User talk:Auntof6

Archives 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Auntof6!

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.

Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:FBI images of suspect of the Minnesota legislators shootings (2 of 5).png

Hello. I nominated the photo to SD for being an obvious copyright violation but got rev'd by the uploader. Could you help me out so i avoid an edit war? Trade (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I'm not that knowledgeable about copyvio issues, so I'm not comfortable taking action here. Is there a problem with just letting the deletion request run? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not asking you to delete the file. I am asking you to intervene if the uploader keeps removing the {{copyvio}} from the file

"Is there a problem with just letting the deletion request run?" The deletion request was made by me before i had certain proof that the image was copyvio. Now that i found the proof, the uploader are using the existence of the DR as an justification to remove the otherwise valid copyvio template. You see the issue? Trade (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: : I could intervene, as could any admin, but have you tried leaving them a message about it? That's usually the best first step. If things don't get resolved that way, the best place to report is at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. That way you should get some help with it even if I don't happen to be online at the time. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Plan for circles and disc categories?

Hi, Autof6! I got the ping from your recent edit in this discussion, and that prompted me to make some changes in the related categories and files. however, I noticed that they may be overriding the changes you are working on. For example, I made Category:Black numerals in white circles into a redirect to Category:Black numbers in white circles, since the latter is older and uses more natural terminology. Only then I noticed that the {{Number on object}} template creates the tree under the assumption of the "numerals" terminology instead of "numbers". On another example, I noticed that you're merging the discs and circles categories, but that is creating some ambiguity with e.g. prohibition traffic signs that are red circles surrounding white discs. This subtlety didn't occur to me at the time of the discussion, but I now see it is a useful distinction that would help with categorization and navigation.

So my questions are: (1) what is your plan for the final hierarchy of these category trees? Could you write it down in a subpage, or perhaps in the description of Category:Auntof6 work cat circles? And (2), would you consider the slight changes I proposed above, namely using "numbers" instead of "numerals", and keeping the "discs" categories distinct from the "circles" ones?

I'd be happy to collaborate in implementing these changes if you'd like! Cheers, Waldyrious (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Waldyrious: Hi, Waldyrious. First I combined everything from the various categories mentioned in the CfD into Category:Numbers in circles. Next, I worked on consolidating duplicates. I think I'm getting near the end of that.

I also noticed the difference between what we're calling discs and circles, so I see the issue there. There were, however, some images in the red discs categories that were really red numbers on a circular white ground with red rings around them, so the discs categories didn't have the distinction right to begin with.

Right now, though, I've been trying to get all the disc categories renamed to circles. After that I have some things in mind, but first and foremost I need to find a breakpoint so I can get a few hours sleep before I have a couple of appointments later today. I shouldn't have started this project yet! I will write up what I see as still needing work after I deal with all that?

If you'd like to work on something in the meantime, may I suggest standardizing the subcats under Category:Numbers in red circles by number? They have two different naming conventions, and each convention is defined differently. If you work on it, take a look at each definition to see which is better. I think I prefer the "Number x in red circles" naming over "X (number in red circle)", but your mileage may vary.

By the way, the things in my work category are things that I still want to look at for various reasons. They may have redlinked categories, or the navigation bar may have a red link in it. Maybe the redlinked things should be created, or maybe they're not needed.

Anyway, I'll get back to you later today. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No hurries! I also work often in fits and starts, as availability permits. I'm happy to wait until you're done with the initial restructuring and to discuss whatever plan you document afterwards :) There's no deadline! 😁 — Waldyrious (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Waldyrious: Hi again. I put some things at the top of Category:Auntof6 work cat circles to describe things I think need to be done. Take a look and see if you can think of anything else. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That overview seems pretty good, but I would add the question of whether to distinguish between discs and circles. Although that distinction has not been implemented broadly in the categorization practice so far, as you pointed out, it seems to me that it is leading to confusion if we use a single term for both (e.g. do speed limit traffic signs belong in "numbers in red circles" or "numbers in white circles"? I'd argue that using both "numbers in red circles" and "numbers in white discs" would make eliminate this source of confusion. Waldyrious (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Waldyrious: Thanks for the reminder. I added something for that. Let me know what you think. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

