Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09

This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2018.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2018-09.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Liquidation of Ministerium für Staatssicherheit

Can somebody tell me what belongs to that cat? As there are election commercials of the CDU in this cat. Sanandros (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: It is an election commercial from the time of east and west germany. Short before the re-unity. The party "CDU" will win the election with the goal "never again Stasi". So it is part of the Liquidation of Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Maybe we can discuss this in german language? -- sk (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dann sage mir mal was alles hier rein kommt. Und auch warum die Gedenkstätten hier drin sind?--Sanandros (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: Ich würde da alles sammeln, was mit der eigentlichen Tätigkeit der Stasi nichts mehr zu tun hat. Also Demos gegen die Stasi, Erstürmung der Gebäude, Mahnmale und Museen. Schlag aber ruhig einen besseren Namen für die Kategorie vor. Ich glaube als ich dadrin etwas rumsortiert habe, gab es den Namen schon. -- sk (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ja mein Problem ist, dass dann Leute sachen hineinkategorisieren was im entferentesten irgendwie mit der stasi etwas zu tun hat. Darum frage ich nach einer Definition der Kat, damit ich messerscharf sagen kann, das gehört rein und dass bitte drausen lassen.--Sanandros (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bzw was würdest du denn für einen Deutschen Namen verwenden?--Sanandros (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros and Stefan Kühn: it is German-specific. Still we haven't hatnote which explains which files should belong here. Could you help eg @Triplec85, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Wdwd, and DerHexer: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: After the German reunification (process in 1990), this former Ministery of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was ~dissolved or wound up. --> en:Liquidation

In my opinion, some pictures here show protests by citizens, others show an intrusion by citizens into the building (papers on the floor indicate devastation in the building), and less a liquidation itself in the narrow sense, which is probably difficult to capture in pictures. In a broader sense it can perhaps be understood as part of the liquidation that started from the actions of the people.

Possible Categories (?!?)

Former ministries
Demonstations and protests
(East) German history

Greets Triplec85 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think that liquidation is too broad. I don't have a strong opinion on subcategories, to be honest. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take out the remembering sites and museums. I'd categore the CDU commercials in a cat called "Cat:Election commercials against the MfS". The Stormings in a cat called "Cat:Storming of MfS buildings during 1989" or similar. And finaly this cat can then be delted.--Sanandros (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Set of Platonic solids; Baelde style

“Baelde style” is not a significant information, this category title is conceived to hide images. “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra” and “Category:SVG_Platonic_solids” are sufficient, this subcategory can be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is makeshift and could easily be changed. For the question whether or not these similar images should be bundled in the same category, see Commons:Image sets. See also the preceding discussion at User talk:Arthur Baelde. Watchduck (quack) 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated three categories for discussion, two analogous texts appeared on one category page and the other. But something did not work for the third category. I will not discuss this category as long as the text of “Category:Set_of_Platonic_solids;_Baelde_style” is not correct.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solved it with an empty edit (saving again without making changes). Watchduck (quack) 22:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately this message is not indented, do not change anything of my messages. Conspicuous discrimination, there are currently 5 images in “Category:SVG_Platonic_solids”, and in a subcategory 24 images I created, under a ridiculous title: “Set_of_Platonic_solids;_Baelde_style”.

The adjacent image is one of these 24 hidden images.

First attack, 22 February 2018, the 24 images had been categorized in Category:Set_of_Platonic_solids;_orthogonal_projections_with_dimensioning. When Watchduck came on my talk page, warring to categorize the 24 images under his first bad title, I answered there was no dimensioning on certain images, see above. But rename certain categories is one of weapons of Watchduck.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you multiple times in the other discussion that removing consistency with other images (e.g. this one in case of the image shown above) is not a legitimate reason to overwrite. See COM:OVERWRITE. I reverted your five re-uploads in question. Watchduck (quack) 16:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Academ_Two_stellations_of_a_Platonic_dodecahedron.svg is nominated for deletion, so it is replaced with another example, see above.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current categorization by author or by colors should be replaced with a categorization by topic, like below.

Category:SVG_cube and_Platonic_solids of_thirty_edges

Category:SVG_Platonic_solid_nets instead of Category:Set of_Platonic_solids; Baelde_style

Examples of subcategories of Category:SVG Platonic solids

Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three images that are clearly part of the same set.

Two of the three images shown above are not in the discussed category. The three on the right are.

The discussed category is not about categorization by author. It has a makeshift name, because you chose to nitpick about the old one.

You have still not answered the question I have asked you on your talk page two months ago:

According to you, should the other sets in Sets of all Platonic solids also be dissolved?

E.g. should Set of Platonic solids; green be dissolved? I guess according to you it is irrelevant categorization "by color". If not, how do you think your set is different from that one?

(You have also not answered the equivalent question I have asked last month in this other discussion. Same at this other discussion.)

Watchduck (quack) 18:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style

“Baelde style” is not a significant information, this category title is conceived to hide images. “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra” and “Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids” are sufficient, the present subcategory can be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is makeshift and could easily be changed. For the question whether or not these similar images should be bundled in the same category, see Commons:Image sets. Watchduck (quack) 12:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who searches for images via Commons can type “Category:” in a searching zone, followed by a short description of what is wanted on image. Thus in a drop‑down menu are listed categories, the titles of which begin with the content of the zone. For images of nonconvex regular polyhedra, who will type a semicolon after “Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids”? Nobody. And "Baelde style" is uninteresting. This category hides its content, the purpose is discrimination of images. “Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style” must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who goes to Kepler-Poinsot solids can click on ...by name if he searches for a specific one, or on ...by image set if he wants all four of them in the same style. In the latter case he can find your set next to the green set or the Petrie set. This is called ordering things, and on the long run it makes things easier to find. Watchduck (quack) 17:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your answer, nothing about this semicolon in your category title.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares. You can rename this category to whatever you like, as long as the name is not misleading. Watchduck (quack) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category has been renamed. I consider this discussion closed. See discussion of the former subcategory for details. Watchduck (quack) 17:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold

“Baelde style” is not a significant information, this category title is conceived to hide images. “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra” and “Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids” are sufficient, the present subcategory can be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No separate discussion needed for the subcategory. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style. Watchduck (quack) 12:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories you created are not on the same level, the present one is a subcategory of the other. You hide in this one 44 images I created, out of which 10 show at the same time convex and nonconvex polyhedra, not only Kepler‑Poinsot solids. So these ten images should be in Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra:

In my previous list of 10 images, I forgot deliberately images where the two kinds of polyhedra, convex or not, are a little more difficult to see. Here are these 9 images:

Each of these nine images shows two concentric regular polyhedra, one is convex, the other is not convex. So these nine images should be in Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra and Category:Concentric_objects. Like those of the previous list, they should be removed from the crazy category: Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3-fold.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even bother to put your images in the respective subcategories Great dodecahedron, Great icosahedron, Great stellated dodecahedron and Small stellated dodecahedron. Neither did you put those you mention above in Icosahedron or Dodecahedron. It's a bit strange that you care about SVG regular polyhedra and Concentric objects instead, but fair enough. Subsets of this set can be added to all these categories. But none of this changes the fact that these images are part of a set. Diffusing these images in more specific subsets can be done when a better name is found. (I will not propose one, because you will not accept it anyway.)

Just for the sake of clarity: You were hiding these images when you put them only in SVG regular polyhedra (and some in Concentric objects), because they were not (directly or indirectly) in Kepler-Poinsot solids. Watchduck (quack) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is unclear. By a first step, you could admit you categorized wrongly 19 SVG images in your “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold”: these images show at the same time Platonic solids and Kepler‑Poinsot solids. I propose a transfer of these SVG images from “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold” to “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra”. I divided previously the list of these 19 images into two sublists, only to help anyone to examine at first these drawings, and then think about our problem. If you disagree with me about this transfer, you can expose your objection.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my answer is not unclear. I generally have my doubts that you actually read and understand answers. Your answers usually don't show any sign of it.

Each of these files has to be in some subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids. The category we talk about is such a category. SVG regular polyhedra is not. Watchduck (quack) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 19 images I talk about do not show only non convex regular polyhedra. So they are wrongly in your “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All 44 images currently in this category show Kepler-Poinsot solids, and thus have to be in a subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids. Some can additionally be added to other categories. Watchduck (quack) 16:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You admit, but you are far too vague. You removed four images from Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style after its nomination for discussion, for example this image (5 September 2018, 16:37 came after 08:45). Why this removal? No image in the current “Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style”, why did you create this unattractive subcategory of “Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids”? Someone who reaches this subcategory page reads the present category title, and reads “Baelde_style” again. And after the second semicolon, this present title ends almost with a real information: “3‑fold”. Why not categorize in Category:3-fold_rotational_symmetry?

I wrote a beginning of content description of Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra, currently discussed. On this other discussion page, we could finalize all the details of this content description. Could you try to be clear?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit what?

The four images where overcategorized, and I changed that. (1, 2, 3, 4)

This is dihedral, not just rotational symmetry. The discussed category is in Orthographic projections of polyhedra; with 3-fold dihedral symmetry. To put each of these images directly in 3-fold dihedral symmetry would be against the modularity principle — you know, the rule you choose to ignore, because you don't like it.

I chose to create the nested 3-fold category as a precaution, expecting that 2-fold and 5-fold images in the same style may follow. If you don't intend to create such images, the subcategory can indeed be removed. Then the whole image set will be directly in 3-fold polyhedra. Watchduck (quack) 11:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: “I chose to create the nested 3-fold category as a precaution, expecting that 2-fold and 5-fold images in the same style may follow. If you don't intend to create such images, the subcategory can indeed be removed”. Therefore you use also images that do not exist to complicate searches and comparisons of real images. My opinion is unchanged, style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry, therefore any category with “style” or certain colors in its title must be removed, like the present category and the parent category.

You wrote: “This is dihedral, not just rotational symmetry”. I disagree, because a space under rotation can be two‑dimensional or three‑dimensional.

You wrote: “some can additionally be added to other categories”, therefore you know you had not properly categorized these images. But you admit by proposing to add other categories to the 19 images I listed above. Perhaps you did not read my begining of content description, on “SVG_regular_polyhedra”, when “SVG_Platonic_solids” was the only subcategory. In the logic of this beginning of description, I propose to tranfer the listed images from this discussed category to their initial category: “SVG_regular_polyhedra”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time:

You were hiding these images when you put them only in SVG regular polyhedra (and some in Concentric objects), because they were not (directly or indirectly) in Kepler-Poinsot solids.
All 44 images currently in this category show Kepler-Poinsot solids, and thus have to be in a subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids.

Images of Kepler-Poinsot or Platonic solids belong in their respective subcategories, and nothing you write in the description of SVG regular polyhedra can change that.

"I disagree, because a space under rotation..." Fine. Feel free to disagree.

"My opinion is unchanged, style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry..." Fine. According to you all image sets of Kepler-Poinsot solids should be emptied into Kepler-Poinsot solids (or even higher categories). As long as you don't try to do it, feel free to have that opinion.

