to find it under "Nature of King County, Washington", especially when that category is buried in the middle of a long list of place names. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Toboggan_slides

Toboggan slides 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Relation of categories

How can Category:Washington State Route 410 be a parent of Category:Bridges of the White River (Washington)? That doesn't make sense at all. Are any of the bridges in the category part of Washington State Route 410, other than the three whose file names clearly indicate that they are (which all are the same bridge)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've been active and haven't answered this, I'm going to presume that you were simply wrong and work from there. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you fixed this yourself. You could have saved me some time (looking at all the images in the category) by acknowledging my post here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Chris Light (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop intersecting categories just because you can

Category:People of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge is almost totally ill-conceived. Someone does not become of a wildlife refuge by having their picture taken in it. This is particularly absurd for historian David Potts, who I happen to have photographed there, but it is also ridiculous for artists who happen to have been painting there. The only person for whom it is even vaguely sensible is the Ranger, and we should not be creating a category like this for two photos. I am reverting what you did here.

Again: the main purpose of categories is to make images easier to find. Intersections like this make it harder, not easier. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And File:Nisqually NWR - boardwalk 01.jpg and File:Nisqually NWR - boardwalk 02.jpg are not the estuary boardwalk trail. They are boardwalk, and they are in the same park, but the estuary boardwalk trail is (surprise!) the boardwalk over the estuary. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Another wrong relation of categories

I just belatedly noticed this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Logging_in_King_County,_Washington&oldid=705482285. How can Category:Logging in King County, Washington be a subcat of Category:Logging locomotives of the United States and Category:Logging railways in Washington (state)? Please either be more careful or stop doing this sort of work. I can't be following you around trying to fix large numbers of counterproductive edits. If I'm finding this many just by stumbling upon them, there must be many more. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, I see I had already noticed this earlier: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Logging in King County, Washington. Doesn't make it any less bad. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of removing these categories and checking images to insure that 'Logging locomotives' images contain the appropriate category.Chris Light (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:National Natural Landmarks of Oregon

I'm trying to work out what you had in mind by adding Category:National Natural Landmarks of Oregon to Category:Views of Vista House from Chanticleer Point ([3]). For the moment I've moved this up to the newly created Category:Views of Crown Point from Chanticleer Point, because presumably anything about a Natural Landmark would not be specific to a building, but how could this particular view be a Natural Landmark? Shouldn't that be on some other parent category? - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I like the addition of the Views of Crown Point from Chanticleer Point. It better reflects the subject matter and the relations between the NNL, i.e., the rocky point and the building on that point.

Comments:

The National Natural Landmark (NNL) is Crown Point, the rocky point, not the building. Therefore, the new category would be best, 'Views of Crown Point . . . '. I suspect, I added the NNL category to 'Views of Vista House' since the Vista House is nearly invisible in most of the images are really views of Crown Point, where the Vista House is located. Thus, I skipped a step of a new category and of parsing through the images to move those where the Vista House isn't visible to the NNL category, with the addition of 'Views of Vista House . . . . ' as a category of 'Views of Crown Point . . . '.

Preference would be NNL of Oregon with sub -> Views of Crown Point. <you've completed> Then, Views of Vista House with a sub -> Views of Crown Point. <you've completed> Also, Views of Vista House would be a sub -> of Vista House. <original>

Question: Should Views of Crown Point be linked to the category 'Vista House', since it's the location of the building? Or would it be better to include both 'Views of Crown Point . . .' and 'Views of Vista House . . .' as categories in those images that fit both? (see 'second' below). If the second, then the 'Views of Crown Point . . .' and 'Views of Vista House . . .' don't need to be linked. Although, as you've already created the necessary links between the two categories that users will find their way without any additional work.

Second, Views of Crown Point would be images, where the Vista House is not the primary focus. Views of Vista House would be images where the Vista House is the primary focus. Of the 22 images under Views of Vista House, I'd say only 5 are actually focused on Vista house. There is another dozen images where the Vista House is clearly visible, but where it appears to me to be focused on Crown Points dramatic location above the valley.

Long winded, but it was easier to put in a single category to provide some linkage, with a lot less work than my detailed organizational brain wanted to do. Chris Light (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think you are making this much too complicated. Overwhelmingly, people know Vista House (a major tourist attraction) and couldn't name Crown Point. The only reason we particularly need "Crown Point" categories is that it predates Vista House (by a few millennia!). If we had a general "Views of Crown Point" category, "Views of Vista House" would be a subcat, so per COM:OVERCAT we'd never need to include the former where the latter was present.
• For what I was driving at originally: I'll move Category:National Natural Landmarks of Oregon from its odd placement on a "views of" category to Category:Crown Point. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay. Chris Light (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, the main reason we create "Views of A from B" categories is when a lot of people shoot the same or similar views, this lets us bundle the parent categories in one place rather than on each photo, and lets end users see the many similar views together, rather than scattered among other things in a parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-obvious category

What is the intent of Category:Places to go, National Park Service? - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Places_to_go,_National_Park_Service

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

Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

HABS categories

As I understand it, the HABS categories are supposed to be specific to the photos taken as part of HABS (or other HABS images, such as construction drawings). So a building or complex shouldn't ever be a subcat of a HABS category. For example when you put Category:Pacific Brewing & Malting Co. buildings (Tacoma, Washington) as a subcat of Category:HABS WA-165 (Union Depot Area, Tacoma), that doesn't work right, because a photo like File:Pacific Brewing Building 2.jpg is not a HABS photo. -- Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Even more so for Category:Union Station (Tacoma, Washington), which is not even mostly HABS photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Got it, The one I'll switch the HABS as a sub of the general or modern. The other one, I'll either separate HABS into it's own sub-category or pull the HABS link. Chris Light (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There were actually a bunch of these; you may want to look through your edits from yesterday. Yes, HABS cats are often a good subcat of a building; also sometimes they are a good subcat of a district but might intersect that cats for several buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll scan the Union Station Study area categories and try to find those that need fixed. Chris Light (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But what is the idea of Category:Union Station (Tacoma) distinct from the longstanding Category:Union Station (Tacoma, Washington)? I would think at most that ought to be a soft redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ran into a problem of distinctions. Most HABS categories are single buildings and thus the Category:HABS No. WA-41-G (Fort Vancouver, Building No. 134)‎ separates the HABS images from the modern images in a joint category of Category:Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Whereas this HABS category is Category:HABS WA-165 (Union Depot Area, Tacoma)‎, which is a large group of buildings. Other HABS structures used the HABS No. WA-nnn-alpha (common name) for HABS images and the common name for a parent category and modern images. I looked but wasn't comfortable with the counter system of the Category:HABS WA-165 (Union Depot Area, Tacoma) with using the HABS-WA-165-A (Union Depot Area Study, F.S. Harmon Mattress Company) and its B and C components for the three structures which were so categorized, and the other buildings would be lumped under the parent category of HABS-WA-165. So, I just cut the common name short, i.e., removed the -> , Washington <- from the title and used that for the HABS images. Only after I set it up, did I realize that there would be some confusion with (Category:Union Station (Tacoma) and Category:Union Station (Tacoma, Washington). I can move to the HABS-WA-165-A (Union Depot Area Study, F.S. Harmon Mattress Company) format, but I'll shorten them to HABS-WA-165-A (F.S. Harmon Mattress Company) without the Union Depot Area Study reference. Chris Light (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Not all intersections of categories have to result in a new category! And not all hierarchies have to be parallel (e.g. New York City has five counties inside the city, so of course that goes in the opposite direction of most city/county distinctions). If you really don't want any images directly in Category:HABS WA-165 (Union Depot Area, Tacoma), it's fine if one of the subcats really belongs (for example) under Category:Interior of Union Station (Tacoma, Washington). But as far as I can see, there is no meaningful difference between Category:Interior of Union Station (Tacoma, Washington) and Category:Interior of Union Station (Tacoma), so the latter should be up-merged. Etc. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm out for 3 days. I'll get back to this by the weekend. Thanks for the guidance. Chris Light (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Piers in Seattle

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pier_59,_Seattle,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=753418144: it might be reasonable to put all members of Category:Central Waterfront Piers, Seattle landmark redundantly into Category:Piers in Seattle on Elliott Bay, but it seems odd to single out one of them. I don't have a strong preference which way this goes, but I do have a strong preference for uniformly going one way or the other. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

First glance and the Aquarium pier was missing. Only after a search and I found the category and added it to the Category:Piers in Seattle on Elliott Bay did I notice the Central Waterfront Piers category. Debated about placing all central waterfront piers in both categories but hadn't finished my thought process.

1. Thought about must putting a code to move the Category:Central Waterfront Piers, Seattle landmark so it would be placed with or amongst the individual pier listings. It felt confusing.
2. Thought about reverting my addition of the pier to Category:Pier 59, Seattle, Washington to being only in the Category:Central Waterfront Piers, Seattle landmark. That felt also confusing, because I didn't even notice that category, when my eyes focused on the piers list.
3. Leaning towards listing them in both. Which is my preference and will make the changes today.

Thanks for the comments, it helps to know another persons thoughts on the system. Chris Light (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Public_Market_Center_sign_w_LaSalle_Hotel

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

Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also Category:Public Market Center sign w Leland Hotel

Panoramics

You appear to have put a bunch of images in Category:Panoramics of Mount Baker that are not panoramic images. Typically, a panorama is either stitched together from multiple photos or taken with certain specialized film cameras for shooting panoramic views or certain digital cameras that can construct a single panoramic image from a panned view. - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add a category Category:Remote views of Mount Baker as exist in the Mount Rainier -> Category:Remote views of Mount Rainier. Chris Light (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit I don't understand

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Soap_Lake,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=820825444 suggests that the whole town of Soap Lake is part of the Coulee Corridor National Scenic Byway. I believe that's not the case, but it's not like I'm super-knowledgable on this. Can you explain? - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, only Soap Lake and the coulees. I'll make the change. Chris Light (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Similarly for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Enumclaw,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=820832259 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Greenwater,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=820832690, though possibly Greenwater is so small that maybe it's all considered part of the Byway. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Greenwater is a bit different. The town is all adjacent to the road. When I was in Minnesota and the park was part of the Lake Superior Circle Tour, the organizers used the tour route to increase business, thus anything the increased traffic along the route was asked to be in their book (advertising fee). Since all of Greenwater is along the road, I included it. I also included Enumclaw, which is the designated west end of the byway. Without a designated place in Enumclaw, I included the entire category.

Also, I tend to be a lumper rather than a splitter. I'd rather just use Category:Enumclaw, Washington rather than looking for the 'US Forest Service Ranger Station', which might act as the end of the byway, although I've only seen cities listed as endpoints of byways, i.e.; Category:Enumclaw, Washington and Category:Naches, Washington for the Chinook Pass Scenic Byway. At this time, I'm leaving Greenwater linked. I'll avoid towns along byways.

Still not sure how much to use the commercial advertising places using the byway literature to increase business. We just did the west side of the White Pass Scenic Byway and every town seemed to have a park wayside or one or two businesses with the byway maps displayed in the window. I'll try to error on leaving things out that are not clearly in. Chris Light (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a lumper, too, but this (Enumclaw) isn't a place to lump. It would be like putting Seattle in Category:Interstate 5. No problem with Greenwater. Or you could have an intermediate Category:Populated places along FOO Byway.

Offhand, I think Category:Green River Trail handles a similar case well. - Jmabel ! talk 13:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the link. Chris Light (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Volcanism_of_Washington_(state)_in_2022

Category:Volcanism_of_Washington_(state)_in_2022 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Fallen_trees_on_Raillines_in_the_United_States

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

Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo date dispute

File:Old Stone Church (Cleve, OH).jpg could not have been taken in 2010 because the steeple restored in 1999 was not there, among other clues. [Edited Street View from August 2009] I'm guessing that it should be 2000. Mapsax (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Routinely visited downtown Cleveland through 1975. Did a photo group in 1970 of public square. After 1980, usually there every December. Then began regular summer visits in 1995. Based on the imperfections, this is a digitized photograph, placing it in the earlier period. It could be 1980 as well as 2000. Noting that there are no leaves on the trees and winter coats, this was a Christmas visit in the 1990's. So, I'm redating it to 1990, Christmas. Chris Light (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That looks better with respect to the infrastructure, vehicles, etc., not to mention the lack of steeple. I know what it's like to have to be able to estimate a date from a pile of photo prints taken over a long time period. Mapsax (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Snoqualmie Falls

[4]: How does "Snoqualmie Powerhouse No. 2" differ from "Snoqualmie Falls Power Plant No. 2"? - Jmabel ! talk 07:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply: to @Jmabel

The Category:Snoqualmie Falls Power Plant No. 2 is a mix of the components that make up a power plant. Looking at the HAER images, there are Diversion dams, Intakes (diversions, canals), Gatehouses, Penstocks, Powerhouses (turbines, and distribution structures). Then, I found the individual images using categories:

• Dams: over 20 subcategories,
• Gatehouses (waterworks), Valve houses
• Water turbines: again 20 sub categories,
• Penstocks in the United States, although most penstocks are hidden inside the dam structure.
• Powerhouse (Theodore Roosevelt Dam)

I've been working on the White River Hydroelectric Project, i.e., Lake Tapps. Admittedly, this is spread out over miles and each segment stands alone geographically. What I was wanting to do was organize the images, so that the penstocks and powerhouse could be easily viewed when the number of images exceeded one screen full. Also, it provided a way to link all the penstock images to the Category:Penstocks in the United States (20 of the 65). The problem isn't the same with coal and gas fired power production, as it's all a single unit. Hydropower can be a single unit, Category:Grand Coulee Dam and Power Plant or problematic with the Snoqualmie Falls, Category:White River Hydroelectric Project or Category:Cedar Falls Hydroelectric Works. Cedar Falls has less images, so I'm ignoring it.

The Category:Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Plant includes to separate powerhouses (one buried at the falls). Number 1 is mostly hidden with a few surface structures and the outlet tunnel. Number 2 has the intake canal, the gatehouse, penstocks and the powerhouse or generator building. So, the short answer is that the Category:Snoqualmie Powerhouse No. 2 was a way to separate the generator building from the penstocks and sub link to generic counter parts, i.e., Penstocks in the United States and to provide easy of access by separating the 16 powerhouse images from the 20 penstock images, leaving only about 14 general type images. I'm also wresting with which of any of my images I should share as there are quite a few of all.

A related issue is submitting images in the Category:Snoqualmie Falls for the overlooks, trails and and other locations in the park area. There is a Category:Trails at Snoqualmie Falls but should it include the overlooks as well as the trail to the lower falls? If so, is the boardwalk along the river the same trail, category wise? Right now, I'll leave it as is, it's just hte number of images for the penstocks and the generator building? is that better then Powerhouse? For unit number 1 -> to few images to worry.