some different links

Hello Auntof6, this section is for some different links. I’m beginning with this one: You deleted Category:1762 stained-glass windows as empty on 3 May (and also Category:1760s stained-glass windows in Bretagne. I’ve found now some pages still linking there: Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:1762_stained-glass_windows. That might be the case also for other deleted categories. But most of those links just seem to be a cache problem with templates on the pages, because a null edit is enough to remove those from the linklist; I don’t know, how long an automatic update of those deleted links in linklists takes.
I haven’t requested deletion for such categories with links, there were so many left with no link at all or just the renaming log link which didn’t need any link fixing at all. I don’t know how to find other such links systematically, but as they are category redirects, they appear in searches with "intitle" (hard redirects don’t appear there with "insource", says the help page, for "intitle" I don’t know). I just found the broken category redirects Category:1762 stained glass windows and Category:1760s stained glass windows in Bretagne with an "intitle" search. Do you know, why this one doesn’t appear in Category:Broken category redirects which had nearly 2000 broken redirects only a few weeks ago and now nearly is empty all the time? It should be there since 3 May, maybe some kind of cache problem? You can delete it after having a look at this.

I thought there were no more year categories, but it might be that there are some without a normal template like this one that also appeared with a normal search: Category:1621 stained glass windows. It had only been in a parent category for paitings for 12 years and looked like this up to now, so it hasn’t been renamed yet.

Here another interesting link: [1]. It’s a search for the term "#REDIRECT" with "insource" just in the category namespace. Now 29 categories are found. As no normal hard redirects are found with "insource", all of those pages which don’t have nowiki tags around or which have been commented with <!-- -->, have a problem on the page. Some are category redirects which also have a "#REDIRECT" on the pages, some are normal categories, but shall be redirects, other are normal categories, and I don’t know, what the "REDIRECT" shall do on the page, sometimes people use it instead of a normal wikilink llike here (I fixed that). This version is over 13 years old with the "REDIRECT" on the category page. I haven’t seen such pages before. In the creator namespace I’ve fixed one which was wrong since 2020, and I've fixed one redirect inclusion in the template namespace, both found with this search (maybe there are more to fix there?). Isn’t there a place in the Commons namespace, where such search links can be put, so that users can find such pages faster than after nearly 14 years? This one is 3 years old now. I don’t know, if "ragully" is a misspelling of "raguly" and if this page (which shall be a redirect, but is none since 3 years) should be deleted.

I wanted to tag Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/Page display title/za for deletion, but was told by a filter that I had to log in for any edit in the translation namespace. Please delete this page. The other pages with "#redirect" in that namespace seem to be ok. Kind regards —176.1.10.132 13:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you the person who has been requesting all the stained-glass category renames? Nice to meet you, and thanks for doing all of that! I'll move some more requests to the main page in a little while.

When I move categories, I check the links on the redirects before deleting. However, if the only links are things that are cache issues, I delete the redirects without doing any kind of null edit on the pages that link to them. Two reasons: 1) they will resolve themselves over time so it's not worth worrying about, and 2) sometimes the reason there is a link to the redirect is only because the page exists! Sometimes the links are taken care of just by deleting the redirect page. I would go ahead and request speedy on broken redirects, unless there is an appropriate page you want to redirect to instead.

Category redirects: A lot of the ones your search turns up should be fixed. I can do some work on that if you want. I see not only that the wrong code is used for redirecting categories (it should use the category redirect template), but the wrong code doesn't even have the right syntax in some places. I don't know if there is a place that reports those.

Why did you want to have the translations page deleted? I'm not familiar enough with how the translated pages work to be comfortable deleting that one at this point. Maybe you could ask the person who created it, although they haven't touched it since 2018.

Did I cover all of your questions? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Your last question: I’m not sure, but I think so. ;-)

Thank you doing the work with moving categories and deleting misspelled redirects. You don’t need to hurry with the moves, they won’t run away. ;-) It has time. And I have text pages on my computer, where I can save anything that has to do with that.

First of all, I have some more links for you. I looked through the bot edits that renames the category pages. Do you remember the moves for some categories, I’ve found those links to other moved categories: Category:Persian Wikipedia 21th birthday in Tehran, Category:Persian Wikipedia 21th birthday in Shiraz, Category:Persian Wikipedia 21th birthday in Hamburg, Category:21th Anniversary of Bengali Wikipedia, Dinajpur. I will not let them be moved now, but deleted, and I will create the correct spelled category redirects new instead, there’s no version history for those misspelled redirects.

