Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nakonana!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Finnish war children

edit

Hello Nakonana,

Thanks for creating Category:Finnish Children of the Second World War. I changed the category order so that Category:Finnish war children is a sub-category of that, instead of the other way around. In Finland and Sweden sotalapset refers specifically to the children evacuated from Finland to Sweden during World War II. MKFI (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
ah, I see, thanks for changing the order, I didn't know about the Finnish terminology! In English it sounds like "Finnish war children" would refer to all sorts of wars, like, WW1 + WW2, etc. that's why I assumed that Category:Finnish Children of the Second World War would be a sub-category of that. It might be worth to add a note to the page maybe? So that other people won't change the order of the categories again based on the same misunderstanding as I did.

Given the Finnish terminology here, how would you name the hypothetical parent category of Category:Finnish Children of the Second World War and Category:Finnish Children of the First World War? Asking in case I decide to go on an image hunt of children in WW1, too. Nakonana (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
I have added a description to Category:Finnish war children. You will probably want to look for examples from other countries if any exists, but something like Category:Finnish children in war might work as a parent category. A see also cat hatnote will help. MKFI (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sakurako Miki categorization

edit

You have done some good work on the Sakurako Miki categories, but I noticed that you, along with another user before you, incorrectly categorized 2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg in Sakurako Miki in 2015. It seems you were just working from the categories: the file was correctly categorized in 6-year-old human females, which contained the category Sakurako Miki in 2015, so you just moved it to the more specific category. In fact, when that photo was taken, it was the end of 2014 but Sakurako, who had just turned 6, was wearing glasses that celebrated the upcoming new year.

It seems other year categories work the same way, which means other files may have the same problem; I have not checked.

I am not sure what should be done about this. There does not seem to be any guidance at Commons:Suggested category scheme for people or any relevant discussions there. Have there been any previous discussions? Brianjd (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Brianjd Ah, I see, the file is in the Category:Sakurako Miki in 2014, I missed that as I was indeed working from the categories.

I'm not aware of any previous discussions, which doesn't mean that there weren't any, I just don't hang out much on discussion sites, that's all.

I worked off two considerations:

  1. There are several individuals by name in the Category:6-year-old human females, but it's very unlikely that anyone of them was born on 1 January exactly, so it's very likely that several files in said categories are miscategorized if we are being strict about using the birth date as a cut-off between 5-year-olds vs 6-year-old vs 7-year-olds. Judging by all the other individuals in the Category:6-year-old human females, it's obvious that the cut-off was not strictly applied. So, my first rationale to move File:2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg into the more specific category was basically "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", i.e. don't be too strict about the exact birth date.
  2. My second rationale was that it felt inappropriate to "flood" the Category:6-year-old human females with photos of Sakurako (and her sister Sakiko). If someone is trying to get a general idea of what 6-year-old human females looks like, then it would be rather unhelpful to click through 200 photos of a 6-year-old Sakurako. The viewer would only learn how Sakurako looked like at age 6, but not how 6-year-old human females look like in general or what range there is in the looks of 6-year-old human females. Of course there are also other photos of 6-year-olds in that category, but the viewer might get tired clicking through Sakurako's photos before even reaching the other photos. Or, after clicking through 100 photos of Sakurako, the viewer might start to assume that there are no photos of any other 6-year-old girls in that category at all, and won't bother to click through the rest of the photos in that category. So, I felt that photos of Sakurako shouldn't dominate the Category:6-year-old human females too much. It would potentially overwhelm a viewer and that would render the category useless. That's why I think that with such a massive amount of photos from a single individual, it's probably best to put them in a sub-category of their own and to not be too strict about the exact age of the individual, but rather categorize by year. Or, alternatively, one could create a separate Category:Sakurako Miki at age 6 or Category:6-year-old Sakurako Miki in addition to the categories "Sakurako Miki in 2014" and "Sakurako Miki in 2015" to be accurate about putting all photos in the correct age category without flooding the Category:6-year-old human females with photos of Sakurako. However, while the latter suggestion would be more accurate, the question is whether it is worth the trouble, especially since we don't exactly know the birth date. I know that I created added an infobox to Category:Sakurako Miki with a birth date, but it took some detective work to figure out her birth date (and in the end, I don't completely remember whether the process did not involve some "educated guessing" at some point). EDIT: ok, it looks like I had found the birth date somewhere in the end [1] [2]
Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it is well-established that creating specific categories for Sakurako (and other subjects with many photos) is a good idea. The only question is how those specific categories should work.
I understand what you said about the existing categorization system, but I cannot get over the fact that 5-year-old human females indirectly contains 2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg, even though the latter clearly says that the subject was six years old. Perhaps a wider discussion is necessary. Brianjd (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Brianjd No objection from my side to having a wider discussion. The relevant part for me was that the category is not cluttered with Sakurako photos. There are several different ways to achieve that and I don't have any particular preference or strong opinions which of those ways should be used :) Nakonana (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2024

edit

Hello! Often in entertainment, men have worn women's dresses. Please acquaint yoorself with an image description before you change any category, for example like this. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing, sorry I was only looking at the images and I guess it wasn't obvious from the thumbnail or because of the light conditions. Nakonana (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pls read image descriptions before you consider making such changes! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SergeWoodzing, regarding File:Jennifer Garcia & Steve Vigil "Trouble" Wild Side Story 1979.jpg — if it's not a dress, then does it belong in the Category:Red dresses? Or should it rather go into the Category:Red clothing / Category:Men wearing red clothing? Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Red clothing. One can clearly see that it's a top and a skirt, not a dress. No need to mention gender since Garcia was going through a slow anatomical sex change procedure at the time. I do not know if it was complete yet. --83.255.123.140 16:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:St. Paulus (Bochum) 6.jpg

edit
 
File:St. Paulus (Bochum) 6.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!

Calreyn88 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment about deletion request

edit

Hi just an FYI, but in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Мемориальный комплекс воинам 28-й армии .jpg while I agree that image should have been kept I've done some research on similar monuments and a lot of times the vehicles are models, not originals. Like with monuments of planes it seems like they are usually models. Which makes sense because you can't just put a 20 thousand plane on a pedestal in a random park somewhere. It's a little different with tanks of course, but some of them are clearly not original. So I wouldn't make blanket judgements either way. At least not without researching it. Although you could maybe argue models aren't original works to begin with but that's another discussion. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, planes are sometimes models. But especially tanks are oftentimes just "gutted" old tanks with only the carcass still in place. Those tanks are almost a century old and quite useless by modern standards that's probably why they are just retired as monuments (saves resources to disassemble and recycle them in other ways, I guess). The description of the mentioned monument says that it's a T-34 tank, so I'd say that this one is safe. As for other such monuments, if they are 1:1 replicas (in form and size) then I'd also say that they are safe to keep because they lack any creative input from the sculptor. Nakonana (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Process to appeal a category discussion decision

edit

I saw that you commented on the closure of the Ivano-Fransk discussions with the closing Admin. Can you advise how to appeal such closures in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Laurel Lodged I'm not really familiar with such processes on here. My conversation with the admin was about the usage of Template:Closed, because I thought that they missed to add one of the template parameters. So, it was just about technicalities rather than contents. I don't think that an appeal would really lead to a different outcome in this case (you know my stance from the discussion), however, if you still want to try, then there's probably some kind of administrator noticeboard for such appeals somewhere, but I really don't have a clue where or which noticeboard it is. Maybe there's someone at Commons:Village pump who would be able to refer you to the right noticeboard / procedure? That's the place for all sorts of questions as far as I know. Nakonana (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I have gone to the Pump now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  NODES
admin 4
chat 1
COMMUNITY 2
Idea 2
idea 2
Note 3