My plan was to create two categories: Category:Snoqualmie Falls Power Plant No. 2 and [[Category:Snoqualmie Falls Penstocks No. 2]]. Then see if my new images provide any new details about either subject, before uploading.

Chris Light (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Much of this makes sense, but does anyone ever refer to "Snoqualmie Falls Penstocks No. 2"? Shouldn't it be Category:Snoqualmie Falls Power Plant No. 2 penstocks?

I don't think Category:Trails at Snoqualmie Falls should include the main overlook, which is just off the parking lot. Literally the majority of the people who go there never set foot on the trails that lead out beyond there.

Yes, the boardwalk is part of the park's trails system. - 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll use Category:Snoqualmie Falls Power Plant No. 2 penstocks and add boardwalk images to the Trail system category. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your contributions are unmatched! -- RZuo (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

---

 

You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please refrain from making test edits. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox. Thank you.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I would think that when addressing that to a longstanding user you would at least provide a link to what edit you are claiming is vandalism. I don't always agree with Chris, but I've never seen them edit in a way that I would characterize as vandalistic. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Sorry, you're right. this edit looked like vandalism.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading the link about the suggestion and didn't realize that I had moved onto the BOT itself. I'll double check where I'm at when using helps and following suggestions for changes. Chris Chris Light (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You may have made this error elsewhere as well

I just fixed an edit of yours. You may have made this error elsewhere as well, accidentally removing a category rather then refining it. You should check your other edits around that time. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll check. Chris Light (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:WA State Hist Museum 07.jpg

What is your basis for 1950s? I agree that from the cars in the foreground, the represented era cannot be earlier than that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I look at the museums website and the exhibit is called Model Railroad - Tacoma in the 1950's. Model Railroad is to general and I just took the ending. If you have another suggestion, I'm open. Chris Light (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If the museum says 1950s, fine. You might have noted that in your edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rolling_Stock_(Northwest_RR_Museum)

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

Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Seattle, Little Free Library, etc.

I am guessing that this is about Little Free Libraries in Seattle, in general, not about some specific Little Free Library. Assuming so, it should be renamed Category:Little Free Libraries in Seattle; analogously for the other subcats of Category:Little Free Libraries in Washington (state). Do I understand correctly? - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You have it correct. I'm getting better at the forms, but still make too many errors. Chris Light (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Multnomah Falls, Oregon, c1916 (11794983014).jpg

What is your basis for saying this is winter? - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not. I'll correct. Chris Light (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Museum of Pop Culture (2007)

What is this category about? Disambiguated as against what other Museum of Pop Culture? - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Somebody uploaded nearly numerous exterior images of the Museum. In other categories of structures I've seen sub categories by the year the image was taken. To reduce the clutter and make the non-structural images more visible, I moved the exterior views into categories based on the year. I could have made one category:Exterior of MoPoP or some such title, but that seemed confusing. I didn't think about moving the interior images into the category:EMP Museum exhibits‎, which would have similarly achieved the goal of reducing clutter. Now that it's done, I noticed that all the years area since 2002, so there is not really a historical perspective in the categories and a single category; Exterior of the Museum of Pop Culture. would work. If the years are significant, using more generic, Museum of Pop Culture (2000's), Museum of Pop Culture (2010's), and Museum of Pop Culture (2020's) would also work. I'll be glad to make the changes. Sometimes, it helps me to see the results, even if it needs changes. Also, I'll look at moving images from the primary category into the exhibits category as appropriate, not just interior pictures. Chris Light (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Moderne Seattle Art Museum

I do not believe this museum was ever named the Moderne Seattle Art Museum. Do you have a citation for that? - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it never was named the Moderne Seattle Art Museum.

Concern: I was seeing that the Category:Seattle Art Museum included images from the building that is now the Category:Seattle Asian Art Museum and are not necessarily Asian art. My historical interest says that I might be interested in the building and not necessarily the specific artworks. I've noticed that with several things. A park changes it's name years after creation and I'm still looking for the old name, not knowing it's changed. So, how do we deal with change in titles when the categories are going to be static? All images from the building go with the Asian Art Museum category regardless of the time represented? All images go with the title for when they were taken, regardless of the building?

I found this with the Natural History Museum of Utah. I'd like to say they, but most of the work was my idea. There was a Category:George Thomas Building which hasn't been the museum for several years. The building is still with the University of Utah and their science school. Meanwhile, the Category:Rio Tinto Center is the new museum and research center. Each has images that explicitly are the building or the building halls are a significant part of the image. In addition, I added categories for the exhibit spaces. When in one building, there is a link for the space to the building as well as a general link to the main museum category.

So, I was looking for a similar approach, but the buildings name moved with the function. Thus both buildings are the Seattle Art Museum. An option would be Category:Seattle Art Museum (1933-1991) and/or Category:Seattle Art Museum (1991-date). May be using the 1933-1991 instead of Moderne would be better. The Moderne came from the National Register of Historic Places nomination form. One reference, i.e., ''the Moderne Seattle Art Museum was . . .' It's a reference to the architectural style.

Actually, not that I've talked it out, I think renaming it to Category:Seattle Art Museum (1933-1991) would resolve most of my concerns and provide a subtle note that the building/functions have changed over time.

Let me know what you'd prefer and I'll do the work. Chris Light (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd think Category:Seattle Art Museum (Volunteer Park) was clearest. I could accept Category:Seattle Art Museum (1933-1991), if you prefer that. But "Moderne" in the category name looks like part of a proper noun for the museum, and of course it is no such thing, it is just an adjective. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. The Volunteer Park shows up in most of the articles and reports about the museum and building. I'll get it started. Chris Light (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Why Category:Architect and engineer (1933) as a parent category on this? Doesn't make any sense, unless this is a category specific to that publication (which don't think is your intent). -- Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't know. It was attached to each individual image. I'll pull it from the category and place it into each image file instead. I didn't really check the link. Since it seems to be a specific source, it probably belongs to the image, not the entire building category. Chris Light (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible phototrip request

You don't live in Utah, do you? Sorry for bothering, if this is the case, I was just editing an article and noticed Commons lack any photographs from a certain museum in Ogden, and you recently uploaded photos from Salt Lake City. 5.178.188.143 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I now live in Washington. Spent a few years in south Utah back in the 70's. I may be passing through at a later date, traveling to Denver. Also, I've not finished posting images from my visit last may. Let me know what images you'd be interested in and I'll check to see if I have them in the pending file. Chris Light (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This museum. Its exhibition is unfortunately quite difficult to photograph, with poor lightning and lots of flash-reflecting glass. 5.178.188.143 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a difficult museum. I didn't visit and have no pictures. The only option that works easily is to use a camera with a low-light lens setting, no flash and a polarizing filter. I've come close with a lens using an aperture of F5.6, smaller is better. The polarizing filter allows you to reduce the reflection by over half. Because I don't use a flash in museums, I'm only dealing with reflected room lights. I've done some without a polarizing filter, which works, okay. The filter cuts out half the light, so you need to be very steady, use a monopod keep the image close. 1. Small openings have a shallow field of focus. It can be as narrow as 6 inches, so broad images of cases don't work. 2. The filter cuts the ambient light in half, so it'll be a longer exposure. Sorry I couldn't help. Chris Light (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: https://www.curiousfrau.com/2018/12/07/how-to-take-great-photos-in-museums recommends using a small pocket flashlight in really dark rooms, what's your opinion on it? 5.178.188.143 14:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Flashlights are almost always a violation of museum policy, just like museums generally don't allow flash photography. Use a good prime lens a steady hand, and (where reflections are an issue) a polarization filter. Be ready to photograph 2-dimensional objects at less-than-perfect angles and use software for perspective correction. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Please be more careful

You recently made a category Category:Panorama on the Oregon-Washington border which has a parent category Category:Columbia River along the Oregon-Washington border. If your intent is for this category to be specific to the portion of the border where the river is (and I presume it is, juding by content) then the category name should mention the river. I will move it accordingly, to Category:Panoramics of the Columbia River along the Oregon-Washington border. Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see what I did wrong. Plural, name the river and 'of' rather than 'on'. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Towns_in_King_County,_Washington

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

Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove cat "Ancient Pueblo peoples"?