In the bot log, I also found some more of those Georgian categories which have been moved. In case, you want to delete those redirects, you can look through the edits only with new redirects of the bot. I think, you begun with those moves on 9 May, because I’ve found no redirects before that date, and there are still many redirects left from 9 May until 2 June, here a link from 8 May until 3 June (63 redirects, I think).

I’ve fixed a lot of those broken redirects from that special page for broken redirects (or let them be deleted, if the target categories didn’t exist anymore and I didn’t know any other possible target) for some weeks or so until it was empty, and some other users also did, so that it is nearly empty now at last. —176.1.8.148 07:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want and have time, you can go through the categories of this search (the link from above for "#REDIRECT"). That’s also nothing having a time limit. ;-) I only looked through the other namespaces, because there were not so many to fix. And by fixing the problems, you will see better, what kind of diverse problems can be on the pages. Maybe you will get an idea, what to do with the search link(s) or what to do with that what users do wrong with "#Redirect". I don’t know by now.

The translation pages: It’s easy: The user wanted to add a Chinese translation and created Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/Page display title/za (whyever there). Then they saw that it was on the wrong page and moved the page to the Chinese subpage. I don’t know which language "za" is, but it is not Chinese. Therefore, it should show the original untranslated English version, then it can be translated into that language. And the English version will be shown again, when the wrong redirect is getting deleted, otherwise for the language "za", user get on the Chinese page which they don’t understand. That’s the reason that the redirect has to be deleted. After the deletion, the English version will be shown again also for the "za" text. It is only a subpage of the whole text, so only a part of the text is now shown in Chinese language and the rest in English or in the "za" language, if anything is already translated. And users normally understand the original English version better than Chinese. ;-) Kind regards —176.1.8.148 07:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There are two such translation pages that should better be deleted, Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/Page display title/za, and the second one is Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/1/za.

The word !!FUZZY!! here has something to do with the translation pages: It hinders the redirect to show the target Chinese page text (they don’t get there because of the broken function of the redirect). Instead of this, it shows that the translated text is outdated (in rosé, see how it looks now at Template:Artistic/i18n/za) and should be aligned with the original English version of Template:Artistic/i18n. But that doesn’t help at all, because here are no outdated translations. On both pages, you can see, what that wrong text does with the heading: The original English version has no Fuzzy and Redirect in the heading. And the normal text is a license text that isn’t shown on the "za" page at all, neither in English nor in the target language which is the Vahcuengh language (as Template:Artistic shows, I don’t know that language).

Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/Page display title/za should have a translated heading and Translations:Template:Artistic/i18n/1/za should have a translated license text or they have to be deleted to show the original English version with English license text again. Without deletion, it’s not possible to show the English text again (or you have to copy and paste the English text into the Vahcuengh versions, but that’s not necessary, deletion does the same).

That’s why both pages have to be deleted, otherwise the English text will not be shown. You can see in the filter log, what reason I wrote for deletion. COM:GCSD#G1 is correct here (accidental creation, or page containing no valid content) [also G2 (unused and implausible, or broken redirect, because the target page has nothing to do with the missing Vahcuengh translation)] and also G6 (uncontroversial maintenance that requires permanent deletion). I don’t think the person having created the pages has admin rights and can delete them. I hope that helps. —176.1.8.148 10:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, speedy category is full again. Those are new bot redirects of 2024. There has been User:HwætGrimmalkin very active with such move requests already, thanks to them (ca. from May or before that until September 2024, you can see it in every bot edit in the version histories. Those are only a part of the new bot redirects of last year. It has really been much work for many persons up to now already since the discussion in 2017. I think HwætGrimmalkin didn’t even know that old discussion, the reason for the 2024 moves was just "missing hyphen" instead. I think I found that discussion also after my first requests of April that I’ve found again now which didn't contain a discussion link neither. —176.1.5.196 03:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Chaos in German "Landschaftsschutzgebieten", no bot moves of categories

One other problem with category bot moves for you and/or for GPSLeo who posted those requests for the category renaming bot on that page. Only 3 minutes after the requests on that page, the bot CommonsDelinker took the requests from the page with the comment "Removing completed category move commands." I noticed that by instance and just remembered that I wanted to post that somewhere. Nothing has yet happened with those mistaken "non-moves" or "fake moves", perhaps noone else saw that? Therefore I now normally take a look at other done requests afterwards, if they really have been done or not correctly like here.