You made no proposal for renaming, and your demand to under-categorize images is not acceptable. I will now rename the category, and properly subcategorize by the solids shown, so nothing remains to be done. Watchduck (quack) 17:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suppose you will not like it, but you would not like anything in accordance with COM:CAT.

The renamed category Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG is in SVG Kepler-Poinsot solids.
It has four subcategories for the actual solids. E.g. Small stellated dodecahedron; colorful 3-fold SVG, which is in Small stellated dodecahedron.
Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with Platonic solids is in SVG Platonic solids.
Its subcategory Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hulls is in Concentric objects.
And of course Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron is in Dodecahedron. Same for icosahedron.

Everything is where it belongs now. Nothing remains to be done. This discussion (and its twin) should be closed now. Watchduck (quack) 18:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By writting on the page top: "No separate discussion needed for the subcategory. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style", you had tried to escape from any discussion on this page. And now, you changed the category content before this discussion is closed, it is not correct. You are still flouting the following principle to categorize these SVG images: the topic of each image must prevail over its colours or its "style".
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject is more important than the way it is presented. As usual when you state something correct it is part of a straw man. You are implying that images in this category are not correctly categorized by subject. But they are. Watchduck (quack) 21:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as usual when you have no answer, you start a new discussion about the same topic instead: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with Platonic solids Watchduck (quack) 10:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to evade from this discussion, so I have to recall certain facts. Numerous precise examples of your wrong work are given on this page. And your answers are constantly general remarks, never you had taken one image as an example. For example, everyone can read this file history and state the fact: you changed the category content before this discussion is closed, and it is not correct.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your formatting choices are as bad as your ideas about categorization. Any other user would keep images on the default right side, but of course you have to add the left keyword to mess up the indentation.

"precise examples of your wrong work" See my for the last time remark above.

"never you had taken one image as an example" Currently every image in this category is correctly categorized. If you want to claim the opposite, give an example of one that is not.

"the categorization of this image changed" As stated above: The four images where overcategorized, and I changed that. (1, 2, 3, 4)

"you changed the category content before this discussion is closed" If an experienced user takes your side, I will have a constructive conversation with that user. Otherwise I consider this discussion closed.

Watchduck (quack) 19:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again: You have no answer, so you just started a new discussion about the same topic (and already removed the links to this discussion on the category page). Just because the category has a new name does not mean that the discussion needs a new name as well. If anything remains to be said, it can be said here. Watchduck (quack) 11:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Arthur Baelde is trying to hide this discussion and start a new one with the same topic. Probably he thinks that his inability to actually take part in a discussion is less obvious this way. I do not accept this tactic of diversion by redundancy, and copy his last post from there to here. Watchduck (quack) 11:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly Arthur Baelde has not answered, but started new discussions about subcategories instead. I move them here under their own headlines.
This is clearly not a good-faith attempt to keep different topics apart for the sake of clarity, but an attempt to start the same discussion over and over again. Watchduck (quack) 17:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that Arthur Baelde is trying to hide this discussion, I did not exaggerate. He now made a deletion request for this discussion page. Watchduck (quack) 13:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG

Same topic, according to the image names.

According to their names, the two adjacent images show a same polyhedron. The first image is the last drawing of an old image used on Wikipedia, also visible on Star polyhedron for example. The second image is currently categorized in Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold _SVG. But Watchduck would like to avoid the discussion.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that these images show a great dodecahedron, and unsurprisingly both can be found in Great dodecahedron. You made essentially the same post in the gray with yellow face discussion, and I have already responded there. Watchduck (quack) 11:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron

This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Watchduck had stored the adjacent image in the following categories:

Here is its current categorization:

“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron” ends with “dodecahedron”, does that mean “with Platonic dodecahedron”?

“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron_hull” ends with “dodecahedron hull”, does that mean “with a convex hull of twelve faces”?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...with dodecahedron and ...with icosahedron are in ...with Platonic solids. So, guess what, we are talking about the regular dodecahedron.

Great stellated dodecahedron; colorful 3-fold SVG has the ...with dodecahedron hull subcategory.

It contains those images of the gsD where you indicated the convex hull, which is a dodecahedron. Yes, the regular dodecahedron. With twelve faces.

Watchduck (quack) 18:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron

This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains every image in the set that in any way shows a regular icosahedron. Its content exactly matches its name. Watchduck (quack) 18:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hull

This category should be removed, notably because Category:Convex hull already exists.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably the only person on Commons who thinks that the existence of a parent category is a reason to delete a subcategory. Watchduck (quack) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compound of orange dodecahedron and black icosahedron (image set)

"Orange dodecahedron and black icosahedron" are secondary informations, the purpose is discrimination of images, this category must be deleted.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image set, just like the two other sets in Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron. Are the images in the two other sets also being discriminated? Should all of them be mixed in the parent category? Watchduck (quack) 09:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrical properties of these solids are more important than colors on the image.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So? No one claimed anything else.

Please answer my question: Should the two other sets also be emptied into Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron? On your talk page I have already asked essentially the same question three weeks ago, and until now you have not answered.

My question neglects that what you actually did was even messier: You moved them not just from the set up to Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron, but right up to Pairs of dual Platonic solids, Dodecahedron and Icosahedron, totally disregarding the modularity principle. Watchduck (quack) 10:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess: You changed the colors to this and this file, so you can now make the point that they are not part of a set anymore? See Commons:Overwriting existing files. Watchduck (quack) 09:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few legitimate reasons to overwrite existing files. (COM:OVERWRITE) Deliberately breaking the consistency with other images is certainly not among them. A minor improvement is typically the correction of an error, and not choosing the color scheme of the season. Watchduck (quack) 10:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you overwrote another image with the sole intention to break the consistency with other images. And as usual you did not read or understand my answer. So I tell you again: Don't do this, or expect your changes to be reverted. COM:OVERWRITE is a guideline and not someones opinion you can choose to ignore. (The same is true about COM:CAT, which you consistently break.) Watchduck (quack) 17:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot deny that the current images of your "Category:Compound_of_orange_dodecahedron_and_black_icosahedron_(image_set)" do not show a black icosahedron, they have not the colors indicated in the category title.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an image exists, which shows an icosahedron and a dodecahedron with the colors you indicate in your category title, it would be better not to store this image in your category. At first because colors are secondary informations, like generally in geometry. And then because colors can change on an image, in a new version. Your discussed category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you made these changes is to make the images inconsistent with each other. It is my opinion that this is not in accordance with COM:OVERWRITE. Unless an experienced user tells me that I should not, I will revert your changes. I will wait a few days to see if there are other opinions.
For the record, these are the four images in question: File:Dual Platonic solids and icosidodecahedron.svg, File:Icosidodecahedron and dual Platonic solids.svg, File:Icosidodecahedron as intersection of Platonic solids.svg, File:Icosidodecahedron from dual Platonic solids.svg
Of course, when you already removed the images from the discussed category, you had to disregard the modularity principle again, in exactly the way I described above ("My question neglects..."). You do not even pretend to understand the rules, or to care about them in any way. You simply act as if the rules don't exist, and as if the people who tell you about them are nothing but a background noise you have every right to ignore. Watchduck (quack) 22:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Baelde: This seems pointless. One user wants a category for a clear set of images; fine. That doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want; upload the different colored files to new images. One of the advantages of Commons over Wikipedia is that we have enough space to usually get out of each other's way and not have to edit the same works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Baelde: @Baelde: You don't get it, do you? You simply refuse to understand anything you are told. (Unless, possibly, what you are told is exactly what you want to hear.) Your latest upload (reactivating your old account) is exactly of the same illegitimate nature as the ones mentioned before. The image is part of a different set (discussion foud here), but I mention it here for purposes of documentation. Watchduck (quack) 14:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the five images in question back to their original state. Watchduck (quack) 16:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To choose the colors of an image instead of its author would be an abuse.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a cooperative endeavor; once you've uploaded an image, you don't necessarily have the right to arbitrarily change it. The author choose the colors; that doesn't necessarily mean they can change them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this answer.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the discussion of the parent category: I consider this discussion closed, unless an experienced user chooses to support the view of Arthur Baelde. Watchduck (quack) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG compounds of dual Platonic solids

"Compound" and "dual" are unclear, there are many kinds of "compound" or "duality", so this category must be renamed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Polytope compound#Dual compounds. We are not going to rename it to "Interesting pairs of Platonic solids (SVG images)". (See talk page.) Watchduck (quack) 16:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a suitable title, in my opinion, I created “Category:Interesting_pairs_of_Platonic_solids_(SVG_images)”, that you transformed into “Category:SVG_compounds_of_dual_Platonic_solids”. Why?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you still don't understand why your name was bad, I can't help you. I deduced from your semi-intelligible description that you are talking about dual compounds done in SVG, so I renamed the category accordingly. Watchduck (quack) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, talk about a sphere to describe "Category:Pairs_of_dual_Platonic_solids" is clumsy, because the category page shows nothing of a sphere on its images. When I came on "Category:Pairs_of_dual_Platonic_solids", it seems you understood my description, since you transfered it to another category you created, titled Category:Compounds_of_dual_Platonic_solids.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current descriptions of Pairs of dual Platonic solids and Compounds of dual Platonic solids (permanent links) are as clear as it gets. If the provided links don't help you, nothing can. Watchduck (quack) 12:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lead text neither on the first category page nor on the second one. What is a “description” for you?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic of these images: two Platonic solids,
the intersection of which is an Archimedean solid.

“Compound” has a too vague meaning. To be categorized by topic, such a SVG image should be categorized under “Category:SVG_Platonic_solids”, for example in a subcategory titled “Archimedean_intersections_of_Platonic_solids_(SVG_images)”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, and I have already responded to it in the discussion about your image set ("Anyway, your 'too vague' claim is wrong"). Watchduck (quack) 11:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen

should be joined with Category:Oberamt Göppingen; both categories hold scans of the same book Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beide Kategorien enthalten scans des gleichen Buchs von verschiedenen Quellen. Ich weiß nicht wie die joined Kategorie aussehen wird, alles vermischt? Folgendes kann möchte ich zu bedenken geben:

Der Titel des Buchs lautet "Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen“.
Es gibt einen Artikel “w:de:Oberamt Göppingen”, der bezieht sich nicht auf das Buch sondern eben auf das Oberamt.
Es gibt ein Werk “s:de:Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen”.
Letzteres benutzt die Dateien in Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen, sie haben eine größere Auflösung als die in Category:Oberamt Göppingen.
Die Karte fehlt anscheinend in der letzteren, auch werden die Dateien nicht benutzt.