Many of these were clearly flawed edits, removing the cat from media which is featured on Anasazi-related articles. I'm inclined to revert them all. Could you please clarify and be more careful? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

These revision were made based on the Wikimedia policy or is it a standard against over categorization. Each of the images was already in a category, usually the puebloan site where the artifact was discovered. So, if this is the only artifact that belongs in the Category:Ancient Pueblo peoples, then this category needs to be removed from the location category. Otherwise, the category for the single image needs to be removed, which I did.

If your point is that they all come from a common reference, i.e., a book, then they need to be placed in a category for that item, i.e.; Category:Collection of the Albuquerque Museum, Category:Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, or Category:Excavations at the Arroyo site, 42Ka3976. I didn't notice a common source, so I moved towards those with location already in the category.

If I'm miss understanding the problem with the over categorization standard, then please provide additional details, preferable in the Commons:Categories#Over-categorization article. I've found numerous sites where massive dumps (usually a bot) has images in a primary category, so I create a new categories to to reduce the number of images in the primary.

An example is Category:California Trail. Here, I've reduce the main category by over 100 images with sub categories. Notable, creating the Category:California Trail in Nevada. Here, I located about seven existing categories, where the individual images were all placed in the primary category and the specific Category:Elko Hot Hole. Doing what you're asking about, reduced the primary from 3-4 pages of images, down to two pages. If I continue, there will be about 100 images on one page with the primary. I don't know when the gets added, but I've taken on the task when I see 300 or more images in categories I visit, of cutting them down to one page.

If you'd prefer, I can approach it all by creating new categories to group the images into, and keeping them within the Category:Ancient Pueblo peoples. I could create a Category:Footware of Ancient Pueblo peoples and others for pots, pictograms/pictographs, towers, doorways, etc. I avoided that since the images I changed already were link to the primary category through their location, i.e., Category:Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

Note: If you want a practical example of what the issue I'm working with is, take a look at Category:Mesa Verde National Park and its 1250 images in the primary category. A quick look says that most of them already have categories within the primary, but the bulk load used a chronological number with a common lead "2019-08-31 Mesa Verde National Park". Based on your question, they all need to remain, although the project asked to split them out.

I assumed I was resolving an issue that is common in active categories that the project wanted done. Please provide additional guidance on what the Wikimedia standard is, if I'm not reading it correctly. Chris Light (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your elaborations, it wouldn't have needed to be this detailed – what I noticed first is that you removed this file about the peoples overall from the category. I checked some other contribs and it was similar there so I think it needs at least some checking. The linked file doesn't seem to be overcategorized so whatever method/tool you use to identify that is insufficient and shouldn't be relied upon. The only cat on it that may for strange reasons be in the category is Category:Chaco Canyon but that's not what the video is about nor where the user would look for such a file. Please check your other edits accordingly and e.g. revert some or create new subcats to move them into or copy them into other existing subcats of the "Ancient Pueblo peoples" cat. Thank you. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Mural 2016-06-8 015.jpg

File:Mural 2016-06-8 015.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural 2016-06-8 015.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Welcome to Quincy 19-07-19 139.jpg

File:Welcome to Quincy 19-07-19 139.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome to Quincy 19-07-19 139.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Chris, could you please use edit summaries? You make a lot of edits on my photos and I end up having to look closely at every single one to even have a clue what you are doing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Most are just picked up when making new categories to reduce the volume of images in an existing category. I'll try to remember adding a summary. Chris Light (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:People of the University of Washington

The fact that someone is photographed on the campus of the university of Washington does not make them "of" the university. In the case of the pictures of Larry Gossett: his own category is already a subcat of Category:Alumni of the University of Washington, which is a subcat of Category:People of the University of Washington. In File:Larry Gossett 02.jpg, Category:University of Washington was there strictly as the place where the photo was taken. It's OK to refine that as a location if you can (and I just did), but you refined in the wrong direction.

If a reporter from New York, or a professor from USC, is giving at talk at UW's Kane Hall, that doesn't make them belong in Category:People of the University of Washington. Ditto for a tourist looking at the cherry blossoms, a musician giving a concert, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 05:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Chang & Johnson 13.jpg etc. also seem wrong to me. A conference, not sponsored by the University, rented a theater space on campus. Does that really make the conference speakers "guest speakers" at the university? I certainly don't think so. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

I totally don't understand your intent here and at other similar edits in that timeframe, and there is no edit summary to give me a clue. Surely you are not saying this is not a building; surely you are not saying this is not in British Columbia. Are you saying that Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia is COM:OVERCAT? If so, where up the hierarchy would it be reached (I don't see it, but I only gave it a few minutes). Or is the rationale something else entirely? - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I debated this and decided to move ahead. Here, many images have been grouped into categories based on the specific building. That's meets the standard of using a single category to group related images. Then, each building was placed into Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia and then placed into a street category, i.e., Johnson Street (Victoria, British Columbia). This process was done for buildings listed by street address, i.e., this specific instance and for buildings with names, i.e., Category:City of Victoria Police Station. So I began placing images into the Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia from the primary Category:Victoria, British Columbia. Then trying to move them into specific categories when appropriate. Quickly I ran into the problem of figuring out which building was which.

First, I noticed that building categorized by street address were sorted into the Building category numerically. All the 500 blocks were intermixed across the city. Same with all blocks based on the street number. Since I sometimes had an address or figured out the address on streetview. Then I had to check the existing categories to be sure they weren't already into another street number. One building had several numbers, 522, 524, 526, 536 and 636, so it could be under several options. The process became more tedious than usual.

Then, I checked and saw all the street categories group into a master Category:Streets in Victoria, British Columbia, my solution was to add the Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia to Category:Streets in Victoria, British Columbia, so the street category shows in the building category. I know it's not obvious. It's lost in the first grouping of Apartments, Houses, Hospitals, etc. That was a next step, making it more obvious.

Yes, I can put all the street addressed buildings back into the Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia. It just makes the main page exhaustive in street numbers which aren't really consecutive as they are different streets.

So, yes, these are still buildings, and they can be located through the Category:Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia but selecting the Category:Streets in Victoria, British Columbia. And yes, the Category:Streets in Victoria, British Columbia may include general street scene, but then I've noticed in numerous city categories, those street categories are predominately street scene and sometimes there are (large towns) and there are not (small places) a building category.

When I began this, I was going to drop 50-60 images into the Category:Victoria, British Columbia and found 400+ images in the top category and over 300 images in several of the other categories. It's one of the reasons, I'm staying away from Category:Seattle and most military bases, i.e., Category:Joint Base Lewis-McChord with 1700+. Any guidance on how you think it should be handled? Chris Light (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Next time you "debate" something that affects hundreds of files or categories, please post something in a relevant place, or ping people whose work you know will be heavily affected, so you are not "debating" only with yourself.

