Contains only one diagram, which I made for the book's Wikipedia article. There are not likely to be any other images, as those used in the book are not specific to it but are just part of the history of yoga. Much as it's nice to have a whole category for my one image, it seems overkill, the image does not need it and navigation is not assisted by it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allforrous, your comment is quite unclear and seemingly off-topic. The question is whether we should have a category for a single image to illustrate a single article about a single book. I believe not, even though I read the book, wrote the article, and created the image, it still doesn't need a category all to itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
unnecessary overcategorization - Actinodura morrisoniana is endemic to Taiwan, so all photos of Actinodura morrisoniana are Actinodura morrisoniana in Taiwan Spizaetus (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be separate categories for seals from various statehood periods of Lithuania, thus this category (Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should be merged to Category:Seals of Lithuania.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times." (Britannica article).
This quote from Britannica also summarizes the history of Belarus: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent." (Britannica article).
Of course as any other Empire, Lithuania and Lithuanians ruled other nations and foreign regions as well. Most notably, they ruled the regions which currently are modern states of: Belarus (Britannica article) and Ukraine (Britannica article). Ukraine and Belarus were established only in the 20th century, thus these old Lithuanian seals certainly are not "Seals of Belarus", "Seals of Ukraine" (these categories should be used only for Belarusian/Ukrainian seals from at least the 20th century). Contrary to Ukraine and Belarus, Lithuania restored its centuries old statehood in the 20th century and continues its history, so same as Poland, France (see: European Commission article about the historical development of Lithuania).
A relevant example of a similar category is Category:Seals of Poland which includes seals from all statehood periods of Poland. Pay attention that there is no category named Category:Seals of Kingdom of Poland, however Poland also ruled Ukrainian and Belarusian territories in the past (see the same Britannica articles: about Ukraine and about Belarus).
Another similar category which include seals from all statehood periods is: Seals of France.
So as I already said in the beginning, I request to merge category "Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" to category "Seals of Lithuania" so that it would be identical to categories "Seals of Poland" and "Seals of France". Please respect the scientific truth and point of view of Encyclopedia Britannica and reject various false, pseudoscientific manipulations about the Lithuanian history per WP:NPOV rule.
Following the implementation of scientific approach by merging the "Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" to "Category:Seals of Lithuania", the "Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" should be locked from editing in order to ensure that there will not be any disruptive editing in this category in the future (see massive edit warring in this category edit history why this is absolutely necessary). -- Pofka (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping users who previously discussed in this category's talk page and reached a Consensus that the Lithuanian seals should be united in one category: @Ke an: , @Cukrakalnis: , @Super Dromaeosaurus: . This category was heavily attacked by users Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир, so this dispute should finally be solved by an administrator. -- Pofka (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well-reasoned statement, there should be no incorrect double standard like there is now. At the very least, Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania should be renamed to Category:Seals of medieval Lithuania, like with other countries. There are no Category:Seals of the Kingdom of Hungary, Category:Seals of the Kingdom of Sweden and Category:Seals of the German Empire, and they are instead part of Category:Seals of Hungary, Category:Seals of Sweden and Category:Seals of Germany. So too should Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania be Category:Seals of Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why did this Grand Duchy of Lithuania belong to the Lithuanians? It is a Balto-Ruthenian state with the main territory of Ruthenia, a Ruthenian population and a Ruthenian language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica is just one of the existing sources, which isn't specialized in Eastern Europe history (and the cited online version, unfortunately, contains obsolete stereotyped information). Let's have a look what some specialized sources say. Here are some quotes by Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder from The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, 2003.
During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22).
Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49).
By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50).
The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81).
As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281).
Some quotes from The History of the Belarusan Nation and State, 2005[1] by the following composite authors: Michaś Bič — Doctor of Historical Studies; Natalla Hardzijenka — candidate of Historical Studies; Radzim Harecki — academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, ex-President of the International Public Society Belarusans' World Association Baćkaŭščyna (Homeland); Uładzimir Konan — Doctor of Philosophy; Arsień Lis — Doctor of Philology; Leanid Łojka — candidate of Historical Studies; Adam Maldzis — Doctor of Philology; Uładzimir Marchiel — candidate of Philology; Alena Makoŭskaja — Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Aleś Pietraškievič — candidate of Historical Studies; Anatol Sabaleŭski — Doctor of Art Criticism; Lidzija Savik — candidate of Philology; Viktar Skorabahataŭ — Honoured Artist of Belarus; Hanna Surmač — ex-Chairperson of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Barys Stuk — Vice-Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Halina Siarhiejeva — candidate of Historical Studies; Aleh Trusaŭ — candidate of Historical Studies; Hieorhij Štychaŭ — Doctor of Historical Studies; Jazep Jucho — Doctor of Law.
For more than 500 years of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) existence, a distinctive ethnic community, the Litvins (Lićvins, Lithuanians), formed on the territory of the future Belarus. They numbered the bulk of the Duchy’s population and lived on the main territory of the country from Harodnia to Vilnia, from Połacak, Mścisłaŭ, Homiel to Turaŭ, Pinsk and Bieraście. The name Litvins became the Belarusans’ historical ethnicon. On the periphery of the GDL there were other nations that kept their ethnic distinctness, among them the Baltic peoples (Žamojts (Samogitians) and Aŭkštajts) who were the ancestors of the present nation known as the Lithuanians. (pp. 5—6)
The czarist authorities implemented the Russification policy in Belarus. The very name “Litvins” passed gradually out of use. Being merged in the Empire, our lands acquired a new name, Biełaja Ruś (White Russia, Byelorussia) or Biełaruś (Belarus), that had only been used before regarding the eastern part of our country where the Orthodox population was called the Rusins (Russians). This name was not germane to the present Russia’s lands known under the name of Muscovy at that time. (p. 6)
Thus, the Litvins-Belarusans as if stopped their existence as a separate nation in the Russia’s official life, but in reality they kept preserving their national traditions, culture and language. (p. 6)
However, we shall remember that we are heirs and continuers of the Litvins’ patriotic acts (p. 17)
The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22).
Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33).
The Litvin tradition was still dominant in the early nineteenth century, and still capable of developing as a joint national idea for those who eventually chose a different path as Belarusians and Lithuanians. (p. 67)
After the 1863–4 Rebellion, the tsarist authorities were therefore keen to establish the ‘ancient’ Russian identity of what they now called the Severozapadnyi krai (the ‘North-western territory’). As it hadn’t ever really been contemporary ‘Russia’, this meant going back to the old ‘Rus’, ‘Ruthenian’ or parochial east Slavic traditions of the region. <...> The west-Russians wanted to suppress the idea of a country called Litva and a people called the Litvins in fundamental existential conflict with Moscow for the control of Eastern Europe. The west-Russians, rather than the Belarusian nationalists who came later, were therefore responsible for popularising the terms ‘Belarus’ and ‘Belarusian’ as a safer alternative. (p. 71)
One explanation is that: ‘having conquered Belarus, the Muscovites realized that it was not in their favour to call Belarusians the ‘Litsviny’ (i.e. their second original name, along with the ‘Kryvichy’ one) as it would always remind our people about the times when our ancestors happened to constantly fight against Moscow. Therefore, the Muscovites applied the term of ‘Belarusians’ to our people while the name of ‘Litsviny’ was attributed to the Lithuanians; at the same time the propaganda publications tried to propagate the idea that the Grand Duchy of Litwa was [a] Lithuanian state, i.e. it was a foreign country that did not have any close ties with Moscow’ (p. 135)
According to Smalianchuk, ‘the idea of the statehood of historical Litva dominated in the Belarusian movement west of the front line [in the First World War] through to 1917. Only at the start of 1918 were the Belarusians finally forced to reject it’ (p. 80)
And as well as the Poles, the Belarusians faced an extra rival in the Lithuanian national movement, which targeted Vilna (to them, Vilnius), though not quite all of historical Litva. (p. 90)
There is even a Litvin revival movement. In May 2000 it solemnly passed an ‘Act of Proclamation of the Revival of the Litvin Nation’ (see www.litvania.org), which it argues was formed from the union of the Kryvichy and the Baltic Yatvingian tribe with the ‘Liutichi’, who were Polabian Slavs, driven east from their original homeland on the river Elbe by German tribes between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries ad (with, apparently, some splitting off to move south to what is now Bohemia). (p. 126)
"Pakvietimas Lietuvos gimines..." (English: Invitation of Lithuania's relatives...), dedicated to Grand Duke Sigismund III Vasa, 1589.
Title page of a book, published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1653, with text "Ant wartoimá Báʒnićioms dides Kunigiſtes Lietuwos" (English: For the use in the churches of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).
I see that once again Mr. Profka is trying to promote the policy of Lithuanian nationalism under the slogan of fighting for history, expelling Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and even Poles from there. It has been said many times on this subject, but some Lithuanian editors refuse to listen to the arguments of other participants, and they filter out all the sources they offer in any case, counting only those where only their point of view is expressed. Everyone has long known that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not a purely Lithuanian state in the modern sense. It also included Slavic elements, in many places even prevailing over Lithuanian ones, but of course this fact will outrage our certain Lithuanian editors as it contradicts their established picture of the world. It's a shame that Wikipedia has turned from an encyclopedia of knowledge, where a balanced and neutral point of view is expressed, into a platform for expressing its political views. --Johnny Moor (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific approach of Encyclopedia Britannica and European Commission (WP:NPOV) was presented. I will not discuss pseudoscience theories about Lithuania with users who refused to respect the scientific approach and consensus in this category's talk page. This should be taken care by administrators. Administrators: feel free to ping me if it will be really necessary. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that it was a consensus amongst Lithuanians is nonsense, because Super Dromaeosaurus is a Romanian. This is not the first time you are making nonsense claims. No one claimed Belarusian history for Lithuania because not a single Lithuanian claims that the Belarusian People's Republic or Byelorussian SSR were Lithuanian states. That is obviously insane. Moreover, another insanity is Belarusians claiming Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Belarusian state. That is called the pseudohistorical lies of Litvinism.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war exists in the first place because user Лобачев Владимир ignores consensus and proceeds to deny majority vote of four editors, which was based on WP:RS and logic. Moreover, I have no involvement in the "disruptive group" that you mention (if it even exists!) and I am uninvolved in what Pofka wrote to Sabbatino. You are out of luck with "scientific evidence", because you proved nothing. The chauvinistic POV you talk about does not exist, because 1) mainstream sources are the basis of the actions that you fight against and call "chauvinist" and 2) the real chauvinistic POV is your POV, i.e. Litvinism. Stop pretending otherwise.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misleading, considering your point of view and your supporters to be consensus, and the point of view of your opponents - not consensus. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to engage in historical speculation. The entire territory of Belarus was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for many centuries. It cannot be said that Belarus and Ukraine is not related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It's like saying that Germany has nothing to do with the Frankish Empire and Charlemagne. The statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were written in the Slavic language, the main population were Slavs and many other proofs that everyone already knows. The dispute about Pahonia in general is absolutely stupid, because many Belarusian cities have coats of arms with Pahonia, and from 1991 to 1995 the official coat of arms of Belarus was Pahonia. Only people who dont know the topic would think that Belarus and Ukraine has nothing to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I ask everyone not to speculate and not to blacken the reputation of the English Wikipedia, which is already considered by many to be not objectively and not neutral.. --ArthurKarol (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лобачев Владимир, you are the misleading one. First, you pretended there was consensus because there was no talk at all, but then when there is talk and your views are shown to be unreasonable, you deny that consensus. Consensus was achieved, but you refuse to admit that because you disagree with it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArthurKarol, the only historical speculation is the one being engaged in by those claiming Litvinist pseudohistory is true, i.e. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was actually Belarus, which is obvious nonsense when the facts are examined. I agree that the entire territory of what is now Belarus was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for many centuries. But that does not warrant considering Belarus as a successor of the Lithuanian state, i.e. the Kingdom of Lithuania and then the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