I don’t know, why this has happened, but the categories weren’t moved at all, only the contents (the files) were moved, see the first link with the requests and scroll below. These were really many requests, but the bot moved none of those categories, just their contents. That’s really strange. Now the categories are still on the old place without the content (example, they could all be deleted as empty after those "fake moves" of the bot) and the content is in not-existing red categories (example), but not in existing categories (just 4 of the category targets are existing, but those existed years ago, example). How can this happen? I don’t understand it. Have you ever seen such things before? I don’t find a mistake in the requests. The categories should only have one "s" more for "Landschaftsschutzgebiet“ (a compound of 'Landschaft' + '-s' + 'Schutzgebiet'). What can be done with that chaos now? Can the bot tidy up this itself now and move the categories really this time with the same requests? You make so many move requests for that bot. Perhaps you can guess, what is the reason for it and how to avoid such chaos. And maybe you can tell the bot to tidy up the chaos itself? Kind regards, —176.1.8.148 13:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This happened to me once. I always monitor requests I put on the main page, so I saw it right away and moved the categories manually. What I think happened is that the bot didn't move the content out of the source categories: either a person moved it or the content was put in the target categories to begin with. In any case, when the bot looked at the command, it didn't see anything in the source categories, so it thought there was nothing for it to do and it marked the requests as done.

As for telling the bot to fix anything, the only thing I know to do with it is give it the same kind of command that these were. I think the person who added the commands needs to take care of it, so @GPSLeo: I'm going to leave this to you to take care of, but let me know if you want any help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: And who is responsible for the bot now? The user page says that it runs on Wikimedia Toolforge. Perhaps you can also report that bug there somehow? That seems to be a case for the Phabricator. And why did the bot do that only once, but then not again, as it seems? Maybe all done requests of the last weeks should be reviewed, if they have been done correctly. —176.1.8.148 13:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bug. I think the bot is working the way it was designed to work, even if it isn't doing things the way you'd think. Consider this: if the bot finds that the source category is empty, it could be that someone already took some action, and if the bot does something it might be causing a problem. That wouldn't be the case with the situation we're talking about, but it could in other situations.

I will also point out that when I go to start the move task, I see the following message:

NOTICE

Steinsplitter's tools have reached the end of support.

After almost ten years of support, Steinsplitter's tools have reached the end of support. Security Updates will be provided.

Please note: Security Updates do not include new features, user-requested non-security updates, or design change requests.

That tells me that even if this were reported, nothing would be changed. So I'm sorry, but I am going to decline to report this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s ok, and I think, you’re right that it’s maybe no bot error, and the categories all might have been empty. If the bot doesn’t move empty categories at all (which I didn’t knew), then it can’t tidy up the problematic categories neither. Then the categories all have to be moved manually. If I count correctly, these are 87 categories to move. @GPSLeo: It would be best, if they could be moved without redirect because of the misspellings in the old category names. Otherwise, they would have been moved and afterwards deleted. Is there no option "mass move" for those pages or "mass move without redirect"? ;-) That would be easier. —176.1.19.229 07:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be grin who is responsible according to the bot talk page. That info is not on the bot main page, whyever. I’ve put it now also on the bot talk page. Let’s see, what may be the reason and if the bot can tidy up this chaos. —176.1.8.148 13:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that is another bot (SieBot?) which moves categories. I can't help with that. -- grin ✎ 15:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess that the bot isn’t able to move pages like this map, where categories aren’t set onto the page with [[Category:Xyz]], but with another specific code in the map, am I right? Here in this case there were many categories with the new names which only have such a map as content and no other pages and files. I guess that the bot can’t do anything with such pages. I’m not sure, what it does, when it moves a category, where such a page is in the category as only content, but this map was in the new category originally and the old one was empty then. —176.1.19.229 08:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How can I get a page in the "Data:" namespace renamed? I don’t know, why that namespace exists or what is does or how it functions. Those pages look like .js or .css pages which is irritating. I’m not familiar with such pages. There is at least one misspelled page there (and maybe also more, I could do a search for them). The move template is for categories only, the rename template for file namespace only, and Template:Move other says:

• "The template is intended to be used in the following namespaces: all namespaces“

So I tried to put that template with the following code at the top of the misspelled page Data:Protected areas/Germany/SH/Landschaftschutzgebiet Joachimsquelle.map which seems to be a bit tricky:

• {{Move other |1=Data:Protected areas/Germany/SH/Landschaftsschutzgebiet Joachimsquelle.map |reason=misspelling of "[[:de:Landschaftsschutzgebiet]]" |date=2025-06-26 }}

See also Category:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Joachimsquelle (Category:Landschaftschutzgebiet Joachimsquelle also is/was a misspelling, where that page has been before). "title": "Landschaftsschutzgebiet Joachimsquelle" on that page didn’t change the title of the page. After having put the Template:Move other onto that page, I got a syntax error and saving the edit was not possible (with or without the prefix "Data:" in the template, same error). Is the information, that the template is for all namespaces, wrong? Or what is wrong with the syntax? Is there a possibility for any of the rename/move templates to use in that namespace or what possibility for renames exists here? And who can move pages in that namespace: users with account like with galleries/categories, file movers or perhaps just admins? Do you know that? Or shall I ask on any other page? —176.1.19.229 11:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by year of registration (1903 to 1932)

Another one randomly closed (and of course as 'consensus', when it's far from it) with no warning and completely ignoring the fact that British registrations changed their format in 1932. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

First:

• Not random
• No warning? I don't think it's customary to warn people when a CfD is being closed.
• Not ignoring anything. Using a different format doesn't mean the year shouldn't be used

There wasn't much explanation as to why things should stay as they were, and that discussion had had no comments in almost 3 years. Please use Commons:Undeletion requests to voice your objections. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kevinkohute39

Hi could you close this one early? There seems to be some privacy/legal threat issues going on Trade (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Albrecht Dürer woodcut series - Life of the Virgin

I just stumbled over that category (because of the renames from "live of the virgin" in the bot log (I just put bad name tags onto those misspelled redirects). What do you think, wouldn’t it be better to split this page into a category and a gallery instead of this mix of a category and a gallery? The gallery seems to be a bit displaced on the category page in my view. I don’t know, if a split of the version history would be necessary for that, but I leave that up to you to decide, what’s better for that page, or to split the page. :-) Regards —176.1.5.196 09:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The gallery serves a purpose. If there are files in the category, the gallery helps people see which category they should be in without having to open each category. I just added Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories to indicate that. If you look in that category, you'll see that there are quite a few categories that have galleries for that purpose. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if that’s the way it works without galleries. That category Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories seems to be a good thing. Category:London and Category:Paris have no gallery? I’m wondering. I’ve seen a lot of smaller cities with galleries.

I’ve now also found the gallery Woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer with the same 20 files as in that category (and the same 20 misspelled category redirect links with "live" until right now), so the gallery for the category exists already. Is this not a bit too much redundancy? It would be possible to put a link to the gallery into the category description instead, and the gallery could also be in the categories, where the files of the gallery are. There seem to be 3 such Dürer series, and the gallery with the woodcuts could be in all of the 3 categories plus on the category pages, so that people can find it better. —176.1.5.196 10:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The main categories for London and Paris would probably have too many options for a gallery to be practical. Galleries would be on lower-level categories.

Galleries on categories and stand-alone galleries serve a different purpose. Galleries on categories help people categorize. If you link to a gallery instead, then the user has to go back and forth between different pages. Stand-alone galleries can be used to give an overview of things. They are also used to link to Wikipedia articles. (Categories here link to categories there. Stand-alone galleries here link to articles there. At least that's the theory.)

So I think these galleries are fine as they are. But if you really want a change to be considered, don't just ask me -- start a discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I didn’t thought about those different purposes. I’m not sure, if a change would be best then. And it seems, there are galleries on category pages for different purposes, for example regarding big cities with such galleries there.

I also thought about users always having to load those many pictures (or just stop loading the page before loading the images like I do), if they switch between different categories which can be not very practicable. I’ve not very broad internet here. But if the images right there on the category page can help users or readers with the categories without having to go to another page inbetween, it’s ok.

Perhaps a template with the 20 photos could be put onto both pages, then the content isn’t just doubled (if that would be practicable). ;-) —176.1.5.196 11:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