As far as I'm aware, this is not the way we do this for any other city in the world. And as far as I'm concerned, you have three choices: (1) undo these changes; (2) agree to pause this sort of change and take this up at the Village pump or Village pump/Proposals; or (3) I will take this to COM:AN/U.

To be clear: it is perfectly appropriate—in fact, it is good—to have categories for individual buildings (as well as to have individual pictures) that are directly or indirectly in both a street category and the category for buildings in a geographic place, but the street categories absolutely do not belong under the "buildings in…" category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

All returned to using both categories. 160 subcategories and 223 images. Chris Light (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ghost sign?

At File:Townsend1673.jpg, is that really a ghost sign? It looks to me like something relatively modern (almost certainly in the last 50 years), possibly created to refer to something that was already gone by the time it was painted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been using the 'A survey of Port Townsend’s GHOST SIGNS & MURALS' [5] as a guide. It's undated and provides not authority (author or publisher). I found it on the Jefferson County Historic Society site. It calls a Ghost Sign: *A ghost sign is a faded, painted sign, at least 50 years old, on an exterior building wall heralding an obsolete product, an outdated trademark or a clue to the history of the building’s occupancy. They are “ghosts” because they often reappear after a rainstorm or following the demolition of a neighboring building. This would just seem to fit. It's a judgement call. Also based on the guidance in the above survey, for preservation and retention, the issues around Ghost Signs seems to all be a judgement call, i.e., Sign preservation is more likely to involve aesthetic concerns and to generate community debate. According the the survey, this sign meets only 1 of 8 criteria in the report; e.g. 'outstanding examples of the signmaker's art, whether because of their excellent craftsmanship, use of materials, or design." Assuming the more the better, and that one might be enough, I included it.

My perception is that (1) it's on the cusp of being a 'true' or 'real' ghost sign; (2) it's not in the eleven signs identified in the study, but new one are expected to appear over time; and (3) in a few years, it will become a ghost sign as nobody will likely remove it or repaint it. So, I placed it the category.

• As a judgement call, it can go either way. As it appears from your greater involvement in the wikimedia project that you are either on the Wikipedian staff or a higher level volunteer editor, I'll gladly let you make the call. Technically, I'm only an editor on Wikipedia and a contributor on Wikimedia.

Chris Light (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Terry Building

I don't think the two pictures of yours that you put in Category:Terry Building, Port Townsend, Washington are the Terry Building (or, just possibly, there are two buildings of that name in Port Townsend, which should not be in the same category). Compare https://cdm16785.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16785coll26/id/1402/ - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. They're across the street from each other. Good catch. I've left Category:Terry Building, Port Townsend, Washington in place even though there is only one image. I've noticed in the 5 years that I've been adding image out here that there are a lot of new images added, which not warrant individual categories. I assume the same will happen here. Also I'll look through the Category:Buildings in Port Townsend, Washington for both the Category:Zee Tai Building, Port Townsend, Washington and the Terry Building images which aren't identified. Chris Light (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Space Needle from Puget Sound

Some. perhaps many, of the images you have placed in Category:Space Needle from Puget Sound are in no sense from Puget Sound. For example, File:Argosy boat 'Sightseer' on Elliott Bay seen from Jack Block Park 02.jpg, which I took, is from Jack Block Park, which is on land and therefore is clearly part of Puget Sound. Furthermore, given that we have the longstanding (15 years) Category:Views of Seattle from Elliott Bay, if we are going to have a category like this, we should presumably distinguish views from Elliott Bay vs. views from elsewhere in the Sound. Could you please go through and sort this out more carefully? Above all, no views from land should be described as "from Elliott Bay." - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

One:  I saw several images from Jack Block Park and left them aside for later in life. Somehow this one was picked up. I’ll change it back.

Two:  There are several images from Elliott Bay and a similar number for the main body of the sound.  According the Wikipedia [[e:Puget Sound|Puget Sound]] includes the entire water body south of Port Townsend – Whidbey Island.  Its primary units are – Whidbey Basin (east of Whidbey Island); Admiralty Inlet (west of Whidbey Island); Hood Canal; Central Basin (south of Whidbey Island thru the Tacoma Narrows); and South Basin (everything in the south).  While I didn’t know the exact names, I came across this while working with Port Townsend and places on Whidbey Island.  I went with Puget Sound to include anything from the water side, which would include Elliott Bay, as the name Central Basin isn’t used.  Also, I was avoiding determining how far out in the image was, so I’d know if it was inside Elliott Bay or outside.  To most users every picture taken from the State Ferries is one or the other based on their own experiences, regardless of where the boat was. 

·       Would Category: Space Needle from Elliott Bay be preferential over Category: Space Needle from Elliott Bay and use it for all images from the water? 

·       Is there a preference to avoid using Category:Puget Sound and create categories for the each inlet, bay, passage that has a name?  or just use Category:Puget Sound and some common water bodies like “Elliott Bay” and “Tacoma Narrows?” The map [[File:Map pugetsound with border.png]] includes some smaller bays and passage, but not all. 

Three:  Correct, views from water feature do not include those from land across that water feature. I wasn’t clear on this when I began so, your note will remind me to go back and check images. Chris Light (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• On the one hand, for this particular case it can be hard to tell if it is Elliott Bay or Puget Sound proper, and you can see the Needle awfully far out into the Sound. On the other hand, saying "Well, Elliott Bay is just part of Puget Sound" is a little like saying, "Well, Puget Sound is just part of the Pacific Ocean." Technically true, but quite odd. I don't think I've ever heard someone from Seattle refer (for example) to the Downtown piers as being "Piers on Puget Sound" and I don't think anyone would count the Elliott Bay shore of West Seattle as part of the Puget Sound sure of West Seattle. So I don't have a super-clean solution. Maybe Space Needle from Elliott Bay as a subcat of Space Needle from Puget Sound, and use the former when there is little or no doubt? That would reflect the relation of Elliott Bay and Puget Sound in the cat hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, File:DUKW and Space Needle 01.jpg is not from Lake Union. I had explicitly described it as being from Gas Works Park. Please go through and check your related categorization work. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There are several Gas Works Park images, and they need to be separated into their own category, as agreed in the reply above. Chris Light (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And what does Category:Space Needle from Lake Union-Northwest Seaport even mean? Is it a (generally discouraged) "union category" covering views of the Space Needle from Lake Union and views of the Space Needle from Northwest Seaport (itself a geographically vague term that is more about an organization than a location)? But File:A. Calder's "Eagle" at The Olympic Sculpture Park - panoramio - Tori Sloane (1).jpg is certainly neither (it is from the opposite direction!), nor is File:South Lake Union, Seattle, WA, USA - panoramio (3).jpg (from roughly the corner of Mercer and Dexter). - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

One:  The Category: Space Needle from Lake Union-Northwest Seaport was an idea to create a category for views from that side of the Space Needle. What I found was most were from either Lake Union or the MOHAI area.  To avoid a conjoined category, I’ll create a Category:Space Needle from Lake Union Park.  That will include all those images taken from the area of MOHAI, and the related museums. I’ll also create a Category:Space Needle from Lake Union.  Of course, if there are fewer than 3 images, they’ll go back to the main category.

