Militum professio scriniarii

Harmonizing categories is forbidden; Criterion #4 is dedicated only for sets (one subject, one day, one author), one photo divided into many parts (Thames 1/100; Thames 2/100, etc.), Wikisource's books or for templates (BSicon and others). In such a case you can use Criterion #2 (meaningless name) or #3 (error, mistake). Wieralee (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Militum professio scriniarii, your way of tagging duplicate files for deletion is incorrect and results in unnecessary work for the processing admins and may even led to deletion of the wrong image. You need to tag ONLY the duplicate-file, which shall deleted, but NOT the one, which shall remain. Also the proper syntax is: {{duplicate|filename_of_the_image_that shall remain.ext}} . --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry for my errors! Duly noted, and thanks for your guidance, best regards. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see that you proposed some file to be renamed. I accepted one File:CARAT Brunei 2019 04.jpg but I declined others (File:171106-N-OU129-069 BRUNEI (November 6, 2017).jpg, File:CARAT Brunei 2019 01.webp, File:Royal Brunei Armed Forces Col. Sahat Hamzah.jpg) where the proposed new name is really too long, do you really need all these information in the file name? (precision like that belongs in the description).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Marine petrol stations => Marine fuel stations: please do not unilaterally make a change like this. Something like this should certainly have gone through COM:CFD. Category names are not about epistemology, they are about what something is commonly called. In this case, I don't think this was particularly wrong, but even as an admin I would not have made this move unilaterally. Please keep in mind that unlike en-wiki and quite a few other Wikpedias, "be bold" is specifically not one of the principles here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 13:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Renaming well-established categories, with superfluous edits (see below) also applies here. Broichmore (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is for bug fixes only. You probably want to use Commons:FR#FR3 ("To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms"). Please read the whole page if possible: Commons:File renaming. Thanks and best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please use the correct rationale. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: - Hi, is it possible to state which file(s) I used the incorrect rationale please? Best regards, Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here, here, and here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

When moving categories like Category:RAF Transport Command, please leave a redirect behind. Or if moving them with a cut-and-paste move, don't delete the original; instead convert it to a redirect.

Whatever your opinion of the original name, if it is a reasonable name (not necessarily the best name or the formally correct name) and has been around a long time, then there are likely to be inbound links to that page. It's not good practice to then break those links. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My question to MPS is why continue to go overboard, renaming established categories without consensus, ignoring COM:CFD.? It's causing havoc. Example: Category:People of the Royal Navy to Category:Royal Navy people Please "cease and desist", till its sorted out.

Have you even bothered reading the policies here, I can see that you have been warned about this behaviour already on multiple occasions. Broichmore (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Broichmore: - if you continue to LIE about me, I shall treat your messages with the contempt they deserve. If you continue to be agressive towards me, I shall take appropriate remedy. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would that 'appropriate remedy' be? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The category names Category:Aircraft fitted with fixed in-flight refuelling probe and Category:Aircraft fitted with retractable in-flight refuelling probe say it all: They're about aircraft. So these should be placed below Category:Aircraft, where you'll find many subdivisions starting with "Aicraft by ...". Maybe a new subcat needs to be created: Category:Aircraft by type of refuelling equipment (or similar), which will also be placed somewhere below Category:Aerial refueling. Also, in Category:Aerial refueling, the new Category:Aerial refueling by type of equipment (or similar) is needed.
Placing aircraft categories as well as images of the same aircraft in Category:Aircraft fitted with fixed in-flight refuelling probe and Category:Aircraft fitted with retractable in-flight refuelling probe is a case of over-categorization that needs to be fixed as well.
Did you know that Kazakhstan will receive their A400Ms without the refuelling probe [1]? This raises doubts as to whether it makes sense to place aircraft types there. Sitacuisses (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply