User talk:Railwayfan2005

Welcome to the Commons, Railwayfan2005!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

SieBot 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those wheel arrangement sort orders

Didn't think of it - thanks! Morven 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem - they could do with links back to the main articles on Wikipedia {{en:0-6-0 locomotives}} or similar would do the trick. Railwayfan2005 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hello, you can't redirect categories, see Commons:Rename a category for more information. But we have a bot for moving categories, you can make a request for moving at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands.
BTW, the right place for questions/getting help is Commons:Help desk. --GeorgHH • talk   21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, looks like I've got a few {{category redirect|new name}} to put in. (Perhaps a bot to replace the #REDIRECTS could be created). Railwayfan2005 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Description missing

I (finally) saw your comment for this tag, but I'm not totally clear on what you want? Can you show me an example image that fits the problem? And perhaps would you want to create Template:Author missing that can be used instead of or in addition to the description missing? The actual template that is probably going to be edited is at Template talk:Information which is where the Description missing is included. I think the suggestion is a good one, but it should be proposed there first. If you tell me I actually understand what you want, I'll get started on creating all the pre-work and then we (or you or I) can propose it at the Information page. Sound like a plan? MECU≈talk 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See Image:01 euro cents San Marino.jpg which is in the media lacking a description category, but actual has a valid description but is missing the author. If this could be moved to an "author missing" category I'd be reasonably happy to plough through the remaining images which are genuinely in need of a description and update them. At the moment as there's too many things which have no author which makes it unclear what needs describing... Railwayfan2005 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

oh great...

There is no "UK railway system".

There are two separate systems in the UK, the British (Great Britain) one and part of the Irish system.

There was a point of considering Ireland (both Republic and NI) together. Then plus Great Britain separately.

So moving all the categories into "...of the United Kingdom" was a waste of time and space. Great. Would you mind fixing it back to how it was? Thanks. Dunc|☺ 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The parent category is Category:Rolling stock by country, not Category:Rolling stock by system or Category:Rolling stock by operator. The only other by category is Category:Rolling stock by manufacturer. Railwayfan2005 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rotation

Why do you keep rotatinging images which are correct? The orientation of the title is not allways the orientation of the map.--JIrate 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the map is more important than the title. Railwayfan2005 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bur in some cases you have rotated maps to make the ttle correct at th expense of the map.--JIrate 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? I've just checked my recent contributions and they look ok to me after User:Rotatebot has done its stuff properly (NB: it errored on Image:Hemsworth- Hickleton South- Mexboro'- Moorhouse- South Elmsall- South Kirkby- Swinton- Wath- ath Road & Lowfield RJD 44.jpg and Image:Lowestoft & Yarmouth RJD 43.jpg and has spun these 4 lots of 90°). Railwayfan2005 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yes it's rotabot not you.--JIrate 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

interwiki bot

Hi Railwayfan2005, you might want to leave a comment at Commons:Bots/Requests#Interwiki robot suggestion. Multichill (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ffestiniog

I noticed. It can be done, and I suppose it wouldn't be too taxing, but I'd prefer you wait a few days. I'm still uploading stuff, and hoping for a load more from flickr. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

London Underground

Thank you for your efforts in categorising the pictures. Unfortunately I was very disoriented in London. I used a GPS device to record when and where I was, but that did not helped me much with Underground since no GPS signal was available most of time. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine for me. Thank you again, and sorry if I could not help so much. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

non== MetaCat ==

Is there any documentation about the purpose or consensus of the metacat template and categories, the way it is sorted ? I particularly dislike the big block in front of the useful information. Does it make sense to put that metacat on categories that are full of images (Railways in ...) ? --Foroa (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See {{MetaCat}}. The point is that a meta category should not be full of images - all those images belong in sub categories. The MetaCat tag is to help with finding categories which have should not be populated with images and to act as a guide to robots to tell them to look higher or lower down the tree for the true home for the file. For example, none of the images in Category:Rail transport by country should be there, Astana-lrt-2.jpg (the first file when I looked) belongs in Category:Rail transport in Kazakhstan and needs to be moved. The design of the box can be changed - I think it could be made into a roll-up which would make it less intrusive. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Railwayfan2005, i noticed this edit. I would rather have a special by country template. If i remember right we have over a 1000 by country categories so it is worth the work. Bots could probably have use of it too. I should make it without the parameter, subcategories get created all the time. If you make a nice template i'll give my bot a kick to add it to all the ... by country categories. Multichill (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just needed for the by Country categories, there are also categories by County, by London Borough, by State, etc. that benefit from it. I can't see how to get away from having the parameter - there doesn't seem to be away of getting the number of files back without the total including sub cats at the moment. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but first start with the by country categories. That meta template looks absolutely horrible so a better template whould be nice. You're passing the number of subcategories to find non empty meta categories right? I can have a bot post a list somewhere each day. Much easier and reliable. Multichill (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the design from the {{Category redirect}} and fiddled with the words and the logic. What can be done to make it nicer? (PS Should we take this to the template's talk page?) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent). Faulty documentation corrected and layout much improved, still too intrusive to my taste. I removed a couple of categories from the list as they are not meta categories. A category in which you want personally no images is not necessarily a meta category, so you destroy the credibility. I don't understand the purpose and need for the number of pages in the piped parameter. Anyway, with nearly 1000 new categories per day, this does not make a lot of sense and is impossible to maintain. A bot that corrects them on a daily base is not acceptable (I have hundreds of such categories on my watchlist and don't want to see them changed every day). I think that you would save a lot of wasted energy if you would include the category in other categories per country or people categories. You should clearly document that the associated category counters can be totally off, especially for the ones that use templates to add categories, such as MetaCat... Last week, I checked some of them, and they are really off.--Foroa (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You need the number of pages in the piped parameter because at the moment I don't know how to get back just the file count, the PAGESINCAT magic word gives back sub cats+galleries+files. Any ideas? I'm beginning to doubt the wiseness of the auto-categorisation bit - maybe I should just make it a redirect to {{Subcategorize}}? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant dropping the whole parameter thing. So not a bot to update the template, but a bot to just generate a list somewhere every day. So that's exactly one edit a day. O, btw, we currently have 1973 by country categories. Multichill (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This would work - but you wouldn't get the nice feed back of recategorising the last misplaced file from the cat and seeing it leave from Category:Non-empty meta categories. I did a search and got 37304! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

That adding to and removing of Category:Non-empty meta categories is also a problem. Because this is template based, you're subject to an unknown lag. It could be that a category contains images, but takes weeks before it shows up in Category:Non-empty meta categories. We have the same problem with Category:Non-empty category redirects. I created {{By country category}} and added it to Category:Buildings by country as an example. You get so much results because it also includes all subcategories. Multichill (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You should add the auto-categorisation into Category:Categories by country (you can use {{{1}}} as the sort parameter. Then it's just a robot to update the ~37k categories! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No thank you, I am monitoring more than 10000 categories, so I don't want such regular bot work on it, I just want to see the bots that change categories or other moves. Lag can be many months as I noticed on Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, not to mention counters that remain corrupted for months. --Foroa (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hi! Can you weigh in here with your opinion? Template_talk:By_country_category Ingolfson (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Railways

Hello Railwayfan2005 - can I ask you your opinion on something before I go raring off and again butt heads with user User:ŠJů again? Said user has just "Seecat"ed a number of categories like Category:Railways by country and subcats like Category:Railways in Germany. He has effectively "sneaked in" an inofficial move of the contents of these cats to "railway lines by country".

And that after he just recently fought pretty bitterly with me to keep pre-eminent such categories like "Heritage railways" when all I wanted to do was place a concept category above them! Inconsistent of him to now try to remove "railways" cats, but then I sometimes I do wonder whether he appreciates the distinctions between the terms fully. I have done my own mistakes, but at least mine were (mostly) with fully open-for-discussion move proposals and merge proposals rather than this way through the back door.

Now apart from the fact that I believe such changes should be discussed, I am also asking whether that is something that we should support at all. A "railway" could be either a company OR a railway line. A "railway line" is a much more specific thing. By moving all the companies categories into the subcategories, I think we are lumping things incorrectly.

Sorry if this constant wrangling is frustrating you as much as me. But I wasn't going to go off after ŠJů without sounding off others this time. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the cfd. I agree that a railway is not necessarily a railway line. Midland Railway or Great Western Railway for example.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello Railwayfan - thanks for the suggestions you made regarding the functional (Category:Categories by function) / operational categories in the Rail transport category scheme. I will start to include them in the scheme. Can I ask you - separately, here, since you suggested it - whether we can discuss "operations" vs function?

You proposed "passenger train operations" and similar. Now, if we were doing this all brand new, that would make perfect sense - operations would be a good word to describe it. But in this case, we do already have a whole meta structure built around the words "rail transport" instead of "rail operations" or similar

And "trains", in my opinion, should be a specialised set of subcats (we will deal with their exact position later in the scheme creation?) that concentrates on files regarding whole trains (locomotive+waggons).

So could I convince you that "passenger rail transport" (...and "freight rail transport" and "military rail transport"...) would be a better choice? If you do not agree, could you please spell out your objections? Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on trains - many of the files in the Category:Trains branch need recategorising... "Passenger rail transport" and "military rail transport" are ok. "Freight rail transport" seems to me to be a clumsy (but correct) use of English. I'm struggling to come up with a better version though, the "Merchandise rail transport", "Cargo rail transport" and "Goods rail transport" alternatives are worse (IMO). I've looked in Category:Rail transport by function and its current sub categories are ok except for Category:Logging rail transport. This might be better as Category:Timber rail transport but I really do prefer Category:Timber train operations. In many ways this comes down to "do we really want to change everything we have or go with the status quo?" and this then comes back to "have we got a Robot to do all the changes or is it by hand?"! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

MetaCat

Thanks for creating {{MetaCat}}. Much needed. 71.155.242.65 06:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Driving railway coaches

Category discussion notification

Category:Driving railway coaches 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines

Category discussion notification

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Industrial rail transport

Category discussion notification

Category:Industrial rail transport 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'New Catechism of the Steam Engine', 1904

Please don't add description fields to these images unless you have a source copy of the book (it's pretty well known) and can do it right. Merely duplicating their filenames into the parameter adds no useful content and hides those that have been described.

I'm sorry if I'm not meeting your quality standards by uploading these images with descriptions at the same time, but there's a limit to how much time I can afford. Breaking the automatic categorization so that I can no longer see which have been described properly is far from helpful. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! In exchange though could you remember to use {{En}} to mark the language of the descriptions an English when you get round to them.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified stations/trains

First foray on wikimedia found me participating & identifying.

File:Cockle Creek01.jpg & File:Cockle Creek02.jpg are of Cockle Creek Station on the Newcastle & Central Coast Line, NSW, Australia.

File:MSEC01.jpg, File:MSPajaritos02.jpg & File:MSEcuador01.jpg are of Estación Central, Pajaritos & Ecuador stations (granted I'm going by the file name on this last one) on the Red Line/Line One of the Santiago Metro in Chile.

File:R68 B Train Approaching Kings Highway.JPG is of the New York City Subway, B Sixth Avenue Express line. The car itself is a R68.

Hope this is of help.

(User:Jaydec on Wikipedia) 99.253.243.153 09:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Commons. You should get the Jaydec username on here as well as Wikipedia. I've been trolling through the uncategorised files and putting the ones I recognise into the correct categories. These files were on the todo list! Cheers.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railway lines

Category discussion notification

Category:Railway lines 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Railwayfans

I cant find any category to place railwayfans in. This budding railfan should find a place. File:Liege type 15.JPG Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Gricers? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for Category:Railway enthusiasts as being the most global, otherwise we'd have Category:Gunzels! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh hi

Thanks for the catch here and here. In my defense, I was uploading a lot of stuff in a short space of time. :) Cheers!! Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain

Category discussion notification

Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Give way/Yield

Hi. Regarding Category:Give way signs in the United Kingdom‎ and Category:Yield signs in the United Kingdom categories, please note that in cases that e. g. the British name differs from the American-English name, only one of them is used for all countries worldwide, independently on the text at the sign (also German stop signs are categorized as "Stop signs", not as "Halt signs"). It may be difficult to decide which from them should be preferred, but the name of the parent category should be kept for all country subcategories and the name at Commons should correspond to the name at English Wikipedia, if possible. --ŠJů (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

the name of the parent category should be kept for all country subcategories

Why?

This is a ridiculous idea. A pointless invention by someone who doesn't understand how MediaWiki works. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why ridiculous? Why pointless? Why "invented by someone who doesn't understand how MediaWiki works"? In my opinion, it is very useful to build the category system as methodical and well-arranged. Worldwide unification of synonymic terms in the category tree is a well-established way. Fully compatible with MediaWiki, btw. --ŠJů (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

However, we have category redirects her to allow us to deal with local anomalies. Provided the Category:Yield signs in the United Kingdom remains as a redirect to Category:Give way signs in the United Kingdom‎ both parties are satisfied. HTH Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have category redirects to allow redirect from locally anomalous synonyms to the systematic category name. Such redirect which should "satisfy both parties" existed already before the change you made. --ŠJů (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous: Creating a neologism (is this even a neologism? a 'protologism'?) that has no meaning to UK readers and will be misunderstood by them. That makes a worse encyclopedia.

Pointless: Nothing about MediaWiki requires us to do this. Doing it conveys no benefit. All MediaWiki needs is that we list the supercat in the category's page. It could be called "Big tin can lid belong Mr Plod. He get angry fella go past." for all MediaWiki cares.

The category redirect, if it is to exist at all, should be from the new fabrication to the real name. Then anyone from the hypothetical group of users who have algorithmically created a page name to look for (this is bizarre and an empty group of users, but it's the only group that would be affected by this) can then hit the redirect on their way through to the real page. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that MediaWiki enables us to create also unsystematic or nonsensical category names doesn't mean that we have to do so.

The fact that some UK readers are not able to understand (or accept?) US English (or conversely) doesn't mean that established US terms are "neologisms" or "protologisms" or "new fabrications". Such naming shows rather an ignorance than a sober consideration. The fact that Commons is in English doesn't mean that ever English-language user should endorse his own local dialect or variant of English language. First and foremost, the terminology of Commons categories should be unified. That's why Commons is in English (beside the fact that it is a project of US origin). That's an important quality and principle which can make Commons more understandable and usable not only for UK users but primarily for all world users. Naturally, UK or US users have to accept that not all terms used here are from their own local language habits. All non-English users have to accept the same thing. But this unification has more advantages than disadvantages. --ŠJů (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of English category names on Commons is a fudge. It should not be necessary for force a user to navigate in a non-native language. The ability to use names in multiple languages for the same category is eagerly awaited. In the mean time though, the issue with Category:Give way signs in the United Kingdom‎ is exactly the same as Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom or Category:Lifts in the United Kingdom Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A4_road_(United_Kingdom)

A4_road_(United_Kingdom) has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Vibhijain (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories

When you come across an image showing a disused line (e.g. here), it would be useful if you could also categorise it in the relevant line article cat or, if you're not sure, just put it in the "Rail transport in...." for whichever county is appropriate. Ravenseft (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Atomium at night.jpg

Hi, for FOP related cases please use regular DRs, speedy deletion is not suitable for such cases. Jcb (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The comments at Category:Atomium and Atomium make it clear that these images are copy vios. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Road categories

Hi,

I notice you've just created Category:A roads in the United Kingdom by Number (flat list), and a similar one for B roads. The nature of these categories is fine, however the name isn't really.

Convention for meta categories is to just have "subject by whatever" - so in this case Category:A roads in the United Kingdom by number is the preferred form. The "Flat list" is redundant.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't spot the uppercase N was wrong. As for the "flat list", I've lost touch with where this debate had got to. When I last checked all the cats which are flat lists (ie list every item without further subcategorisation) were labelled as such. We need to avoid creating any further intermediate subcategories of Category:A roads in the United Kingdom by number (ie Category:A roads the Kent by number)as they are redundant.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the by county by number categories aren't really needed and it wouldn't be appropriate to depopulate the UK category to fill them - there's no need to add the "flat list" to protect against that risk IMO. Category:Ships by IMO number and Category:People by name are flat lists and the only subcats are the content categories.

On a sort-of related note, I reverted your addition of Roads in Dorset to the A303 category. To me, there are two logical options for a specific routes parents: (a) Include only those that contain the entire route (England), or (b) include all those areas the road passes through. Adding Dorset but not adding Hampshire, Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon is not helpful (especially as only a tiny bit of the A303 is in Dorset).

I'm not a fan of option (b), though I know that is standard approach. The reason I prefer (a) is if the road category is contained in all its parent counties it becomes much more difficult to identify an image of that road in a specific area, and it also complicates looking for a generic road in that area too.

The reason for my different preference is that the default is based on WP norms. The A303 is an encyclopedic topic, the A303 in Wiltshire is not. However the A303 in Wiltshire is worthy of its own category on Commons - that sub-cat and not the whole road would have the county level parent.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going through county by county adding the actual roads to the Roads in ... cats. Eventually the A303 would appear in all the relevant counties. The problem with option (a) is that major roads would never appear in the counties they serve and anybody looking, say, in Roads in Hampshire is not going to find the A303. If there are sufficient files to warrant, the A303 cat could be split down - A303 road in Hampshire etc, but to do this is a task I propose to bequeath to future Wikipedians. The generic road problem should be addressed by creating a gallery to show off the roads of Wiltshire. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that's a similar end goal (road in county subcats) ;) I certainly agree trying to get to there in one step is far too much work too! The gallery idea is a sound one too.

At the intermediate stage: Should someone starting at Category:Roads in Hampshire find Category:A303 road (England) as a sub-category? The two concepts are related but its not a parent/child relation. A user looking for Hampshire roads will be directly interested in this, but not this.

If option (a) is followed, and each file is also placed in the right Roads in county category, then category intersects work. This enables you to find only pictures of the A303 in Hampshire which is "easy" (if you know how) - and that intersection can used by bots to create the subcat. A user who can't use the intersect tool can in theory find pictures of the A303 in the Hampshire cat, but are going to struggle to find any in practice as the A303 is a small fraction of Hampshire's roads...

On the other hand, option (b) immediately gets you get to all the A303 pics in Hampshire, but will find you plenty of pictures you aren't bothered about. The signal-to-noise ratio will be lower, and you should be able to find an image of the A303 in Hampshire more rapidly (without tool usage). However, it makes it harder to create a county-level subcat, as category intersection would fail. This means bots couldn't help out, and it would be a tedious task with Cat-a-Lot.