talk page of a "stained glass" redirect

What do we do with the talk page entry on the misspelled redirect talk page Category talk:Saint John the Apostle on stained glass windows? It has nothing to do with the misspellings, but with this old redirect version which doesn’t exist anymore since 2019 (all only in the misspelled redirect history). That was after the stained-glass move in 2018 on that page, and on the same day, a new category for the apostle John has been created newly. The apostle first had his own category here on the misspelled redirect page which can be deleted now. Could the version histories of the misspelled apostle’s category and his new category of 2019 perhaps be merged? There had been an older bot move of 2012 without history where the SieBot only wrote the old authors into the history. This would all be gone after the deletion of the misspellings. A merge and move of the talk page could help, but is that talk page relevant enough? The differenciation of the different Johns is also written down at Category:John the Apostle and Category:Saint John the Evangelist already (and why has the apostle no "Saint" in the parent category, but only in their subcategories?). So just delete both John redirects with the 9-year old talk page with the resolved issue or merge histories and move talk page or what? —176.1.5.196 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: Apropos resolved issue: [2] Not resolved in all categories until today, as it seems, perhaps the talk page entry is still relevant also now? —176.1.5.196 15:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lad: A Dog

Hello Auntof6, the category moving bot may have had a problem to move the category to Category:Lad: A Dog, because it may have settings that interpret every "lad:" as prefix and language code and therefore choose the category prefix in that language. But I don’t think that it would not be possible to move Category:Lad, A Dog manually there. I tried a new category with "Lad:" a bit and I’ve had no problem at all with:

• 1) creating a category redirect and then 2) creating a normal category there,
• 3) linking Wikidata to that category (and also as main category at Wikidata)
• 4) creating Wikidata labels with "Lad:" instead of "Lad" (I don’t know why that hasn’t been done before)
• 5) putting the files into the category (I left one in both, so that the other is not empty and will not be deleted with its history)

All that was completely unproblematic. Therefore I don’t see, why moving the category there manually could be a problem. Would you perhaps just try that? A redirect from the Wikipedia’s name would be enough. Thanks. I haven’t yet created a redirect from there, because I thought, it should be moved with history. I just wanted to try first, if there could be a problem with the new name, but there wasn’t any. I suppose, if I'd put a speedy tag on the new category for maintenance to move Category:Lad, A Dog there with comment and reason G6, it will just be reverted without comment, because the new category isn’t empty. This happened before with another category. Not all admins seem to understand such a speedy tag for maintenance.

By the way, "Lad, A Dog" is a misspelling in English (there’s no exception for that in titles), because in English, "a" is always written with lower case after a comma or a ";". Only after "." or ":" or in brackets or between dashes, words are always written with upper case. Therefore "Lad: A Dog" is correct spelling like "Lad. A Dog" would be or "Lad (A Dog)", but "Lad, A Dog“ is misspelled, and "Lad, a Dog" would be correct also in titles. That is also a reason that that category shouldn’t stay on such a misspelled name. It could be a redirect because of the Wikipedia article names. But I think that "Lad. A Dog" would be a better name for the Wikipedia articles, that wouldn’t be a misspelling. The book title shows "LAD: A DOG", and noone can see there, if the "a" is upper or lower case. This book title (LAD A DOG) shows no punctuation mark at all inbetween, it’s just a new line. Therefore, also "Lad. A Dog" can be correct. Kind regards —176.1.19.229 06:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Creator:Naukydes/sandbox

Do you still need that page? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Marsupium: Probably not. Do you want me to delete it, or did you just want to do something with it? If the latter, go ahead. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I was working on getting Category:Creator templates with mismatching linkback empty and thought it might just be a forgotten artifact waiting for deletion. But if you might still have use of it, it does not do much harm either. --Marsupium (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Marsupium: I don't remember what I created it for, so I'll just delete it. I can always recreate or restore it if needed. Thanks for working on the maintenance category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

"Don't use the template if the category was recently unconsensually emptied"

Could you convince Omphalographer to stop doing this? And also before you delete any categories please check if the person who marked the category is him. Trade (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Omphalographer: --Trade (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  For a bit more context: the issue I've trying to address here is that there are a number of categories for subjects related to Category:The Backrooms which were populated exclusively with media not related to The Backrooms, but which an editor has decided resembles the Backrooms subject (e.g. a photograph of a jail categorized under Category:Electrical Station). This is not how we typically handle categories for fictional topics, e.g. we do not categorize photos of short people as Category:Hobbits, or photos of wardrobes (or witches or lions) as Category:The Chronicles of Narnia, no matter how much we may believe they resemble subjects in those works. There does not appear to be any freely licensed media specifically of these topics on Commons; as such, we do not currently need categories for them. Omphalographer (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Examples? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

In short, the contents of Category:The Backrooms levels other than Category:The Lobby, as well as Category:Backrooms Wiki. A number of these categories already contained no media when I encountered them. Omphalographer (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I know for a fact they weren't empty last i saw them. So at least someone else must have emptied them Trade (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Беріть участь в українському «Вікі любить Землю» 2025!

Перейдіть до сторінки конкурсу

🌳Вікі любить Землю повернувся! Конкурс проходить з 1 по 31 липня і має за мету зібрати якісні світлини об’єктів природно-заповідного фонду для ілюстрування статей у Вікіпедії.

Як і в попередні роки, долучитися до змагання можуть усі охочі — як професійні фотографи, так і аматори. Головне, щоб ви любили Землю і розділяли ідею конкурсу — представити пам'ятки природи України за допомогою світлин під вільними ліцензіями.

Важливо❗️ Цього року з міркувань безпеки до участі у фотоконкурсі приймаються лише фото, зроблені до 31 травня 2025 року (включно) для звичайних фото та до 23 лютого 2022 року (включно) для знімків з дронів та інших літальних пристроїв.

Традиційно, у конкурсі є дві номінації: «кількісна» та «якісна». У першій будуть відзначені учасники та учасниці, що сфотографували найбільше пам’яток природи. У межах другої журі обере найкраще фото кожного з регіонів України, а з-поміж них — 10 найкращих світлин України.

Також буде дві спецномінації: «Відео» та «Втрати природи».

Усі переможці «Вікі любить Землю» 2025 отримають цінні призи. 15 найкращих світлин представлять Україну на міжнародному етапі фотоконкурсу.

Рекомендуємо уважно ознайомитись з правилами конкурсу та звернути увагу на вимоги щодо фотографій.

🔎Стежте за новинами проєкту у Facebook, Instagram або в блозі. Також ключова інформація буде з'являтися на сторінці у Вікісховищі.

Сподіваємося на вашу участь!

Ви отримали це повідомлення, адже брали участь у «Вікі любить Землю» раніше. Якщо Ви не хочете отримувати сповіщення, пов'язані з «Вікі любить Землю» — додайте свою сторінку користувача до цієї категорії або напишіть організаційній команді конкурсу. -- Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю».13:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Triptych_of_St_Lawrence_by_Jacopo_Bellini

Triptych of St Lawrence by Jacopo Bellini 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!

MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Restoring file descriptions

Hi, This deleted page, transcluded in 17 file description pages, was apparently the description shared by the 17 images. The files are now missing descriptions. Could you please copy here the text of that deleted page? I will then take care of copying that text in each description page of the 17 files to restore their descriptions. Thank you in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Instead of putting it here, I've put it in User:Auntof6/sandbox3. Let me know when you're finished with it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. I made a copy. I didn't expect that content. Now I'll try to make sense of that page. Thank you again. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: No problem. I didn't expect that much, either! -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

fast deletion

Hello Auntof6, very fast deletion, 10 minutes for those 175 year categories of the misspelled stained-glass windows. Is there a trick to do this? And can you do the trick also for the missing 84 year categories of the 20th century? Otherwise, I continue tomorrow morning with those 84. The other 175 and the ones of the 21st and the 13th, 14th and 15th century all had no links to the categories and were all moved on the same day. Therefore, it might be that there will also be no links to the categories of the 20th century, but I’ve not proved that. But users seem not to link to those ones. It takes some time to put the bad name tags onto all of them, but it’s always the same for them, so I think, they could also be deleted without those tags. Thanks for your help and kind regards —176.1.8.185 21:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. The trick is that I use AWB. In AWB, I load everything from Category:Other speedy deletions, then filter the list to just the ones I want. It's very quick to delete them that way, I just need the list of categories to delete. I can use the search results to make the list I need to delete these 84. I'll do it right now. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

All done! -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine. :-) Very quick way to do those deletions, good trick. If I had known this before, I could have done something else in that time already. ;-) But now I know that there were no links to fix for the other categories, that’s not so bad. If there would be one broken link onto one year category left, that wouldn’t be that bad. Most of the links go to categories with special windows for valued images (like this and on the file page and then on the users talk page (always 3 links, sometimes in archives, where a filter often prevents linkfixes with IP), but they aren’t very often neither.

Now there are nearly only redirects left with "Stained glass windows" at the beginning, and there are many of them left (over 1500). But for them, there will also be pages which link to them. I think, I’ll do a break for that, I already stumbled over many more categories which have to be renamed. There are many of them left, also over 1500. —176.1.8.185 22:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)