User talk:Rathfelder

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Rathfelder!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Image without license

File:A&E Attendances.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

File:4 Hour waits 2011-2018.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Eddy O'Sullivan.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eddy O'Sullivan.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Eddy O'Sullivan.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Strakhov (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Eddy O'Sullivan.jpg

File:Eddy O'Sullivan.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!

Strakhov (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Advertisment for Yalda night.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Advertisment for Yalda night.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Hanooz 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Michael English.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Michael English.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

AlbanGeller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Jeremy Corbyn security risk.jpg

File:Jeremy Corbyn security risk.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) 06:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Labour's five year pledge.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Labour's five year pledge.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

A1Cafel (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lego?

Could you explain the circumstances behind that photo of a child with Lego in 1957? Thanks. DS (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

my dad brought it back from Switzerland 148.252.35.14 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So that's you in the photo, with Lego? Photo taken by your dad? DS (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've amended the photo's metadata accordingly. DS (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Old Age Pensions.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Old Age Pensions.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Belbury (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The image dates from 1911, or maybe earlier, so should be free of copyright. It is in the possession of the People's History Museum in Manchester. I am afraid I cannot see how I am supposed to edit the file to include this information Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Horlicks advertisment in India.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Horlicks advertisment in India.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Trauma care advert.jpg

File:Trauma care advert.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photograph of poster Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Belbury (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Portrait of James Maxton.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Portrait of James Maxton.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Belbury (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Maxton died in 1946 so I think the copyright has expired. Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Aerial view of central Manchester hospitals.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Aerial view of central Manchester hospitals.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Belbury (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This picture is owned by Manchester University Foundation Trust, which is a British public body. I understand that publicly owned images can be reproduced freely. Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe Commons only accepts UK government works created prior to 1973, under crown copyright.

If that's what you're claiming (I'm afraid don't remember how old this aerial photograph was), you should use the {{PD-UKGov}} template when uploading an image, rather than describing the image as being licenced as Creative Commons Attribution. Belbury (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (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:Kaufman tribute.jpg

And also:

• File:Mike Deegan.jpg
• File:Intercity advert.jpg

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File tagging File:Integrated care system committees.png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Integrated care system committees.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Integrated care system committees.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Belbury (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Private renting sector by age of household reference person, 2007 and 2017, UK.png

Copyright status: File:Private renting sector by age of household reference person, 2007 and 2017, UK.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Private renting sector by age of household reference person, 2007 and 2017, UK.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{self|cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

License at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Why is this not listed as is the similar rule for the USA?

It has a link to https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukprivaterentedsector/2018 where it comes from. Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ward boundary change.png

Copyright status: File:Ward boundary change.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ward boundary change.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{self|cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Its is covered by the the Open Government Licence - as appears on the page it is taken from.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Why is this not listed, when the American equivalent is? Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

File:National Eisteddfod of Wales 1929 poster.jpg

File:National Eisteddfod of Wales 1929 poster.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!

Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

File:History is written by the winner.jpg

File:History is written by the winner.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) 04:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Patent medicines

Not sure I agree with this one. Only two images here have anything to do with patent medicine. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There isnt a clear definition of patent medicine, but some of these images were categorised that way. I think we should generally keep all the stuff about one company together. Rathfelder (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Punch cartoons

Why have you removed a number of Punch magazine cartoons, such as File:George Lorraine Stampa - Cricket... - circa 1930.jpg, from Category:Punch magazine cartoons? This does not seem correct. Please restore them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

i have made categories for punch cartoons for each year. There are thousands of them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You have made a bunch of categories like Category:Punch, 1930, but they don't appear to be for cartoons. There is more to Punch than just cartoons, and I would expect to find images of adverts, PDFs of text articles, and whole issues or volumes, in categories named in that manner.

Category:Punch, 1930 is not categorised in Category:Punch magazine cartoons (though, oddly, it is in Category:1930 caricatures of the United Kingdom).