Two:  The Northwest Seaport Marine Heritage Center [[6]] operates the historic boats adjacent to MOHAI.  Using a single operational name came about because most of the images appeared to be from their boats.  Regardless, the solution above will eliminate this reference completely. Chris Light (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly, Lake Union Park. Unless the foreground is very clear, anything more specific is almost impossible to determine. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Or this: File:Bumbershoot 1994 - acrobat - 03.jpg. A "streetview" where there is literally no street within 200 feet? - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Corrected. Chris Light (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I've remarked elsewhere, breaking down by neighborhood would be a lot more useful. If you don't know Seattle well enough to do that, let me know and I can, at least for the bulk of them. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:The Rumsley Companies Historic Marker

Hello Chris Light, since you created the category, just wanted to inform you the name is spelled Rumely, after Meinrad Rumely. You might wish to change it. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

moved to Category:The Rumely Companies Historic Marker. Chris, you'll want to ask for renames of several files in that category that you uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Chris Light (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chris Light Hi, I've renamed the files to Rumely instead of your requested Rumley. Regards, Tim Wu (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. Chris Light (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Years

File:Pasco, WA - J. A. Moore's Mansion 1909.jpg, File:The Fortuna - Seattle 1909.jpg: do you have reason to be confident these pictures date from 1909, rather than that being the latest possible date for them (since they were published that year)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Similarly File:Seining on Puget Sound 1909.jpg, and I'll stop asking image-by-image, but do give this some thought. In particular, a lot of people printed stuff for the A-Y-P Exposition using whatever materials they had handy, and plenty were presumably more than a few months old. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Road view of Chesapeake Bay Bridge

While I don’t disagree with the concept, I do take issue with only putting mostly my images in it, vs the very many more you left in the main cat. Makes it seem like you are prejudiced. For that reason, should you fail to “finish the job”, I’ll revert it as incomplete work. Famartin (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to reduce the main category to less than 200 images, I prefer around 100, but when I'm working outside my geographic area of experience, I'll move a composite group of images which are blocked together with a common title. Yes, that means that usually one or two contributors get moved, when I stop the work. My thinking is that the new category gives those images moved quicker access as they are grouped at the top of the screen identifying their specific framing or point of view. Those which don't get moved initially are usually at the bottom of the main group and scattered among images with other views.

If it's a prejudice, it's my approach when I'm adding images and find large numbers of images in a main category or a first level sub-category. Then, I create an appropriate (I hope) new category for my images and move a number 10-20 images from the category, which is the main to mine, thus trying to avoid creating categories which are just my images. I moved from Category:Road view of Chesapeake Bay Bridge when I had reduced the size of the main category over to Category:Saddle Mountain State Natural Area. In this category, a large percentage, maybe 90% of the images are contributed by one photographer. Thus, this individual will be the only one represented most of the new categories I'm creating. Here, I'm following the example of @AnRo0002.

You should be able to move the other images from Category:Chesapeake Bay Bridge into the new category if you're not comfortable. I liked the way the images laid out in the screen view, when all the images were together, reflecting a movement across the bridge. Note: you should be able to create a category for a grouping, when you contribute the images. For guidance I refer to Commons:Categories.

One of my activities has been to reduce the number of images in a single category, per the reference above, from over 200 to around 100-150. I don't have a fixed selection process. I check categories for places I'll be visiting and then spread out. Bridges are a favorite of my and this category showed up in a category referencing 'twin bridge'. I was looking for Category:Twin Bridges (Evansville), which are mostly my contributions.

So, if I have a prejudice, it's in favor of the types of images you contribute and the number or related images warrant a category those offering the road deck view of the bridge.

Note: I've gone back and move all (I think) of the other road views into the new category. Chris Light (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Dred Scott 2018-08-01 362.jpg

File:Dred Scott 2018-08-01 362.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dred Scott 2018-08-01 362.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Old Washington State Capitol

[7]: am I right that Walker Cut Stone Company is associated only with the 1981 restoration work on the building, not with its original construction? If so, and if we are putting it in that category, we probably want to have something (category and/or hat note) about where the bulk of the stone comes from (Chuckanut, I believe). - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Related: what is your basis to connect Lincoln and Stadium High Schools in Tacoma to Walker Cut Stone Company? Both are predominantly brick buildings, though they certainly incorporate stone. Is the lower part of File:Tacoma - Stadium High School 21.jpg the Wilkeson stone? - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on a Wikipedia article on Walker Cut Stone Company. The NRHP Nomination (Thomas, Jacob; Walker Cut Stone Company or Wilkeson Cut Stone Company; June 7, 1978) identifies that the Washington State Capitol Building is a solid sandstone dome. This matches with the Wikipedia article for w:Insurance Building (Olympia, Washington), w:Joel M. Pritchard Building, and w:Temple of Justice (Washington). I'm surprised that only the dome was included and not the entire building, which I think is most likely, but I've no documentation. Meanwhile, the Wilkeson — Thumbnail History; David Norberg; Posted 11/06/2020; [8] provides a more extended list of structures, including the two high school. While, they are primarily brick, the foundation, lintels, and sill course are sandstone. Note: Stadium High School shows the bottom three floors as completely sandstone. The lower two are only visible from the water side or from the stadium. I've seen structures listed as under a Category:Brick buildings in Washington (state) which have several materials in use; File:Prosser Court House.jpg.

Does a building only get to be identified as a single construction material? and if so, is it the actual structural material, i.e. today most buildings a sheathed with brick, stone, or wood, not necessarily structurally made of the visible material. With most of the Capitol Grounds complex, they are structural stone and from Wilkeson.

I choose to add the referenced Category:Walker Cut Stone Company to a category, if I could verify significant sandstone features. Foundations were common. Without foundations, the buildings don't stand. Normally, if they had stone foundations, then stone was used as sills, cornices, pediments and quoins, although not all in every case. In some, Category:Marsh Hall (Pacific University) I have a reference to the University but can't confirm the building. This specific building is one of only three early structures still standing and built during the quarry's operational years. It also fits the visuals with a stone foundation and stone highlights around the windows. But I have no documentation that this is the specific building mentioned. Therefore, no link to the building.

Sum:

1. No, the Capitol dome was built with Walker Cut Stone and thus the repair work by Walker Cut Stone.
2. Note: reference to Wilkeson — Thumbnail History; David Norberg for Stadium High School.

Note: I'm going to look further into the Capitol building to find the type of stone used. The NRHP nomination states that the Category:Old Washington State Capitol is Walker Cut Stone, meanwhile, Wiki data (Q7083593) list it as Chuckanut Sandstone, and as facade. I don't to Wikidata, so I don't know if that means only the facade and not structural or both. Chris Light (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

So:

1. You mention the Capitol dome, which I was aware of and didn't ask about. (Similarly for the rest of the current Capitol complex, which I knew was largely Wilkenson stone)
2. For the Old Capitol Building so far you don't know the answer to my question.
3. For Stadium High School the Wilkenson stone is exactly the part I conjectured.
4. There's nothing in your reply about what role this stone plays in Lincoln High School, just that the school is on a list.

Correct? - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Swinnomish_(tribe)

Swinnomish (tribe) 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!

PersusjCP (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Snake River Bridge

Why does Category:Snake River Bridge have Category:Vantage Bridge as a parent? Isn't it a completely different bridge? - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, no, they are the same bridge. When the Interstate bridge was planned, the old bridge was moved to a new location on Snake River.