Mir ist es egal wie vorgegangen wird, es sollte nur sichergestellt werden dass alle Links in Wikisouce weiterhin funktionieren. --9xl (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn sich die Kategorieninhalte systematisch unterscheiden lassen, koennten die Kategoriennamen so geaendert werden, dass sie diesen Unterschied wiederspiegeln (z.B. Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen (medium resolution) und Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Göppingen (high resolution)). Beide zu vermischen wuerde ich in diesem Fall nicht mehr fuer sinnvoll halten. Waere das ok? Und welche Kategorie sollte welchen Namen bekommen? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn es zu deinem Seelenfrieden beiträgt, dann mach was du willst. --{{u| (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Jochen Burghardt and 9xl: unfortunately, German-only discussion. But any further developments? As already said that dewiki de:Oberamt Göppingen is about concrete unit (Verwaltungsbezirk) not about the book. I added {{See also category}} to both categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm involved, you may close the discussion with the result "keep everything as is", or with any other result. If 9xl doesn't care for appropriate category names for his uploads, why should I? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In der Oberkategorie Category:Oberamt ist Chaos. Für manche Oberamtkategorien sind Hauptkategorien angelegt, für manche nicht. In manchen Fällen weicht die Benennung ab. In manchen Fällen sind die Unterkategorien mit den Scans der Beschreibungen direkt einsortiert. Die alphabetische Sortierung ist ohne Sinn.
Wir bekommen in der Zukunft jedenfalls noch tausende von Dateien mit den Urflurkarten, wie bspw. File:NO XLVI 25 Oppenweiler Rems-Murr-Kreis Württembergische Landesvermessung (1831) Landesarchiv BW EL 68 VI Nr 3968 Bild 1 (2-5305085-1).png, die man nach Oberämtern sortieren sollte sowie Karten aus dem w:Topographischer Atlas des Koenigreichs Württemberg.
Zudem sind Dateien denkbar, die Siegel, Wappen und anderes abbilden. Diese sind womöglich schon an anderer Stelle auf Commons hinterlegt, aber der fehlenden Oberamtzuordnung bislang nicht auffindbar.
Erweitert werden muß dieses Subsystem auch um die badischen Oberämter; hier liegt mir derzeit aber keine Bestandsaufnahme vor.
Ich tendiere deswegen zu folgener Abarbeitung und würde in etwa zehn Tagen oder so die entsprechenden Schritte vornehmen;
1. Anlage von Kagtegorien der Form Category:Oberamt XY, wo noch nicht vorhanden.
2. Verlegung aller Beschreibungen-Unterkategorien für jedes XY in die entsprechende Oberamt-XY-Kategorie
3. Einheitliches Lemma, wo noch nicht vorhanden.

--Matthiasb (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gut durchdachte Systematiken sind immer anzustreben. Ich habe mir den Zustand angesehen und befürworte die skizzierte Aufräumaktion. Gutes Gelingen, eventuell kann ich noch weitere Anregungen finden oder mithelfen. Grüße Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chiesa di San Cristoforo (Vagliagli)

moved to correct cat name Category:San Cristoforo (Vagliagli) LigaDue (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. The category is about the church, so why have you removed the church from the category name? It's not a category for a saint named Christopher of Vagliagli. The Italian wikipedia page is at it:Chiesa di San Cristoforo (Vagliagli). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hy. As far as i can see most italian churches are without the church of or chiesa di. In the category Saint Christopher churches in Italy i could not find one (exept the one in Strada in Chianti, now updated). Also in the other categories the church is part of there is rarely a Chiesa di / Church of. So i moved the category. Greetings, LigaDue (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that does seem to be the pattern in Italy. It seems strange to me and it doesn't seem to apply in any other country. I'm not sure I have the energy to suggest a commons-wide move. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hy again Themightyquill, i think many church categories have some problems, because in many there are different languages used, for example in the cat Churches in Barcelona we have Church of Sant Francesc d'Assís, Barcelona right next to Església de Sant Francesc de Sales (Barcelona) (differnt in language and also with comma or brackets). Seen that in Spain there all Esglesia, in France all Eglise, in Italy it should be Chiesa di, which means Category:St. Mark's Basilica (Venice) is quite wrong and should be Basilica di San Marco. If you know more about how to use the correct cat name, please let me know. Thanks in advance and greetings to you, LigaDue (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the multilingual problem is an issue for the church tree, but it goes far beyond that and there's no easy solution. Some people don't like translations. Some people don't like original language. Some people don't like a mix of English description and original name (like Sant Francesc de Sales church). Regardless of the language, I think it makes sense to include some indication that a category is for a church in the category title. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hm, i think you are right, Chiesa di might be better. But how to go on with future categories. Keeping the standard like most italian churches or switching to Chiesa di and completing the chaos? What do you think? Greetings, LigaDue (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I definitely support idea that the category name should describe that we are dealing with church, like user:Themightyquill already stated. Ideally, the category name should be in English, but if translation is questionable, then I am fine with "Chiesa ...", "Eglesia ..." etc. But this CFD can be closed, because it is in the line with the subcategories of Category:Churches in Castelnuovo Berardenga. Wider discussion about church names (which are without self-explanatory name part "church", "catherdal", "chiesa", "eglesia" etc) is encouraged--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG regular polyhedra

This category needs a clear update of its content description. For example, Watchduck expressed rules to categorize images, that he had himself flouted.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Baelde: Would you like to propose a category desciption for discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you some ideas?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing anyone writes on a category page can supersede the most basic rules how images are categorized. The category an image belongs in is never the "lowest common denominator" of all the things seen in the image. Arthur Baeldes current description is like saying that an image with only automobiles belongs in Automobiles, an image with only carriages belongs in Carriages, but one with both belongs in Vehicles.
@Themightyquill: Please close the discussion. This is nonsense, and is proposed in bad faith anyway. Compare the "without other polyhedra" renaming mentioned here. Watchduck (quack) 00:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the adjacent SVG image should be categorized directly in Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra.

See another discussion for its current categorization. “Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold_SVG;_with_dodecahedron_hull” ends with “dodecahedron hull”, does that mean “with a convex hull of twelve faces”?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to talk about swindles.
I first proposed to correct the category description, disregarded by Allforrous when he changed the category content. But Watchduck removed this description, without reporting this deletion on the present discussion page.

I will give examples of disreputable behaviors, intended to discourage from any discussion. In principle, no one should change the content or the page of a category under discussion. And to be clear, we should not mix discussions of several categories that have different contents. For example, here is a discussion that no longer makes sense: its name is out of date, and Watchduck changed several times the category content before the discussion has been closed. For example, about the image here displayed, here is a page that sums up 19 changes of categorization by Watchduck, before the discussion has been closed. Moreover, Watchduck appended my signature to a message I did not write.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Lincolnshire

This should be moved to Category:Borough of North Lincolnshire similar to Category:Borough of North East Lincolnshire. I attempted to move it and found Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:North Lincolnshire, so this needs to be discussed. At that time it wasn't common to use the longer name but as can be seen from Category:Districts in England by name it now is common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to make it a rule that "Borough" needs to be included in the name, it's going to apply to other categories as well. I've tagged Category:Torbay, Category:Blackburn with Darwen, Category:Redcar and Cleveland, and Category:Thurrock. There may be others as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Lincolnshire is due to the fact that "North Lincolnshire" can refer to the northern part of Lincolnshire, for the same reason as Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:North Britain. Notice that there is an article at w:North Devon describing both the northern part of Devon and the district and there is also an article at w:South Devon which isn't a district. The thing with the others like "Blackburn with Darwen" is that that name could only refer to the administrative unit, however all of Category:London boroughs are at the longer names so for consistency and common name maybe we should do the rest. I would note that there are a number of locations at w:Torbay (disambiguation) and we have Category:Torbay, Newfoundland and Labrador and Category:Torbay, Western Australia so I'll disambiguate that one in a few weeks anyway if no one objects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The others are (ignoring those like Category:Ipswich and Category:Rutland that are combined with another entity)
- Boroughs-

Category:Cheshire East>Category:Borough of Cheshire East

Category:Cheshire West and Chester>Category:Borough of Cheshire West and Chester

Category:Crewe and Nantwich>Category:Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

Category:Ellesmere Port and Neston>Category:Borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston

Category:Vale Royal>Category:Borough of Vale Royal

Category:Restormel>Category:Borough of Restormel

Category:Weymouth and Portland>Category:Borough of Weymouth and Portland

Category:Basingstoke and Deane>Category:Borough of Basingstoke and Deane

Category:Hertsmere>Category:Borough of Hertsmere

Category:Welwyn Hatfield>Category:Borough of Welwyn Hatfield

Category:Glanford>Category:Borough of Glanford

Category:Tonbridge and Malling>Category:Borough of Tonbridge and Malling

Category:Hinckley and Bosworth>Category:Borough of Hinckley and Bosworth

Category:Oadby and Wigston>Category:Borough of Oadby and Wigston

Category:King's Lynn and West Norfolk>Category:Borough of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Category:Castle Morpeth>Category:Borough of Castle Morpeth

Category:Shrewsbury and Atcham>Category:Borough of Shrewsbury and Atcham

Category:Telford and Wrekin>Category:Borough of Telford and Wrekin

Category:Epsom and Ewell>Category:Borough of Epsom and Ewell

Category:Reigate and Banstead>Category:Borough of Reigate and Banstead

Category:Spelthorne>Category:Borough of Spelthorne

Category:Surrey Heath>Category:Borough of Surrey Heath

Category:Nuneaton and Bedworth>Category:Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth

- Districts-Category:Northavon>Category:Northavon District

Category:Caradon>Category:Caradon District

Category:Kerrier>Category:Kerrier District

Category:Penwith>Category:Penwith District

Category:South Hams>Category:South Hams District

Category:South Gloucestershire>Category:South Gloucestershire District

Category:Newark and Sherwood>Category:Newark and Sherwood District

Category:North Somerset>Category:North Somerset District

Category:Forest Heath>Category:Forest Heath District

I'm unsure what the status of Category:Somerset West and Taunton will be. There was discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/District of... renaming but I now agree that we should probably use the longer form, especially given that we only have 38 at the shorter name of which at least 5 are clearly ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have moved Torbay and created a DAB, since there was no objections for nearly a month and there are other places with that name etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also moved Spelthorne since both the WP article and category are now at the longer name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved Cheshire East, North Lincolnshire, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. All other than North Somerset were moved per w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Compass directions and North Somerset was closed as no consensus, but there have been no objections here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, move the categories, but leave the old ones up as redirects for easier editing, if there are no conflicts. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron; Baelde style

"Baelde style" is not a real information in geometry, this category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "direction colors" or "wooden". So here is my usual question: Should the two other sets also be emptied into Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron? Should they all be mixed, or should only your images be in a higher category, while all the others are properly subcategorized? Watchduck (quack) 11:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic of these images: two Platonic solids,
the intersection of which is an Archimedean solid.

Colors are secondary informations, and “compound” has a too vague meaning. To be categorized by topic, such a SVG image should be categorized under “Category:SVG_Platonic_solids”, in a subcategory titled “SVG_Archimedean_intersections_of_Platonic_solids”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this discussion is whether or not this set should be dissolved. Please answer the above question, whether or not you also want to dissolve the two other sets.

The topic is not in what other categories these images might belong. Anyway, your "too vague" claim is wrong:

Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron, compound of cube and octahedron and compound of two tetrahedra have a precise meaning.

An "Archimedean intersection of Platonic solids" is

only the intersection (e.g. the icosidodecahedron without icosahedron and dodecahedron)
not limited to icosidodecahedron, cuboctahedron and rhombitetratetrahedron (could also be the truncated cube).

Watchduck (quack) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is stupid; Arthur Baelde seems to be intent on destroying categories that are categorizing these files by ways that other editors find useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the displayed images must prevail over their colors or their eventual "style". If the discussed category is not deleted, its new name could be “Category:Archimedean_intersections_of_Platonic_solids_(SVG_images)”, for an exact description of the SVG images.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it could not. Right above I have explained what would be wrong with that description. But of course you would never bother to read that. No surprise here.

And as usual you have not answered the one question I ask you again and again. (Essentially the same as the one I asked two months ago on your talk page).

My impression is that you are unable or unwilling to take part in an actual discussion, and that this boils down to trolling.

If an experienced user takes your side, I will have a constructive conversation with that user. Otherwise I consider this discussion closed.

Watchduck (quack) 12:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids by style

Complicating searches for images is the only reason why this category by file format was created.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; gray with yellow face

Style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry, this category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: You grouped the discussion about Set of Archimedean solids; nets yellow orange into this one. This page seems not like the right place, but I agree that these discussions should be bundled. What Arthur Baelde says is exactly the same in each of the 11 discussions he has started until now (see my talk page for a list).
I'll try to paraphrase. This may sound like a straw man, but seems to be exactly his opinion. (My reference to subcategories like Small stellated dodecahedron could even make his opinion look better than it is.)

That an image is part of a set is not relevant information.
People search only for subjects, e.g. for some image of a cube and for some other image of an octahedron.
But no one searches for a pair of images showing cube and octahedron in the same style.
No one cares if images fit together. (Especially not people who write Wikipedia articles.)
So, as no one needs it, let's destroy this information. It only makes searches complicated.
The images sorted in Sets of all Platonic solids should be only in Octahedron etc.,
those in Sets of all Archimedean solids should be only in Cuboctahedron etc.,
and those in Sets of all Kepler-Poinsot solids should be only in Small stellated dodecahedron etc.
Then images of Platonic, Archimedean and Kepler-Poinsot solids will be easy to find.
(Style does not matter, but file format is important. Commons needs to be told which images are SVG,
so they should go to SVG Platonic solids, SVG Archimedean solids and SVG Kepler-Poinsot solids.)

This is deduced from very incoherent statements, and there is no way to tell where exactly he would want to move these images. But he is very clear about his intention to empty all image sets directly into much broader categories. In this discussion he states that many images in his set of Kepler-Poinsot solids should be directly in SVG regular polyhedra.

I wrote Commons:Image sets about this topic, and recently asked for opinions at the village pump. Tuvalkins comment was: "But this is what’s already in COM:CAT — if not expressed at least implied."
Yes, it is implied by COM:CAT that similar images should be in the same category. But Arthur Baelde even refuses to understand rules that are clearly written down (mainly the modularity principle). How are users like him supposed to understand that something is implied by the rules? Hopefully these absurd discussions will lead to some consensus about how to treat image sets on Commons. In my opinion there should be a guideline for the topic. Watchduck (quack) 22:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to group these discussions, see Set_of_Archimedean_solids;_nets_yellow_orange 2018_09_30 and Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_gray_with_yellow_face;_in_one_image 2018_09_29.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Baelde: (@Sarang: ) Maybe you should take part in the discussion you started, instead of starting a hidden branch of it on Sarangs talk page (diff), trying to get his blessing for "SVG All four nonconvex regular polyhedra" — a category that should be discussed here. You clearly state that you would want it to contain images in the category discussed here. Watchduck (quack) 12:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: Did you see my last message above? You seem not to be aware of what Arthur Baelde is trying to do here. And I would say the reason he asked you on your talk page rather than here was to keep you from seeing the wider context. You have now renamed SVG Platonic solids to SVG Platonic solids without other polyhedra just because he has asked you if that would be a good name. Please don't make yourself the tool of another user. You are responsible for your edits. Don't make them if you don't want to own them.
There are two problems:

The "...without other polyhedra" category is a bad idea in itself. We categorize by what images show, and not by what they don't show. And geometry images showing only one solid are the usual case, not the special case. Your name implies the opposite. And what is "without other polyhedra" even supposed to mean? That there is only one solid on each image? Or could there be many solids, as long as they are all Platonic?
Instead of creating this pointless category as a subcategory of SVG Platonic solids, you renamed the original category. By that you have changed it's scope, which should be avoided. A page move is easily done, but difficult to correct. Actions that are more easily done than undone should be handled with great care. (BTW: Another example of this kind of action is moving files upward in the category tree, mixing them with others. I mention it, because this is what Arthur Baelde wants to do.)

If you want to own this edit, please say so. I am sure we can sort this out. Otherwise I will assume that this is essentially an edit of Arthur Baelde, which you have done for him.