This is not good. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I didnt create most of them. I only added a few missing years. But they mostly contain nothing but caricatures. Its generally acceptable to run categories like that, where the vast majority of the contents are properly categorised. Category:Punch magazine cartoons only had a minority of the files, of which there are several thousand, and they clearly needed further categorisation. By year seemed the obvious way. Do you have a better suggestion? I dont understand that you are saying about Category:Punch, 1930 Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#User unilaterally changing and emptying categories, not responding to others' concerns. Concerning editing pattern.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Category change

Hi, I just noticed this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Quintino_Sella_6.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=967614138 It's a lintel inscription tho (most doors in that village have one), not a plaque. Are you sure is the proper category for it? Ivanbranco (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better category? Rathfelder (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Category:Number 1814 on objects" I would say Ivanbranco (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

do you think this is the year they were built? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

British military decade categories

Hello, and seasons greetings! I noticed that you created Category:British Armed Forces by decade, Category:British Army by century, and other similar categories. However, you seem to have made significant errors - specifically regarding Category:British Armed Forces by decade. Instead of adding the required 'British Armed Forces' year cats, you actually added the British Army year cats - which is obviously wrong! I'm not sure if that was just a simple error, which then ran away with a head of steam - but whatever the cause - it is fundamentally incorrect!

Can I kindly ask that you refrain from making any more of these decade cats - especially as there are established templates to create these. I'm happy to offer assistance on structures of the British military if you wish. Anyway, kind regards and best wishes. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I would much prefer using a template for these sorts of categories, but I dont know how to - nor how to amend templates. Help would be very welcome. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers by year of establishment

Given that Category:Newspapers by year of establishment was redirected to Category:Newspapers by year (unilaterally by Allforrous, as far as I can tell), this seems odd. If you think Category:Newspapers by year should not be used this way, I'm inclined to recreate Category:Newspapers by year of establishment. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between Newspapers established in year x, and Newspapers in year x. The establishment categories should really be for newspapers which have their own category. Newspapers in year x is full of pages, articles and clips. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I just wasn't going to fight about conflating the two, but eliminating this completely is just not OK. Thanks for your edit to the category. - 02:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:22 November

Hi Rathfelder, you have removed Category:22 November from Category:Military diploma issued to Gaius Lucii filius (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMilitary_diploma_issued_to_Gaius_Lucii_filius&diff=1001492492&oldid=1001492481). The diploma is dated 22 November 139 as you can see from the comment a(nte) d(iem) X K(alendas) Dec(embres) M(arco) Ceccio Iustino C(aio) Iulio Basso co(n)s(ulibus). Since I see no valid reason for your removal, I will undo your change. Cheers Agentjoerg (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

But the day of the year, in itself, is not significant. It has nothing in common with the other things in Category:22 November - quite a few of which also shouldnt be there. Categories are supposed to be defining. 139 is much more defining. You could add it to Category:November by year if you think its significant. Rathfelder (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing in common with the other things in Category:22 November. That's basically true for all those entries in that category, like Category:Liberty Day in Ukraine or Category:22 November postmarks etc. etc. Since the exact date is used for a lot of ancient inscriptions, diplomas etc. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. --Agentjoerg (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

well make a category for the date itself if you think its significant. You arent suggesting that anything similar happened on 22 November in other years, are you?

This file is actually in Category:CIL XVI 000087 which is already in 22 November. Categories are heirarchical. Only the superior category should be here. Rathfelder (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sloppy categorizing

Not only does Category:1995 – Birth of Web have nothing to do with actual computing (it's an entirely fictional "art" project), but you didn't even assign it to the right year. Nosferattus (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I found it confusing. Should it be assigned to a date? Rathfelder (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Year categories

Hi, with File:At La Palma 2021 0146.jpg, I saw you moved it from Category:1992 to Category:1992 in Spain, and then removed that category. The photographed object says 1992 on it, is there a better way I should categorise that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Its in Category:Faro de Arenas Blancas and that is categorised by dates, so this files doesnt need a date. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but that's categorised in 1993... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

maybe the main category should be in 1992? Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Decade by category

Hello, the English is a translation.sorry.

It seems that Template:Decade by category was deleted from Category:Racehorses of Japan born in the 2020s, but I'm not sure why.

I'd like to put it back, but do you have any objections?--Ocdp (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont see what effect it would have. Can you explain? Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be more convenient if there was an Template:Decade by category that allowed you to select each era. I would like to go back to this version.--Ocdp (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

That put them all in the category 2020s. they should be in Japan in the 2020s . Rathfelder (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Would it be okay to say that you would not be opposed to the installation if it fits within Japan in the 2020s rather than the 2020s?--Ocdp (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly yes! Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Ocdp (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you removing date categories from files?

Is there some consensus for this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I am putting documents and books files into years by country. what are you worrying about? Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You are removing date categories. That's what was asking about in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

what date categories have I removed? I have created large numbers of categories for books and documents by year and country. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

E.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Born_in_1953.pdf&diff=prev&oldid=1058186698 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont see that the exact date of publication for works like this is meaningful or significant. Publishing is a process, more than an event. Categories are supposed to be defining. This does not fit with the other entries in Category:2018-11-28. When people discuss books they mention the year of the publication, not the day, unless the day is exceptionally significant. We have thousands of publications with no year categorisation. I think that is where we should focus our efforts. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"Is there some consensus for this?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of files of books and documents. Very few categorised by exact date. Rathfelder (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

""Is there some consensus for this?"" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. I am formally requesting that you please stop removing date categories from files for documents re: their publication dates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

How do you think consensus could be established? The vast majority of these files do not have dates, either here or in real life. Libraries do not record days of publication. Individual day categories are for events. Publication days are rarely seen as events. I think it is for you to establish a consensus for your view. Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why communication is like this with you repeatedly where I ask you a simple yes or no question over and over again and then you don't actually answer it, but that makes it difficult for me to collaborate. If you're not sure what consensus is or how to establish it, then collaborating seems like it will also be very difficult. Have you never seen the many discussion boards here on Wikimedia Commons? Many documents are clearly published on a given date, so the publication of the document is an "event". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So has this issue ever been publicly discussed? As fewer than 1% of book files have a date I think the consensus is that we dont normally put dates on them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Fewer than 1% of files have a description in Korean. Do you think that means that we have communally decided to not have Korean descriptions here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I do have to agree here with Rathfelder, that the exact publishing date (YYYY-MM-DD) for books is usually meaningless, and can be removed safely IF that is the case. On the other hand, having a category with such a date doesn't hurt, so it can be safely left with the publication, too.

At the same time, I urge for caution and agree with Justin, because several publications have good reasons to have dates: Periodicals like newspapers and magazines which are published more than once a year, should importantly have the exact date. Another case are books that describe certain events, when those events do not have a category on their own - like "book about a speech/sermon held on day..." That would refer not the publishing date, and would be an important category that should not get removed.

I am sure that Rathfelder knows that just a few years ago, no books at all were categorized by publication year+location. There were still 50x more "Books published in London" than "Books published in London by year", when I last checked. Yet Rathfelder's work here is urgently needed. So if there need to be arguments on dates, bring it to the village pump. --Enyavar (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you removing dates from files?

Why are you removing dates from books? What's the point in this action? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am putting books into Category:Books by country by year. Rathfelder (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That does not require removing dates. Why are you removing dates? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Books are categorised by year, not by exact dates. Publishing a book takes more than a day. Rathfelder (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Bοήθεια για τις συνεισφορές μου στο commons

Καλησπέρα από την Ζάκυνθο της Ελλάδας ! Ευχαριστώ για τις μέχρι σήμερα διορθώσεις ! Αν μπορείς λόγω χρόνου και διάθεσης κάνε μια εξερεύνηση να τις Δείτε (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/%CE%9A%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B7%CF%82) και να Μού γράψεις για τυχόν παρατηρήσεις σας, θα είναι ωφέλιμο για την προσπάθειά μου ! Σε ευχαριστώ ! Κόμης Διονύσης (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

BMJ renames

Why are you renaming categories to titles like "Category:British Medical Journal, 2025" rather than "Category:BMJ, 2025", when the parent is Category:The BMJ and the title of the actual publication is "The BMJ"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

because there were 34 subcategories like British Medical Journal, 1908 and only 2 like BMJ 2025. It used to be called the British Medical Journal. I think we should be consistent, and British Medical Journal is more meaningful. Rathfelder (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Category removal

Why did you remove Category:English-language scientific journals? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The convention is that we only categorise works by language if they are not what would be expected, or in places where there are several languages. Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did you get this information? See also Languages of the United States. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Long experience. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is actually a convention in practice and we shouldn't be removing works by language. No one needs to be obliged to guess at that based on geography and it doesn't help anyone to remove it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

But it isnt practical to categorise many thousands of publications from USA and UK by English language. I dontn think there are any publications from Germany which are not in German. There are some publications from USA which arent in English- but not many- and it makes sense to categorise them by languages. This is not just about scientific journals. At present very few publications are categorised by language, and actually those where language might be significant are not those in English. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If there are very few categorized by language, then we need to add categories, not take any away. If a category gets too big to navigate, then we break it into subcategories, not uncategorize the files in it. This is another example of your mass changes to unilaterally impose a policy on categorization that is not consensus nor is it helpful. Over and over again, you've argued "We don't have very much x" as justification for removing what we do have. See above where I wrote "Fewer than 1% of files have a description in Korean. Do you think that means that we have communally decided to not have Korean descriptions here?" and you just ignored that: that's a perfect example of your frustrating editing. This is not an appropriate or helpful way to edit and it makes more work for others in addition to undoing the work that they've already done. Please stop crafting policy that you implement solo. If you think there is some systemic problem with the site, open a discussion about it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I am following what is clearly common practice. I guess less than 1% of publications are categorised by language. It seems you want to change it, so I think you need to make a proposal for discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to make a proposal: the categorization scheme already exists, it just needs to be implemented. Please actually answer the question I asked you back in July. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to be defining. In most countries the language of a publication is defined by the country of publication. But not everywhere - Canada, Belgium, India, Spain, Switzerland, and no doubt others where there is more than one language in common use - it seems worthwhile to specify language. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is you inventing policy again. Where does Commons:Categories say this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not inventing anything. I am observing practice. And I do agree with you to some extent. In places where the language of a publication is notable it is worth categorising. But in most places the country of publication determines the language. Rathfelder (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Please actually answer the question I asked you back in July." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Remind me of the question please. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Fewer than 1% of files have a description in Korean. Do you think that means that we have communally decided to not have Korean descriptions here?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Most file descriptions, other than those from China, are in English. So perhaps we have. Wikipedia exists in a world where English has become the default international language. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting you say that, since a majority of scientific journals in many fields publish in English, even if they are published in places that are not English majority and yet, you just argued above that we should implicitly infer language from location. And, no, we have not decided that: your reasoning is wrong. We just haven't gotten around to it, not decided that we shouldn't do it. Please stop removing categories and undoing others' work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I am entirely in favour of categorising publications in English produced in places where English is not the native language to be categorised as in English. But I dont see that, for example, Magazines of Russia in Russian is a useful category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You can think that, but you don't need to remove others' work in categorizing. No one is obliging you to categorize anything as anything, but I'm asking that you stop persistently undoing others' work and imposing your interpretation of policy or what you think is practice based on something just not having been done yet. Your comment about Korean file descriptions is illustrative of how you are making up policy whole cloth and imposing it on the project. This has happened several times where you just decide based on your judgement that since you wouldn't have added a certain category, therefore you are going to take away others having categorized. That's not how this is supposed to work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

One of the first thing editors are told is Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Almost everything all editors do is altering someone elses work.

I think your views are not those of the majority. You have not explained to me how you see categorising all the thousands of scientific journals produced in English in the USA as English language would help anyone. Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

An English-language journal being categorized as an English language journal isn't a problem. That's the point. "I think your views are not those of the majority." And yet, it's not a policy and you have proof: it's just you making up policy or consensus or now polling data based on...? "You have not explained to me how you see categorising all the thousands of scientific journals produced in English in the USA as English language would help anyone." That way, you can find all the scientific journals in English. Who on Earth only wants to see a listing of them that are not published in English-majority places? How does that help anyone? Who has ever been clamoring for a category of English-language journals, but not those published in America? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

A category with tens of thousands of entries is not helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This is an interpretation, not policy and there are plenty of categories with four figures of entries. If need be, subcategories can be created. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a single remark to: “I dontn think there are any publications from Germany which are not in German.” That’s not correct. In the last centuries countless books, journals, etc. from Germany were published in languages like Latin and French, the languages of the science and culture in these days; today numerous journals and many books are published in English or as multi-language editions with contributions in several languages. So neither in the past nor in the presence one can infer the language of a publication from Germany just from the fact that it is published in Germany. And the same applies to many (most?!) other countries. – Aristeas (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think languages vary. English is the biggest problem as it is used in many countries these days so a listing would be enormous. In the past most learned publications were in Latin. But the real issue is whether it is defining. At present few publications are listed by language. Far more by country. If people really think listing by language is helpful then I will leave them, but I just think listing by place and time is more helpful Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The way the publishing business works today, a publication could definitely be categorized by both language and origin of the work. If a novel is successful, it will get translated and published in different languages. Add to that, that many books today by authors in one country, are printed and published in countries where these services are cheaper. I know from my own experience that a lot of books by Swedish authors are translated into English (and often German and Japanese) and then, depending on what sort of publication it is, published, printed and distributed from one of the Baltic states, Poland or India. Places matter less than languages today when it comes to books. --Cart (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes - maybe things have changed. But are there many books in Swedish that were not originally from Sweden? And how do we think about and categorise them? If the author is Swedish is the book still Swedish even if it is published somewhere else? And maybe the Swedish author isnt actually in Sweden? I still think of James Joyce's books as Irish even though he was in France and that was where most of them were first published. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

We think of a book as Swedish if it's written by someone who is a Swedish citizen, whether or not their native language is Swedish. Also, many Swedes live abroad for extended periods of time, especially in the winter, and they write their books where they are. Some may have moved abroad to work for years, not giving up their citizenship, they are still Swedes as are their books. It's rather messy, which is why several categories for one publication are ok. I might also add that Swedish is the native language for part if the native population living in Finland. And what do you do with languages that have no country, such as Yiddish, Romani or Esperanto? --Cart (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Also we have Swedes like Bile Hashi who is a Swedish citizen and whos books are considered Swedish, even though they are written in Somali. You really need all sorts of categories. ;-) --Cart (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

And we need to think which would be most useful. I've been working on scientific journals, which are easier because they do, mostly, originate in a specific country and at a specific year. Fiction is different. The same book may be altered and published in different places and in different languages. Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

For Swedish scientific journals, the thing is that many of them are written in English from the beginning. (Unless they are old, like pre WWI, then they would be written in German. German was the language of science here before English took over. If you make searches in digitized and transcribed Swedish scientific journals from the 1800s, you need to do so using German words.) This is because Swedish is such a small language and scientists want their work to be read. Why bother taking the detour over Swedish? When I studied at university, 90% of the books we learned from were in English. The Swedish market was too small to translate and print them. It went so far that we were free to choose what languages we wanted to use on exams. There are still technical things I know the English word for but not the Swedish. --Cart (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So do you want to see scientific journals categorised by language? Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that all texts should be categorized, when possible, by both language and country for clarity. Where I live, even trash cans are multilingual. ;-) --Cart (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you emptying a category again?

This, among many other edits, removes categories from the parent category Category:Scientific journals by name. Why are you doing this? The purpose of X by name is to have a listing of all of those things by name. Why should Frontiers in Young Minds (among many others) not be in that category? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

There are far too many scientific journals to put them all in one category. In each country they are listed by name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

No, there aren't! These categories are literally made for this exact purpose. See, e.g. Category:Surnames (flat list), which has 213,000 subcategories. You cannot unilaterally just empty categories because you personally think that you don't like them or they're too big. You are undoing others' work which is deliberately for the purpose of having all of the things in one category. Why do you think this is okay? Are you planning on going thru Category:Flat categories and making a few million edits because you don't personally use those categories for navigation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

So you dont accept the fundamental principle that "The category structure should reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific." Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The category structure here is not a single, unified method of drilling down to every piece of main content: there are multiple ways to get to the same point, so no, I don't and in practice, that is not how categories work here or on other large sister wikis like en.wp. It would be great if you would answer the questions I asked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hierarchy is the documented principle of categorisation both here and on other wikis. Its not absolute, but it is fundamental. You clearly dont acccept it, but it guides what I do. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That and things like personal preference and interpretations of what you think the status quo is writ as policy. Note that COM:CAT and (e.g.) w:en:Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_tree_organization do not explicitly state that there must be a single hierarchy with one pathway to get to content. Instead, there is a tree-like system by which users can take multiple routes to get to the same destination. The hierarchy principle only applies to the fact that there is an uncategorized root and there should not be category loops.

Still waiting on answers to those questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

what you are advocating is not a tree like system. Its an open field. I dont know what more answers I can give. Rathfelder (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

"You are undoing others' work which is deliberately for the purpose of having all of the things in one category. Why do you think this is okay? Are you planning on going thru Category:Flat categories and making a few million edits because you don't personally use those categories for navigation?"

You could give answers to those questions that I've now asked you four times. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not planning on going thru Category:Flat categories. I am moving periodicals to categories by countries and dates. This is nothing to do with what I might personally use for navigation. having all of the things in one category is not what categorisation is about. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

"having all of the things in one category is not what categorisation is about". You are wrong: that is exactly what those categories are about. See the AN thread linked below where other users are expressing concern about your interpretation of policy. Please stop this unilateral removal and undoing of others' work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

COM:AN thread

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_is_mass-emptying_categories_based_on_interpretation_and_personal_preference_and_not_policy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)