117Avenue

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wood_Buffalo_wards_2010.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.

 

Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

File:Strathcona_County_wards_2010.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I somehow missed the advisory on the County webpage that states that the mapping is in the public domain, please provide the link and we can clear this up. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're probably right, I was just hoping that when a municipality releases a map, it is in the public domain, like a bylaw. 117Avenue (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In some countries, that's true. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Canada, unless a municipality expressly decides to do so. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Not trying to be difficult here, I'm just not sure that your proposed category works. I thought I would leave you a note and we can chat about it and try and figure out something. There seem to be two issues here:

1) The 2012 elections category: As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), there are no fixed election dates in Alberta. So while the election must occur sometime before March 2013, it could theoretically occur in 2011, 2012 or even 2013. While pundits might expect it in 2012, we don't that will be the case this far out. We tend not to categorize by year when things are so speculative. Moreover, the image doesn't really pertain to the election per se. Yes, it shows opinion polls, which are fodder for election talk. However, the graph relates to the next provincial election much in the same way that all politics pertains to elections. The elections categories are really intended to contain media respecting the elections themselves, not the years leading up to the elections. Otherwise, if the latter were the case, we'd be putting every image since 2008 of Danielle Smith talking at a banquet, every image of Stelmach at a ceremony, etc. into the elections category, because the politicians typically act and behave with the next election in mind. And then the category would cease to be about the election and would be more about politics generally.

2) 2010 in Alberta - You are absolutely correct that the graph pertains to 2008 and 2009 as well. Since it doesn't make sense (as you implied in your edit summary) to categorize in multiple year categories (and we usually don't do that for graphs of this type that span a number of years), we typically do one of three things: categorize it in the year in which the data culminates (and the graph was made), put it in a decades category instead (in this case, it would be in both Category:Alberta in the 2000s and Category:Alberta in the 2010s), or just not put it in a year/decade category. My approach has usually (IIRC) been to choose the first approach, but I am not particularly fussed if you prefer a different one.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right that the 28th Alberta general election, does not have a set date, which is why it isn't in a year category on Wikipedia, but it is very likely to be 2012. I was just hoping I could get away with it here. The problem I have with placing it in a single year category, is that it could span five years. Is it all right to place it in three year categories? 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi 117, when you get the copyright stuff cleared up for File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg, can you replace the "correct" version in all the articles it's in over at en.wikipedia? We have it in about 5 or 6 places. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I already uploaded a good version, the old version just needs to be deleted. Is the tag not clear? 117Avenue (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Smosh YouTube.jpg

It's under Standard YouTube License not CC. Masur (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Joe Penna YouTube.jpg

And this one is All Rights Reserved - Copyright 2011 not CC-BY. Masur (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well that sucks. I suppose there's no way to prove that they were CC when I uploaded them? 117Avenue (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not. But are you sure that you took indeed their license? It's written below all the data about certain clip, below tags, last line. Masur (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm sure I saw the correct licence. I found another one, but unfortunately it's too dark to use. 117Avenue (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:Alison_Redford_profile_headshot.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please add a proper attribution of the original authors of the source images, either in the author field or behind each image link. In the current state the compilation is a copyvio due to missing attribution. Please be careful on selecting a license for such a compilation, at least one source image had an attribution-sharealike license but you used a less restrictive attribution license. I don't think the {{User}} template is intended to be placed on image description pages, better use a standard wikilink to your page. --Denniss (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I actually thought the sharealike licence was a less restrictive licence. I've got to give myself a refresher with licences, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, 117Avenue. I was wondering if you were interested in the Canadian component of this year's project. If so, please feel free to join us at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/− Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear 117Avenue, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last yearReply

Hello, 117Avenue! I moved File:Fort Edmonton 1800.jpg to Category:Fort Edmonton, rather than copying it, because the (replica) Fort is inside the Park and likewise for the corresponding categories. But no big deal: that shot doesn’t give much of a view of the structure itself, and IIANM the rest of the Fort files are historical pictures of the original building.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I had another look at the Fort category, and all its content is indeed historic, relating to the original site on or near the present Legislature grounds. So I don’t think it really belongs in the Park at all; a “See also category” template is already there. Moreover, ISTM Category:Parks in Edmonton & Category:Museums and galleries in Edmonton apply to the Park but not the original site, which shouldn‘t be inheriting them. What do you think? I’ll drop a line to Steve Morgan as well, since he created the Park cat and added the Fort cat to it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they should probably be two different things, just like on the English Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That sounds fine to me. I now realize that I should not have put the Fort cat into the Park cat. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Athabasca Landing 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are correct, and that Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River was incorrectly named, and contained incorrect information. Good catch.

I am sorry, but I disagree with the steps you took, following this determination. Nominating the category for discussion was good, followed procedure, etc. but moving its elements to another category, emptying it, was not just premature -- because it implies you had already triggered a consensus, it exposes the project to a time-wasting round of confusion.

Categories, as currently implemented, really suck as an organizing tool, as there is no convenient or reliable way to check to see what contents a category once had, and no convenient or reliable way to see why elements were added or why they were removed.

Unfortunately, many administrators remove empty categories on sight.

I request you initiate the discussion, in cases like this, and leave the recategorization until after the discussion is complete.

I have written elsewhere as to why I disagree with your suggestion that it is satisfactory to conflate photos taken that were described as being taken in Athabasca Landing with photos taken after 1913 in the Town of Athabasca. Short version -- it is confusing and there is no real advantage to the conflation.

I am going to move the images back to the old category. This makes considering your nomination more meaningful for other parties. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I edited the files because they were improperly categorized, saying they were linked to the Slave River, when the source said they were from Athabasca Landing, which is on the Athabasca River. Not all the files ended up in the same category. I did not nominate the category for deletion because it was empty, but for discussion because I could have been wrong, and something could have been categorized with it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I just had an accident with Cat-a-lot, and am in the process of fixing it manually … will explain later if you like. Sorry for the watchlist alarms.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

How do you accidentally remove a category from 100 pages? This can't be a good gadget to use. 117Avenue (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, all restored; thanks for your help. Cat-a-lot certainly is powerful—probably enough to be considered a bot. Short version: I misunderstood one of the functions.

Longer version: Some photos from the neighbourhood of Parkdale, Edmonton, had been uploaded in Category:Parkdale as well as Category:Edmonton. Since Toronto is the centre of the universe, its Parkdale has the undisambiguated name … anyway, I wanted to remove it from all those pix. Now usually, when you tell Cat-a-lot to do something to a batch of selected items, it just skips the ones for which the action is already done. So, lazy as I am, I thought I’d just select everything in Edmonton, bring up Parkdale, click the “Remove from this category” link, and only the miscategorized files would be affected. Well, as I found out, “this category” actually means the page you’re on, regardless of what other cat may be selected as a target … and you know the rest.

Apologies again, and I’ll certainly be more careful in future!—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Funny that it's Parkdale, I used it as an example in en:Template:Calgary City Council/doc because Parkdale is in Ward 7 in both Calgary and Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/117Avenue⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

 

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

 

Dear 117Avenue,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Marijuana Party Flag of Canada.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Asclepias (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Comparison between French and English about hamlet, village, town, city.png 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Feldo (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The convention is that "parks" is in lower case, because it is a common noun in this use. A decision made on Wikipedia doesn't change the convention here. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was my understanding that categories here match article and category names on Wikipedia, and that controversial moves should be discussed first. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not a common noun in this use; "National Parks of Canada" is the proper name of a group of things managed and run as a system. Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

File:LPC 2013.png 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you please look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Quarters stop?

I suggested renaming a category you started. Geo Swan (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply