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

• Speedy Deletions

{{speedy|Standardizing categories, this is now a duplicate}}

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)

Category:Sergeant_Floyd_Welcome_Center

Sergeant Floyd Welcome Center 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!

Ammodramus (talk) 01:59, 26 April 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 listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - 2016

Why does this particular conjunction of place and year get a separate category? - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good Question. I created this category, because, the Viaduct is coming down beginning in 2017 or 2018. Thus, this may be the last year that it stands. May be a poor reason, and I wouldn't have a problem with it being consolidated.--Chris Light (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take this back apart. We have photos of the viaduct from almost every year in the last 20, and except for the removal of the southern part of the viaduct below Pioneer Square, it hasn't changed much visually. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Okay. --Chris Light (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

DRs of categories

Hi Chris, if you want one of your categories to be deleted, please do not use the "big" deletion request procedure but just add {{speedy|empty}} on top of the cat page. That makes it a bit easier for us and in addition it will work faster. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2019 (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)

File:Public Art 848.jpg

File:Public Art 848.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue Atlas Cedar 160.jpg

File:Blue Atlas Cedar 160.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

MPF (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue Atlas Cedar 181.jpg

File:Blue Atlas Cedar 181.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

MPF (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2019 (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: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)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chris Light,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

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) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (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)

Category:Convair_F-102B_Delta_Dagger

Convair F-102B Delta Dagger 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!

Nimbus227 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Russian Thistle P5310693.jpg

File:Russian Thistle P5310693.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

File:Lake Wauhob Beach PA230090.jpg

File:Lake Wauhob Beach PA230090.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Mural 2019-04-13 037.jpg

File:Mural 2019-04-13 037.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 9 September 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)

File:Dunkleosteus 2016-05-08 084.jpg

File:Dunkleosteus 2016-05-08 084.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 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

File:Station Map 19-05-23 722.jpg

File:Station Map 19-05-23 722.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Renardo la vulpo (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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 stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

  — 🇺🇦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)