User talk:Joshbaumgartner

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

Category:Hackerspaces_by_country_of_location

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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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

Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Usaf serial

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

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

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

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

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

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

DDR Kategorien

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

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

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

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

Please help to remove an improper category

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

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

Subcategories in Groups of XYZ

Hi Josh

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

@Tpe.g5.stan: Yes, they certainly should--I see you added a few already. The names of those probably need to change, so I would Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 48 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 48 seats , for example, but that's a separate issue. Thanks! Josh (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Josh, It's a lot of work you've done with the new templates bee the "Category:Archaeological sites". But I don't find them really useful, the old templates that were at the top are much clearer. Best regard, Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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

"Countries of <continent> by name" categories

Hi, Josh. About these categories you recently created:

• Category:Countries of Central Africa by name
• Category:Countries of Africa by name
• Category:Countries of Europe by name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Category by criteria where theeach sub-categoriesy covers a number of topics = Meta-category
• Category by criteria where theeach sub-categoriesy covers a single topic = Not a Meta-category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category navigation again

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

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

300WSM photo

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

year books from country

Hi!

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

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

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

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

Category:Women_wearing_complete_bikinis

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

XxakixX (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Roundel of Cambodia (1976–1979).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

LieutenantThanon (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Country_subdivisions_by_name

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

Auntof6 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

category:Mirage 5 by year

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

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

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

• It's OK. Thanks :) Wieralee (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Explanation of Drawings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Topic in country

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

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

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

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

Many thanks... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Essentially, this code means the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, you seem out to make this difficult.

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

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

Template:Group quantity adjective subject

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

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

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

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

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

Template:People wearing clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aircraft type naming conventions

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

Category:Clothed_babies

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

Headlock0225 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Umkategorisierungen

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

• @C.Suthorn: Thanks, placing JPGs in that category was an error and they have now been moved. As for images showing people taking selfies, those were left in Selfies at Venus Berlin 2019, so I'm not sure what destruction you are referring to. Do you have an example of a selfie that should be included but was removed that we can look at? I removed images such as File:Venus Berlin 2019 792.jpg, as they neither are selfies themselves nor depict people taking selfies. If I accidentaly removed one that was actually a selfie, I'm happy to review it and correct it. Josh (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Re No 792. It is a visitor posing for an image. He could have used a selfie stick, but instead had someone else taking the photo on his behalf. This may technially not be a selfie. But as the (not visible) person taking a photo is acting on his behalf, this is from a content perspective a self portrait he is posing for. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Categorizing images without nude people as "nude"

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

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

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

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

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

@Infrogmation: Oh I see, and yes I agree--in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle , images should be categorized in as precise a category as possible. Images in a 'female humans' category should ideally be sorted into 'girls' or 'women' subcats in any case where age is determined. Josh (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)