File:PaulAMiller1970.png 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: Techmila 1970 has a copyright notice on page 3, so the "no notice" license does not apply.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!
Why introduce a category with exactly one (subcategory) member?
Half the parent categories don't exist.
Neither of those nonexistent parent categories would apply to the one subcategory (almost all Pike Place Market stalls are permanent, and virtually none are street stalls. A few days a week, they set up a handful of temporary street stalls, but there are over 100 permanent, non-street stalls). - Jmabel ! talk14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out that you should have been able to answer all of these questions by yourself by browsing the parent category Category:Market stalls in the United States and its ancestors.
Your question
My response
Why introduce a category with exactly one (subcategory) member?
Also, are you claiming that nobody ever will upload images of market stalls at Spokane's Riverfront Market, Tacoma's Farmer's or Night Markets, Vancouver's Farmer's or Night Markets, etc., etc., etc?
Neither of those nonexistent parent categories would apply to the one subcategory (almost all Pike Place Market stalls are permanent, and virtually none are street stalls. A few days a week, they set up a handful of temporary street stalls, but there are over 100 permanent, non-street stalls).
In fact, when you created Category:Market stalls at Pike Place Marketback in 2017, you were the one who placed it in Category:Market stalls in the United States which had been created in 2014 with the same categories that you now find objectionable in 2022. You had no problems with the categorization of Category:Market stalls in the United States then or now, but somehow now that I've started to diffuse market stalls in the United States into state-level subcategories, it all "seems weird" to you. Is it really "weird", or do you just maintain a double standard: one easy standard for yourself and your cadre and another "must be 100% perfect" standard for editors who aren't part of your clique?
(Generally)
If you really find the categorization of the state-level market stalls that offensive, then why don't you take the constructive approach and differentiate between temporary and permanent (or more accurately semi-permanent) market stalls starting at Category:Market stalls and working down through its subcategories? Why not differentiate between indoor and outdoor market stalls, again, starting at Category:Market stalls? Why continue to ignore en:WP:SOFIXIT?
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!
I think it was not a typo, but a copypaste error (unless you were using the ten-key section of the keyboard). And I was just worried you might have made that sort of mistake with other files that day. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent your replies per COM:Talk page guidelines. Why are you so concerned? Reviewing my changes for that day is easy--see [1]. That edit doesn't look like any of those adjacent, so thank you for nitpicking my characterization of it as a typographical error. Also per WP:Be bold, "If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint." Are you looking to "punish" me for a simple error? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would I wanna punish you for it?
By the way, that particular photo is one of my "prized" Commons files. See, even though I did not upload it, I did find the relevant news articles about the girl it depicts. (It surely wasn't easy to find the Newspapers.com clipping of that article without a Newspapers.com account, but I managed!)
Hello! In 2021, you contributed to Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Thanks to people like you, it was a great success with over 500 people contributing over 5,500 photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the country. Hundreds of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, improving our open knowledge about United States history, culture, and heritage. You can see the top-ten winners of the US competition here.
While the United States did not participate in Wiki Loves Monuments in 2022, I'm pleased to say that we're back for 2023 through the month of October! I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our 2023 event page for more information.
Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2021, and we hope to see you again in this year's event! If you have any questions, please leave them on the event talk page.
So what's the rule you're using? If the photograph is taken from an upper floor of Boston City Hall, it's not a "view of Boston from above" if Faneuil Hall's third floor is roughly at eye level? Does that make any photograph of Faneuil Hall from street level a "view of Boston from below", for example ? Does that make any photograph of any multistory building from street level a "view from below"? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for refusing to COM:AGF. The edit in question is actually this one, not the one you cite. I was unaware until your inquiry that I had inadvertently added newlines to my update. I can't believe it rises to the level of "crime" worth whatever punishment you appear to intend to mete out. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for making that template. :) I find it very useful. Guidelines on template/doc are also yours, but I disagree about such narrow usage. Which "trade" and "international politics" topics can template connect? Nothing crosses my mind. I prefer it for three reasons: first, it's a little bit "tribal" that we use only country-related templates for global cities. It's not that much big, on computer it produces very few lines on top. Secondly, it helps with general categorization, it's easier to jump around the world. Thirdly, and strictly personally (ILIKEIT), I adore to compare many topics, from architectural details to many bizarre things. Nowhere else it's possible. That were my reasons, but I'm leaving the final decision to you. Take care. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Hi, so you wrote this note. Congrats to you, I suppose you follow this note but why should I? I don't have any favorite US city, I don't even like cities. I just added cities that were in the top 100 and are still noticeable. The top 100 you just want to keep has a meaning in the 21st century and that's all. What's the interest of having Phoenix or Denver in the 1860s in the list when Rochester or Syracuse were 50 or 100 times bigger? There are articles about these cities in the 1860s, not about those. There is no reason the template should be just used about cities in 2024. Anyway, there is no date attached to the template so the understanding of the topic is free. Have a nice day. --Birdie (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim
My response
I suppose you follow this note but why should I?