*Reference: HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD, SNAKE RIVER BRIDGE AT LYONS FERRY (Lyons Ferry Bridge) (Old Columbia River Bridge at Vantage), HAER No. WA-88

*Significance: The oldest extant steel cantilever bridge in Washington. It is a good example of early-twentieth-century cantilever bridge construction using carbon steel. The structure served first at Vantage Ferry on the Columbia River and then dismantled and reerected on the Snake River at Lyons Ferry.

*Historian: Robert W. Hadlow, Ph.D., August 1993

The debate to me was whether Category:Snake River Bridge would be the parent, as the actual bridge or should Category:Vantage Bridge be the parent. I choose this way so that Category:Vantage Bridge had a clear link to the Category:Snake River Bridge so that users would be lead to the category with the actual bridge images from the now moved bridge.

The other option would be to create a new Category:Old Columbia River Bridge at Vantage and include that as a category on all the pictures in the Category:Snake River Bridge. Chris Light (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Then for Category:Snake River Bridge, I'd probably add subcats (one for each location) and put only the subcat for the location of the current Vantage Bridge as a subcat of Category:Vantage Bridge. Any objection to approaching it that way? - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Chris Light (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I came up with something simpler, have a look. Just one new category and some hat text.

You probably know more about the subject than I do, and may want to add more parent cats to my newly created Category:Vantage Ferry Bridge (for the Snake River Bridge in its old location at Vantage). - Jmabel ! talk 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yea, I like that. If, a big if, historic images appear for the bridge at this location or for the old ferry in operation, the naming allows for related categories and yet, keeps the images of the bridge separated by location. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:1914_Pioneer_Square

1914 Pioneer Square has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:1865_Pioneer_Square

1865 Pioneer Square has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:1880_Pioneer_Square

1880 Pioneer Square has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Also Category:1889 Pioneer Square, Category:1910 Pioneer Square, Category:1913 Pioneer Square. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Boardwlk (55) 2919.jpg

File:Boardwlk (55) 2919.jpg is in Category:Piers in Seattle on Elliott Bay. Sure doesn't look like a pier to me; if it is, which? Also, I will add Category:Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington and Category:Gardens in Seattle which clearly do apply. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the flower bed on the Alaska Way 'boardwalk' in front of Starbucks, Pier 55. Your suggestions are more specific and thus a better option. Chris Light (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Streetview_of_the_Space_Needle

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

Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Cour Napoléon from the northwest in 1997.jpg

File:Cour Napoléon from the northwest in 1997.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cour Napoléon from the northwest in 1997.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Museum_of_Pop_Culture_(2002)

Museum of Pop Culture (2002) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

File name (year)

File:Alms, US Grant (1975) +3262.jpg - the year of death was 1875 of both the child and grandmother Alms. If you wish, I can change the file name year from 1975 to 1875. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Great cemetery photos. I especially appreciate the nearby "white bronze" (zinc) Barber monument. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Pseudotsuga menziesii 2781.jpg

File:Pseudotsuga menziesii 2781.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pseudotsuga menziesii 2781.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

MPF (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Night forest 0263.jpg

File:Night forest 0263.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Night forest 0263.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Welcome log 0448.jpg

File:Welcome log 0448.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome log 0448.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Complex Forest This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:01 Forest C 2219.jpg

And also:

• File:Complex Forest 7727.jpg

Yours sincerely, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Forest teacher 0236.jpg

File:Forest teacher 0236.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forest teacher 0236.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Forest teacher 0235.jpg

File:Forest teacher 0235.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forest teacher 0235.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:03 Delicate balance 2251.jpg

File:03 Delicate balance 2251.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:03 Delicate balance 2251.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:05 Without bugs 2264.jpg

File:05 Without bugs 2264.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:05 Without bugs 2264.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

File:02 Sound of River 2232.jpg

File:02 Sound of River 2232.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:02 Sound of River 2232.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Chuckanut Formation

Are you sure about this? Do you have a citation? I thought that building was all Tenino stone. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure? Only because it's the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction website[9].

"The building was constructed using Chuckanut stone from Whatcom County. It was originally built as the Thurston County Courthouse. The completed structure was accepted by the county, and offices opened for business in October of 1892. "

I thought it was odd as nothing else claims the same information. But when I went back to other sources, there is no mention. When I checked the National Register of Historic Places - Nomination form, two reference appear:

• 'The light gray sandstone structural material was quarried in Wilkeson, Washington.' This is a reference to the original construction. I've not been able to validate the classification of the Wilkeson sandstone. It could be Chuckanut formation, per the Superintendents website statement.
• "The annex is also of sandstone, but of a different texture, possibly quarried at nearby Tenino."

It would appear that the west building is Chuckanut stone and the east (annex) building is Tenino stone. It's not real clear. Since the Category:Old Washington State Capitol doesn't have sub-categories for Category:Original Washington Old State Capital and Category:Annex of Washington Old State Capitol, there is not an easy way to separate images between Category:Walker Cut Stone Company, Category:Chuckanut Formation, and Category:Tenino Sandstone. Ideally, we could direct users between the part of the building to the correct stone source and back again. I'll have to check my geology materials. Chris Light (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you got this right: continuing on the category talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project), Drawings

I have no idea whether the category your removed here was right, wrong, sort-of-wrong, or what, nor of your rationale (because there were two sequential edits, both without meaningful summaries), but the category has now been left with no parent category that indicates any geography narrower than Washington State. - Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't recall any changes to this category. The only thing I can think of is that the Category:White River Hydroelectric Project dam and headworks was sprinkled across many of the sub-categories in Category:White River Hydroelectric Project. If that was included with the category, I would have removed it. This category (Category:HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project), Drawings) include drawings from the Power Plant as well and not just the dan and headworks. Thus, it would be more appropriate for it to be under the Category:HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project), which contains other sub-categories for aspects of the project. Also, images in this 'drawing file' would be individually linked to the appropriate HAER category, i.e., Category:HAER No. WA-64-A (White River Hydroelectric Project, Headgate Operator's House). Currently, there is no category for the Category:HAER No. WA-64-A (White River Hydroelectric Project, Powerhouse). Revision of this grouping is a project I'm working on.

Hierarchy design:

• Category:White River Hydroelectric Project
  • HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project)
    • HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project), Drawings, HAER No. WA-64-E (White River Hydroelectric Project, Clubhouse), HAER No. WA-64-D (White River Hydroelectric Project, Cottage No. 5), etc.

• • Dingle Basin, Lake Tapps Flume, McHugh Basin, Outlet basin (Lake Tapps), White River Hydroelectric Power Plant, etc.

Note: Images from the HAER groups will be linked as a category to the appropriate generic? category. Example:

• Category:White River Hydroelectric Project
  • Category:Printz Basin
    • HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project, Printz Basin)

Standardization of names is still an ongoing project.

Summary

I'm not sure that you mean by your specific comments.

1. "the category your removed" - I don't think I removed any category or added one. Possibly the one I mention Category:White River Hydroelectric Project dam and headworks which was not accurate.
2. "category has now been left with no parent category". I would see HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project) as the 'parent' as that links into the other group, i.e., Category:White River Hydroelectric Project and Category:Historic American Engineering Record images of Washington (state). Each of those link up wards with the Category:White River Hydroelectric Project where it links to geographic places, i.e., Structures in Pierce County, Washington, White River (Washington), and Lake Tapps.

So, I'm not sure of the question, but here is my reasoning process. Chris Light (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't recall any changes to this category. : [10] [11]
• And now I see, but I didn't from your [nonexistent] edit summaries: Category:HAER No. WA-64 (White River Hydroelectric Project) as a parent cat provides what is needed, because it is a child of Category:White River Hydroelectric Project.
• The double edit confused me as to what was intended here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Delta-01 Launch Control Facility This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Blast door P1010019.jpg

And also:

• File:D-1 blast door PA110357.JPG

Yours sincerely, – BMacZero (🗩) 20:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Camp Muir

I don't understand this edit. Camp Muir is on Mount Rainier, which is within Mount Rainier National Park (and is a more specific category). - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve run across this issue of parks where the name is both a geologic feature and the name of the park. My specific cases were Category:Grand Canyon and Category:Grand Canyon National Park; Category:Yosemite Valley and Category:Yosemite National Park; plus, Category:Grand Teton and Category:Grand Teton National Park. In this case, images are placed into either Category:Mount Rainier National Park or Category:Mount Rainier based on the contributor’s way of referencing the park. My wife becomes confused when I use ‘Rainier’ as a short cut, because she’s more familiar with Category:Rainier, Washington. Meanwhile, the visitor literature uses Mount Rainier as the general reference to everything related to the park.

• Working structure:
  • Category:Mount Rainier, this category and its lower categories are the geological subjects in the park.  Most of the park is Mount Rainier, only the land east of the White River Valley, Washington highways 410 and 123, so I've defaulted to using for everything geological in park.
  • Category:Mount Rainier National Park, this category and its lower categories include places and activities within the park boundaries. The easiest are all created structures and human activity.
• Category:Camp Muir can be classified as both a geographic feature, but it’s primary naming comes from being the base camp for those going to the summit.  Just being a base camp wouldn’t be enough to move it from Category:Mount Rainier to Category:Mount Rainier National Park.  Last spring I was looking at this and let it be.  Since then, I’ve worked through the examples in the opening paragraph.  Since the stone structures and the pit toilet are major features of Camp Muir, I moved it.  It could be listed in both categories, but my readings on the park seldom mention why Camp Muir is located where it is located.  The Category:Denali National Park base camps are on open tundra with space for tenting, no human structures.  Camp Muir is on hard rock, keeping off the glacial ice.  The rock seems to be building material of the structures provide to the climbers.  Thus, I moved it to Category:Mount Rainier National Park.
• Note: Category:Indian Henry's Hunting Ground is similar situation.  There is a structure located there so, it could go into Category:Mount Rainier National Park, while it is primarily a reference for hikers to an alpine meadow.  When I checked, it isn’t placed in either, rather, it’s: Category:Landforms of Mount Rainier National Park and Category:Recreation in Mount Rainier National Park.  So, I’ve left it alone.

Summary: While I think Category:Camp Muir should remain in Category:Mount Rainier National Park as it’s primarily an administrative reference to a location and not a geographic reference, I would not be averse to it being in both categories.Chris Light (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with using both, though it is overcat and someone else might object.

I tend to categorize as Category:Mount Rainier for anything higher than Paradise Meadow: pretty much anything you have to be a trekker or climber to reach. - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see that. Since most human structures are below Paradise (5,400 feet) or actually Sunrise (6,400 feet), this would work. It would also simplify how to handle most of the biological categories, as most (not all) of those images aren't from trekking or climbing.

How would you handle things like Category:Wonderland Trail? It's below both Paradise and Sunrise, although it's meant as a long distance, aka trekker, trail? Currently trails are in Category:Hiking trails in Mount Rainier National Park which is a subcategory of Mount Rainier National Park. I've chose to ignore the issue and let it be, so I'm not really wanting an answer at the moment.

• I'm less concerned with this for trails. I think Category:Hiking trails in Mount Rainier National Park is pretty clear; it's long-distance, but plenty of people take short hikes on part of it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've have begun to run into the moving images from Category:Mount Rainier into subcategories where there are 588 images. But I've found two other categories: Category:Mount Rainier Geology and Category:Geology of Mount Rainier National Park. It's hard to tell what each of these are about. The first two look like they are the same thing and should be combined, which I'd be glad to do. Meanwhile, I'm not sure that the difference is between Category:Geology of Mount Rainier and Category:Geology of Mount Rainier National Park. It's that thing about geographic/geological and administrative categories.

• Let me get back to you on this one. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm willing to move to using Paradise and Sunrise as an elevation definition between Category:Mount Rainier and Category:Mount Rainier National Park. I used a similar idea for the Grand Canyon, i.e., above and below the rim. I'll switch Category:Camp Muir back. Meanwhile, be thinking about the three Geology categories. They need some sorting. Chris Light (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That was quick. Category:Mount Rainier Geology is poorly named, and you created it, so I assume there should be no problem from anyone else if you agree to merging it into Category:Geology of Mount Rainier. Category:Geology of Mount Rainier National Park looks already appropriately set up to me, and is a parent of both of the others. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll merge the two categories. I didn't remember or check to see if I created the one. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization

Not sure whether it is something you are still working on, but I moved Category:Postcards of Seattle Hotels to the more standard Category:Postcards of Seattle hotels (lowercase "h"). Dropping you a message so this doesn't blindside you. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice. Chris Light (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Similarly: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Postcards_of_snow_in_Seattle&diff=prev&oldid=1128950832 - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Please be more careful

[12], [13], [14]. If I'm finding this many errors on my own photos and categories, you are certainly making others on things I haven't watchlisted. Please slow down and be more careful. - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Postcards of Houses in Queen Anne, Seattle, Washington

This category makes no sense at all. Neither the parent categories nor the category name relate to the contents or to each other. Please work out what you meant to do here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Muckleshoot Canoe Journey Landing at Alki, 2012 (52907422986).jpg

You appear to have added a nonexistent category to this; I'm guessing you meant to add some similarly-named category. The alternative Category:Tribal canoe journeys would make sense, but does not exist. - Jmabel ! talk Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Typo, fixed. Thanks. Chris Light (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Schmitz Park

[15] seems unlikely to be correct. Schmitz Park was not a city park in Frederick Law Olmsted's lifetime. What is the connection? - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, according to the Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks [16] site, the Olmsted Bros.

Olmsted Brothers in 1908 described “Forest Park” as “a densely wooded ravine…valuable for its scenic effects, and for recreation purposes.” Olmsted laid out a trail system, scenic pool and waterfall, comfort station and pergola “to be of rough-hewn timbers stained brown and overgrown with vines.” Schmitz Boulevard originally connected Alki Beach to the secluded native forest. Today the boulevard remnant serves as a walking trail within the park.

Park Commissioner Ferdinand Schmitz donated his land “to be used perpetually…for park purposes…in order that certain natural features be preserved.” Ongoing habitat restoration today is preserving Seattle’s oldest native forest for future generations, thus helping to fulfill Schmitz's vision.

Per: Ott, Jennifer, Andy Mitton, Christine Abbott, Victoria Halligan; Olmsted Park Study; Seattle Parks & Recreation, Section 8; September 1, 2018 Chris Light (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Olmsted Brothers was run by Frederick Law Olmsted's sons, not by Olmsted himself. I'll change it accordingly; otherwise, it's like attributing the '57 Thunderbird to Henry Ford.

If you've done other similar categorization of Olmsted Brothers' projects, you may want to change those as well. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No other attributions of this type, although, the report mentioned, does list several other parks in greater Seattle that were part of an Olmsted Plan. Chris Light (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

All of which I believe have long been under Category:Olmsted Brothers, but if you catch any that aren't, feel free to classify them there. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)