PS: You are a kind user with good intentions. It may be difficult for you to wrap your mind around the twisted motivations of the user who asked for your help. I unfortunately have some experience with that, so I understand the reason why he wants this category to be renamed. It can be found in this discussion about his Kepler-Poinsot SVGs.
See this line in my summary: "Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with Platonic solids is in SVG Platonic solids."
His next move will be to say: "Oh, you have miscategorized that, because there are multiple solids on these images."
That is the whole ugly truth. And he will keep doing things like that. He will never accept anything short of being allowed to do whatever he wants. Which is to keep his images in underspecific categories, so more people will see them. He tries to force his way around any rules he does not like, and he tries to win these discussions by exhaustion. This is cheap for him, because he does not answer questions. He does not even rely on arguments — just adds a cheap straw man here and there. His aim is to keep these discussions going on forever by adding new things to talk about. Watchduck (quack) 23:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quack, I did not know what to do with that very inexperienced user, how writes in a strange way with a lot of   he knows the /diff as the only way for a link, and does not know other simple edit options and tools. May be that I am misused. Ok, I will tell him the truth, that I do not know anything about that things, and cannot issue tips or decide what's adequate. Thanx for your advice, -- sarang♥사랑 05:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clear answer. When you help people, you will sometimes be used. No big deal. Watchduck (quack) 09:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic, according to the image names.

According to their names, the two adjacent images show a same polyhedron. The first image is the last drawing of an old image used on Wikipedia, also visible on Star polyhedron for example.

By disregarding the image colors, we can categorize the first image in Category:3-fold_rotational_symmetry, and the second image in Category:5-fold_rotational_symmetry. “5‑fold” does not exist in the categorization of the first image, but “3‑fold” is present in the current category of the second image.

The second image here displayed have the same topic as the first one. And the topic should prevail over colors. Categorizing by color is a way to prevent from comparisons of images.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who goes to Great dodecahedron finds the image on the left directly in it, and six images like the one on the right in a subcategory.

The set of the image on the left is in Orthographic projections of polyhedra; with 5-fold dihedral symmetry.

The set of the image on the right is in Orthographic projections of polyhedra; with 3-fold dihedral symmetry.

(As already mentioned in the discussion about the other set: These orthographic projections have dihedral and not just rotational symmetry.)

The task of the category system is to add relevant information about images. This is done in a hierarchical way, i.e. categories are not just tags.

Of course the most important information is the subject. But which images are consistent among each other is also relevant information, because almost everyone who writes an article about a subject uses images that are as consistent as possible. E.g. someone who writes an article about Johnson solids will need a complete set like Set of Johnson solids; green.

(When you tried to force your work about Platonic solids down the throat of French Wikipedia, you also created a consistent image set for that purpose — which rightfully has its own category.)

As I said, the task of the category system is to add information. It can not be to present this information in any particular way.

How Commons presents the information it has is to be determined by the developers. I am the first one to agree that the front end of Commons leaves much to be desired. It would certainly be great to have a way to show all images in a category (including those nested in subcategories) as a flat list. But the lack of this feature is no justification for turning categories into flat lists.

It would also be great to have some preview of images nested in subcategories. (I often manually add preview images like that, e.g. in Sets of all Kepler-Poinsot solids or my set Polyhedra with direction colors.)

I made a similar "feature request" in my essay about image sets.

The images in question are correctly categorized. It would be good if the page of a category showed a meaningful selection (that does not look like this) of all images in it, but that can only be achieved with the tools of web development. I am not sure where this should be addressed, but certainly not here. Watchduck (quack) 17:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that this flat list feature already exists. It is called incategory and part of AdvancedSearch, which is in beta state.

Here is Great dodecahedron: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=deepcat:Great_dodecahedron

Watchduck (quack) 03:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academ Pythagorean theorem and tiling

No reason to create this category, except to complicate searches and comparisons of images.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academ Pythagorean theorem and tiling; plain tilings

No reason to create this category, except to complicate searches and comparisons of images.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 55 SVG images currently in this discussed category. And the categorization of these 55 images had already been discussed , they are properly categorized in Category:Pythagorean_tiling. See also this image gallery.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are inadvertently stating something correct: These images are indeed properly categorized in Pythagorean tiling — one of the parent categories of the image set.

You would of course want them to be directly in that catgory, so that someone who opens it sees almost only your images. But that would not be an improvement.

Compare my last comment in this discussion ("categories are not just tags"). Watchduck (quack) 18:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing especially to disadvantage an author is not correct.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the other discussion: Categories add relevant information about images in a hierarchical way. They do nothing else. They are not about presenting images. That you think about this in terms of "advantage for an author" just makes it even clearer you are motivated by self promotion. You want to push your images in the faces of as many users as possible, and that is why you want them directly in categories as broad as possible. (That may also explain why 51 of 55 files in this category have names starting with A, 0 or even ".) Watchduck (quack) 01:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible images in a subcategory
of Category:Pythagorean_tiling
named Category:Overlaid_Pythagorean_tilings

Possible images categorized directly
in Category:Pythagorean_tiling

Your purpose is obvious. For example you justified your categorization system by writing the following sentence I quote, about Category:Pythagorean_tiling:

"you would of course want them to be directly in that category, so that someone who opens it sees almost only your images".

But the topic of every image must prevail over any other property. "Academ" is not significant for a general reader. The discussed category could be renamed, its content would be changed like on the displayed images.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These images clearly belong together.

I created Overlaid Pythagorean tilings. But that does not change the fact that the 81 images in Academ Pythagorean theorem and tiling belong together. I added a preview of your images to Pythagorean tiling. That is a compromise between the interests of users who are looking for images like yours, and those of users who don't. Watchduck (quack) 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the content of this discussed category before a consensus, do you think it is correct?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know from previous experience that having a normal discussion and reaching a consensus with you is not possible. (Here are some examples.) I see you basically as a troll who is motivated by self-promotion, and not as a normal user who acts in good faith. So yes, in the given context I think it is correct. Watchduck (quack) 12:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]