Because your judgement is abysmally poor. And the scope of the template is a longstanding one that shouldn't be changed at whim, especially when there are plenty of alternatives.
I don't have any favorite US city, I don't even like cities. I just added cities that were in the top 100 and are still noticeable.
Yes, and then in a few months, someone else will come along and want to add their favorite cities, and another will come along a few months later and want to add even more cities. Pretty soon the template will contain every city in America, down to the tiniest 4000+ person city, and then someone will say "Why not add all of the villages in the United States?". Then a year later, someone will say "Why not add all of the hamlets in the United States?" And pretty soon the template will be full of the tens of thousands of populated places of every possible designation when the template clearly states "100 most populous cities of the United States"
The top 100 you just want to keep has a meaning in the 21st century and that's all.
The template clearly links to List of United States cities by population which states "This table lists the 333 incorporated places in the United States, excluding the U.S. territories, with a population of at least 100,000 as of July 1, 2022, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau." As noted in {{US cities/doc}}, there are plenty of state-specific templates that can provide navigation and that are more appropriate because the smaller the population, the more likely it is that an editor is working locally. Reality check: if your change requires explanatory text to appear in the template (namely, ">100 (former top 50 and still over 100.000)"), it's probably a really poor choice.
What's the interest of having Phoenix or Denver in the 1860s in the list when Rochester or Syracuse were 50 or 100 times bigger?
Because if you start changing the scope of the template, then somebody else is going to see that and then try to make another scope change, and that will lead to a third, fourth, fifth scope change and pretty soon they will have expanded the template in every possible dimension (time, populated place designation, political leaning, etymology of place name, etc., etc., etc.) Another big hole in your argument is whether or not there exists verified lists of the 100 most populous cities in the United States in 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.
There are articles about these cities in the 1860s, not about those.
This is why you shouldn't be editing at all: You don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals. Commons does not host articles, it hosts media organized into categories.
There is no reason the template should be just used about cities in 2024.
Yes, there is. Consider the case where every editor with poor impulse control (like you) starts tacking on his or her favorite cities. The template will grow without bound if people like you just keep expanding it on a whim. Furthermore, there are plenty of alternatives listed at {{US cities/doc}} which you are willfully ignoring.
Anyway, there is no date attached to the template so the understanding of the topic is free.
That is a falsehood. The template clearly links to List of United States cities by population which states "This table lists the 333 incorporated places in the United States, excluding the U.S. territories, with a population of at least 100,000 as of July 1, 2022, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau." Additionally, any reasonable reader would interpret the template as being the current 100 most populous cities in the United States, not "100 most populous cities in the United States now (verification linked), but also some from the past (no verification linked), but it might not be all from the past 'cause the scope-changing editor couldn't be bothered".
Ok, first I see you're not afraid of lying by explaining your revert by "no explanation". I really appreciate such a mentality. I suppose you're popular in your school yard. I'll try to answer to you, hoping you'll understand when growing up .
The page you refer too has also links to the former census pages. It's obvious for someone with a minimum of reflexion that it's impossible to link every page.
Everything that is exagerad is worthless. I am pretty sure it applies perfectly to this sentence. As I wrote, I gave my criteria. It's possible to discuss them but not to consider them as opened. If someone would add cities without any criteria, it would be different.
"Another big hole in your argument is whether or not there exists verified lists of the 100 most populous cities in the United States in 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, etc." You should wait to be fully awaken before writing. There are lists based on every cencus and there are every pages like 1790 census having a "City ranking" §.
Sorry I used categories instead of articles. This said, I don't see why I shouldn't edit anymore... I'd rather think the person having just PA as arguments has no reason to still be here.
Please read PA and try to understand what is written. PA is the lowest way of communicating and it hasn't its place here. I don't ignore state lists when they exist, like for NY state but I am talking about full US categories.
Visibly, as a newbie (2011 !, just make me laugh), you still don't know what is a wiki. We are not on www.GloriousDanielPenfielsPersonalPage.com, here, there's a community and no page belongs to any contributor, even to a wonderful one. So, if you disagree with something, you should open a debate (even listened to someone's else opinion?) and wait for the result of the discussion. I suppose it's new for you but you may discover others' opinions are not always inferior to yours. At least, this would be a great improvement, not to Commons but to you. Birdie (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When responding on talk pages, please follow Help:Talk pages#Indentation instead of the random indentation you've used above.
Your claim
My response
It's obvious for someone with a minimum of reflexion that it's impossible to link every page.
So don't and leave the scope of the navbox alone or use one of the alternatives noted at Template:US_cities/doc#Note.
As I wrote, I gave my criteria.
That's the thing, anyone can come along and invent new criteria to change the longstanding scope of the navbox to suit their whims. And then the scope of the navbox will grow without bound, eventually requiring scrolling down several times to actually reach the images in the category.
It's possible to discuss them but not to consider them as opened.
I have no idea what this means and I'm not sure you do either.
If someone would add cities without any criteria, it would be different.
No, it wouldn't. It would be exactly as it is now: Somebody wanting to add his or her favorite cities by shoehorning them in to the navbox until the navbox grows to such ridiculous size that other people do away with navboxes entirely.
There are lists based on every cencus and there are every pages like 1790 census having a "City ranking"
Since you're the one changing the scope of the template, shouldn't you have done this research and proposed it on the navbox talk page first? Are you saying you're now going to go through each one of the 25 censuses and then rewrite the navbox to include that union list of hundreds of cities (past and present) into one gigantic navbox of hundreds of links?
I'd rather think the person having just PA as arguments has no reason to still be here.
You can whine and complain all you want, but the scope of {{US cities}} is a longstanding one that you shouldn't change and there are plenty alternatives to you inserting your favorite cities into a navbox that has already 100 links. And to top it off, when you made the change to include your favorite, you ended up using it on a handful of pages that already had navboxes affixed to them
We are not on www.GloriousDanielPenfielsPersonalPage.com, here
Nor are we on www.GloriousBirdiePersonalPage.com, but you seem to be blind to your own hypocrisy.
there's a community and no page belongs to any contributor, even to a wonderful one.
Advice you seem to ignore for yourself, but you want to apply selectively to me.
So, if you disagree with something, you should open a debate (even listened to someone's else opinion?) and wait for the result of the discussion.
You could have done this yourself, but you seem to be blind to your own hypocrisy.
I suppose it's new for you but you may discover others' opinions are not always inferior to yours.
You claim that changing the longstanding scope of a navbox (which already has 100 links) to include your favorite cities is "opinion". Actually, it's a major change that then opens the door for any random editor to come along and add more, then another random editor can come along and add more, and so on, and so on, and so on. All the while, there are plenty of alternatives noted at Template:US_cities/doc#Note that you continue to willfully ignore.
I think I can make a fair argument that you ignoring the clear content of the text of those files "WILL RENAME AND CATEGORIZE SOON" is actually an example of YOU being disruptive, not I. Famartin (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went thru and checked your work, and you actually made two errors... "Poughkeepsie" should've been "Town of Poughkeepsie" (outside the city limits, its in the town) and "Catskill" should've been "Athens" (totally wrong town). OK, now, (removed portion which was misdirected toward another similarly named editor) go ahead and mess with them if they are still not up to your personal expectations. But just the ones I have already renamed and categorized. Famartin (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Budapest_-_Hungary_(4109723951).jpg){kind=link}