I'm not sure which of the two above approaches is best: (a) is possibly better as a precursor in the long term, but (b) gets more usable content in the short term.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Roads in Kent, the one I'm currently investigating already has 2,756 files in it, this is far too many for it to be of use as an (a) example. The majority of these seem to also be in a geographic or locality category that falls under Kent (ie Folkestone, or Canterbury). This probably is of no help at the moment as doing the category intersection and traversing the tree back to the required level is not possible (AFAIK), but this would make the Roads in Kent categorisation redundant (it also makes M25 in Kent redundant) - to find a suitable file you need only specify +M25 +Kent. I think this is in the wishful thinking stage at the moment, but I'm sure we'll get there someday. Otherwise we'll end up will silly cats like Red Ford Fiestas on the M25 in Kent by night because there's a need to split these from Red Ford Fiestas on the M25 in Kent by day, Blue Ford Fiestas on the M25 in Kent by night and Red Ford Fiestas on the M26 in Kent by night... A lot of files have been sourced from Geograph and have been poorly categorised by a bot. Proactive creation of the road in county categories would have helped this and left much less work to do. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can traverse several steps up the category tree, but it takes a while to do so. For instance, query finds the A roads of Devon, but takes too long to run when you hit the "Do it" button to be a viable tool for people after content, as opposed to categorising. If the files are categorised to the most precise location, in addition to the most precise subject, intersects can become very powerful tools. You can get the <subject> in <location> set for any combination: You could find any of {A20, A roads, Roads} in {Sellindge, Shepway, Kent}. If any of those intersects are important enough they can be created using that data.

Given the sheer quantity of content from Geograph, I think we will end up splitting most individual road categories down. Right now - I think the big problem is getting the basic categorisation in place (How many pics of the A303 are there on Commons? I don't know).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] gives 510 hits for A303, including things that are not the road itself and excluding things which are the A303 by another name. If you want to split the A303 cat down then be BOLD. If not I can't see a good reason why A303 is not a sub cat to Roads of all the counties it passes through. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That search isn't that useful as answer to my question for reasons you identify, the best answer to question we can get at this time is "a few hundred". This why we need categories, of course.

The drawback is the logical results for files in the A303's category. If its a photo of the road, its only a photo of one county but its categorised as relating to all of them. That isn't a big deal, if the files also have the right geographic info (typically provided by a location category). I'm less sure about edits like this. The A303 category encapsulates the concepts "Roads in Dorset", "Roads in Wiltshire" etc, so that edit means the fact that that image relates to the concept "Roads in Dorset" is lost (and can only be recovered by a high-level cat intersect).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm just about to close a loop here, but it's a picture of the A303 so it goes in the A303 category. The A303 is a Road in Dorset so the A303 category goes in the the Roads in Dorset category. To put this picture into Roads in Dorset directly would then be over categorisation. The fact that there is quite a bit of Dorset shown in the picture justifies its inclusion in the geographic category, which is Bourton, Dorset. (Judging by the location link there's a reasonable quantity of Somerset also shown in background of the picture.) I can't see anything wrong with the basic categorisation of that picture. (It could be put into a categories for lay-bys if such a thing exists, or a category for foot bridges.) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's my point here. The A303 is a road in Dorset, but it is also a road in Hampshire, Wiltshire... COM:OVERCAT, says each file should be placed in its most specific categories. Not all roads in Dorset are the A303, not all of the A303 is in Dorset. This means, logically, the concept "A303" is not more or less specific than the concept "Roads in Dorset", as each is partially contained in the other.

Keeping the Roads in Dorset category adds value to that image, as that tells you it is a "Road in Dorset". That's something you cannot tell from the A303 category, as the A303 passes through several counties so you cannot tell if that image is of a "Road in Dorset" or a "Road in Devon" or... That added value means it is not over-categorisation.

As for categories that could be added to that file, you missed dual carriageways (in Dorset), four lane roads (in Dorset), primary routes (in Dorset) - all valuable concepts that don't even have a UK-wide category. I wouldn't bother with any Somerset or footbridge cat as they are insignificant background elements of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Category:A353 road (England) and its contents then? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The A353 is wholly contained within Dorset (which is a major difference from partially contained), so adding "Roads in Dorset" to those files in that category adds nothing, as the A353 is in Dorset and nowhere else. That means the fact its in the A353 category alone it enough to tell you an image is of a "road in Dorset". However, if Category:Roads in Weymouth, Dorset was created it would make sense to add that to this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:A303 road in Dorset, Category:A303 road in Hampshire, Category:A303 road in Wiltshire, Category:A303 road in Somerset, Category:A303 road in Devon it is then. All as sub cats to Category:A303 road (England) and their obvious Roads in ... cats. Category:Streets in Weymouth, Dorset already exists, so some parts of the A353 category must belong in there. The current schema of categorisation really doen't work very well does it. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know - the current scheme sucks IMO, and its a good thing that the classified roads are getting their imagery tagged. We have a particular problem in UK caused by the Geograph upload swamping our ability to categorise UK content effectively. <linear feature> in <geographic area> does seem to be the standard resolution outside the UK - eg Category:Mississippi River and Category:Interstate 40. I'm in process of splitting Category:South West Coast Path in that manner. The good news is, if all the images of the A303 are marked as being of the A303, the geographic categories should be enough to split it up by bot (ditto the others).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Shall I create the 5 sub cats then and put a {{Catdiffuse}} on Category:A303 road (England)?

Makes sense to me. The A303 should give an indicator of how hard it will be for the other roads too.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done (for now). I can confirm checking every image using Open Street map is slow. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

High Elms arboretum

I see that you have put the images relating to High Elms Country Park in Category:High Elms arboretum and removed them from Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in London. This is wrong as only one of the images is of the arboretum and High Elms is part of a London SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll rename it to Category:High Elms Country Park. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Making Greenwich Royal

Hi, thankyou for creating Template:London subdivisions categories this template has proved very useful in categorising London images. can I ask you to change "in the London Borough of Greenwich" to "in the Royal Borough of Greenwich" to reflect the change of borough name which took place on 3 February 2012. I don't seem to be able to edit this template myself for some reason, also another editor has attempted to make this change Oxyman (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change, can somebody run a bot to move all the categories over...Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have put a request to move the cats on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If that fails to work I will have to move them individually which will take a bit longer Oxyman (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The real hassle is all the {{Commonscat}} links out in Wikipedia.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, I rarely edit wikipedia Oxyman (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Steam locomotives of Britain by railway

Category discussion notification

Category:Steam locomotives of Britain by railway 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/02/Category:Steam locomotives of Britain by railway.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Identified steam locomotives

Hi - why have you moved a large number of photographs that are clearly identified into Category:Unidentified steam locomotives of the United Kingdom? I can see no reason for this.  An optimist on the run! 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Because they we just dropped into Category:Steam locomotives of the United Kingdom or Category:Steam locomotives of Britain and the need to be moved into categories such as Category:LNWR Webb Cauliflower class. The "unidentified" category is just being used as a staging point - if you can put them in the correct categories by eye then go ahead and do so. I'm slowly working through the files moving them but as steam is not my thing it takes time 'cos I have to look everything up to understand where it belongs. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take care to place these into the correct categories, don't just remove then from the unidentified cat. I know you've repeatedly said that categories are unimportant and that you have no interest in them, but some readers do expect them to be correct.

I was checking some today: of the [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] six you'd placed into one of the Black 5 categories, all six were in the wrong cat. These are for photos with accurate titles and visible cab numbers too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never said categories are unimportant, in fact categorisation is pretty much all I do on here. But categories need to be useful, especially meta categories. Sorry about 44871's photos, must have been having an off day when I did those.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put images Category:Unidentified steam locomotives of the United Kingdom; this is not a holding category, but for photos that have not been identified by anyone. Also, it is a lot easier to use tools like Hotcat to drop an image into a sub-category than it is to raise it up and down another path. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's only possible to us Hotcat's ↓ if you understand the structure of the tree and the history of the loco concerned. Category:LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871 is fine example of this, none of the pictures in this category have the loco in it's LMS guise, they are all of it as 44871. Searching for categories containing 44871 returns one match, Category:William Jennings Bryan. Given this it's no wonder that images end up in Category:Steam locomotives of Britain and similar categories. Category:Unidentified steam locomotives of the United Kingdom makes a perfectly fine category for holding these images until we put them in their correct places. Once it's empty let's keep it empty. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Railwayfan2005⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Railwayfan2005,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cat1to9

Template:Cat1to9 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

PanchoS (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Victoria_Bus_Station

Victoria Bus Station 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!

77.98.112.29 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wrong date

Template:Wrong date has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

   FDMS  4    21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:The B3699 crosses water, again^ - geograph.org.uk - 828506.jpg

The renaming template is: {{rename|new name|number of renaming Criterion|verbal explanation|user=}}, for example: {{rename|The B3699 crosses water - geograph.org.uk - 828506.jpg|3|wrong number|user=Railwayfan2005}}
Number of Criterion you can find on the Commons:File_renaming site. When you are an uploader, the best is Criterion #1, uploaders have special favours ;-)
Good luck! Wieralee (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

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

Dear Railwayfan2005,

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

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

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

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

Click here to vote »

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

Category:Bridges over the Medway

Bridges over the Medway 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!

--Choess (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wales subdivisions categories

Template:Wales subdivisions categories has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations served by South West Trains

Hi there, I see you've edited Category:Railway stations served by South West Trains, and I'm wondering if you would get involved in renaming the category in light of SWT being replaced by SWR? Cheers Margery Armitage (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

... for adding sort keys to my photos of DBAG Class 182! When I´ve uploaded my collection of train photos to Commons I dont know about this categorization feature. So Im sorry about don´t categorize the other photos. And now it would be so much work. If you want to categorize more of my pictures, I want to give you the information that I´ve uploaded them sorted by class number, for example class 101, 143, 182, ... Class 101 I´ve categorized with sort keys today. If you won´t add sort keys anymore to sooo many of my pictures I could understand that very good ;). But Thanks for beginning! --Pedalito (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's a good excuse for browsing your pictures. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A winner is you

		The Category Barnstar
		Thank you for your determined categorisation work! You show up on my watchlist a lot but it's only after looking at your contributions that I see just HOW MUCH work you put in. Spectacular! Lewis Collard! (talk). 17:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I just needed something to do during Lockdown. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel it! And that was indeed something and a great contribution to the Commons :) Lewis Collard! (talk). 18:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:British_Rail_Class_87_87019_(EVN_91_52_0087_019-3)

British Rail Class 87 87019 (EVN 91 52 0087 019-3) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:B4084 road (England)

Hi, I know you made this change 6 years ago now, but I'm just interested: why did you put this as a subcat of Category:A44 road (Great Britain)? I don't think that should be a subcat of A44, although I'm a little unfamiliar with how things work around here so I may be completely wrong. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The B4084 is a section of the A44 which was bypassed. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename requests

Hi, you did two requests with a name that already excists. I improvised a little, so I could rename them. If you want another name, please request them again and refer to this talk. Thanks, regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank's, I'm sure you did fine :-) I think I actually tried to rename 3 badly names files to the new same thing as they had the same description. If you want to see the true horror check out [9] Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:B545_road_(England)

Category:B545_road_(England) 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!

Pelican860 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:A1220_road_(England)

Category:A1220_road_(England) 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!

Pelican860 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:A2069_road_(England)

Category:A2069_road_(England) 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!

Pelican860 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:A6214_road_(Great_Britain)

Category:A6214_road_(Great_Britain) 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!

Pelican860 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:B2069_road_(England)

Category:B2069_road_(England) 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!

Pelican860 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Invergordon 20210923 080655.jpg

And also:

• File:Invergordon 20210923 081152.jpg
• File:Invergordon 20210923 081535.jpg
• File:Invergordon 20210923 084614.jpg
• File:Invergordon 20210923 084723.jpg
• File:Invergordon 20210923 084734.jpg
• File:Invergordon 20210923 085209.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:B5401_road_(Wales)

Category:B5401_road_(Wales) 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!

Peter James (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)