A similar case would be considering Bosnia-Herzegovina as a successor of the Roman Empire. Sure, all of the lands of Bosnia-Herzegovina were part of the Roman Empire for many centuries. Does that mean that the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina have any right to Roman history and heritage being viewed as Bosnian-Herzegovinan? Of course not. Moreover, the comparison of the Frankish Empire (Francia) & Germany is not in any way a similar case with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis Belarus, because while the Frankish Empire's heartland changed from time to time, i.e. moved from the territory of modern France to that of modern Germany, yet nothing similar happened in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania always was in Lithuania proper, while the Frankish Empire had no comparable stability. Moreover, regarding the people of the Frankish Empire. In general, German lands had a far higher standing in the Frankish Empire compared to that of the Slavs in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, especially when one looks at the rulers. One could go into many other reasons that refute your "proofs", but for sake of brevity, having certain important documents written in a specific language does not necessarily mean that the specific language is reflective of the state. Many important documents of medieval European states, e.g. the Kingdom of France and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were in Latin, but no one claims that they were Roman states. In addition, the Roman Empire was definitely not majority Roman, but it is incorrect to claim that the Roman Empire was not entirely Roman because of the many, many foreigners inhabiting it. The same goes for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Ergo, it is correct to consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Lithuanian state, regardless of how many or few Slavs were in it.
Actually, I agree that the dispute about Pahonia is idiotic. There should be no distinction between the one and same sign, the Coat of arms of Lithuania. Additionally, the reasons for why the categories of Belarus and Ukraine should be removed have been set out clearly, and as the reasons are undoubtedly true and valid, it is unreasonable to keep such categories in this case. As for 'blacken the reputation of the English Wikipedia, which is already considered by many to be not objectively and not neutral', that is not absolutely not true, unless you worry about what the Russian propagandists and their repeaters or pseudohistorical/pseudoscientific charlatans say, which should not be of concern to those dedicated to the creation of a reliable encyclopedia based on WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We see a typical speculation over history, which makes Lithuanian nationalist propagandists so upset. It is immediately clear that they do not read the text in full or even between the lines, as even I see that the participant ArthurKarol wrote not only about Belarusians in fact, but about Ukrainians, but for some reason dear Cukrakalnis decided to ignore this moment altogether and bring Litvinism here, although the participant ArthurKarol did not write about it at all. It is disgusting to watch Cukrakalnis write down all those who disagree with his opinion and some other Lithuanian editors as Russian propagandists, this is a complete disrespect for other Wikipedia participants. Your logic that Lithuania is the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is worthy of applause only because of the name, I do not know how it was necessary to think of this, in this case the Republic of Macedonia is the heir of the Macedonian Empire, and the Mexican Republic is the legal successor of the Mexican Aztec Empire, "iron logic" a lot of things can then be put under it. The example of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not clear at all why it was taken, then it would have been better to take China as an example, but why, there at one time also had certain relations with the Roman people. And the example from the Frankish Empires is nonsense at all, I understood your logic, you meant that the capital was never moved in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and it was located on the territory of modern Lithuania, of course, based on the theories of Lithuanian authors, because the opinion about Novogrudok is of course a complete lie, and Mindovg was of course "crowned" in Vilnius, although he lived 60 years before the founding of the city and it is not necessary for me to write that the city existed before, the first written mention of the city dates back to 1323 and no one ever thinks differently in the case of the appearance of most cities in Europe, since ordinary historians in such cases proceed from written sources, and not otherwise, if they thought otherwise, then, for example, the Ukrainian city of Odessa should be considered that it was founded in the XIV century as the village of Khadjibey, and not in the XIX century. Let me remind you that in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the main language of office work was the Ruthenian language (the ancestor of the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages), in which all the statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were written, many famous figures of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were also not Lithuanians, in the modern sense they were born and lived on the territory of modern Belarus and Ukraine, such as Konstanty Ostrogski, Michael Glinski, Mikołaj "the Black" Radziwiłł and many others. Therefore, from your logic, since everyone who lived in the Roman Empire and had Roman citizenship were Roman people and were considered Roman people and were not Roman people, only those who lived in Italy were amazing, but that's just generally strange. In general, so that you know, let's take with the same Rome, based on the legal grounds, the successor of the Roman Empire was Byzantine Empire, since it retained all state institutions and had a continuous connection with its predecessor, but it was Greek, not Roman Latin, that became the prevailing culture there. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania does not have such a thing, since the state was annihilated by Russia, Prussia and Austria in the XVIII century, and therefore modern Lithuania cannot be considered the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania only based on the name for the same reason, since it has not preserved the continuity of state institutions and the transfer of power, that interwar Poland cannot be considered the successor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I will note that Belarusians have never considered themselves the legal successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and this opinion has not been voiced anywhere from the written, which is exactly the opposite of what some Lithuanian nationalists do, forgetting to look at themselves in the mirror. Of course, you did not forget to show complete tactlessness directly in the message and directly without a twinge of conscience appropriated the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and do not care that in the 1990s it was the state emblem of the Republic of Belarus as well as Lithuania, but "who cares". Let me remind you to say after Wikipedia is based on authoritative sources that show different opinions of the authors, and not just one point of view and conclusions of some editors, and by the way, the previous participants have already managed to show you some sources that you kindly ignored because it does not fit into your picture of the world, again. Again, you yourself spit on the rules of Wikipedia in the most brazen way, but you successfully accuse others of this, before you reproach and accuse someone, you would look at your actions, since pseudo-scientists and scientific charlatans here it is you who are respected, you shift your responsibility to others WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Johnny Moor (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR.
Я не вижу проблем в существовании отдельной подкатегории для ВКЛ. Категоризации создана для удобства поиска пользователями сайта. И если кому-то нужно будет изображение именно периода ВКЛ, то его будет намного легче найти в отдельной категории, чем в общей. Тем более, что для ВКЛ даже больше изображений, чем в самой категории Seals of Lithiania.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
↑The History of the Belarusan Nation and State = Гістарычны шлях беларускай нацыі і дзяржавы / Second Enlarged Edition; M. Bič, R. Harecki, U. Konan et al. — Minsk: IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna, PE Zmicier Kołas, 2005. — 440 p. ISBN985-6793-06-2Invalid ISBN.
I fully protected the category (Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania) indefinitely. I'm from Estonia, so I know something about history of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Cukrakalns, I warn you: you can be blocked, if you continue pushing your non-historical agenda. Taivo 27 January 2022
– having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago,
– having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania,
– having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence,
– having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs,
– embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers—in the independent State of Lithuania,
– fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania,
– striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law,
by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution.
Just a reminder that nationalism, pseudoscience (Litvinism) has no place in this project, so your desire to stop the inevitable process of the truth is baseless and clearly is a disruptive behavior which should be finally stopped by the administrators. -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place here for false claims that the Republic of Lithuania (since 1918) is synonymous with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (13th century - 1795). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be separate categories for symbols from various statehood periods of Lithuania, thus this category (Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should be merged to Category:Symbols of Lithuania.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times." (Britannica article).
This quote from Britannica also summarizes the history of Belarus: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent." (Britannica article).
A relevant example of a similar category is Category:Symbols of Poland which includes symbols from all statehood periods of Poland. Pay attention that there is no category named Category:Symbols of Kingdom of Poland, however Poland also ruled Ukrainian and Belarusian territories in the past (see the same Britannica articles: about Ukraine and about Belarus).
Other similar categories that include symbols from all statehood periods of countries are: Symbols of France, Symbols of Hungary, Symbols of Sweden, Symbols of Germany, etc. There are no exclusive categories dedicated to kingdoms/empires of these respective countries and they are united under a single category.
So as I already said in the beginning, I request to merge category "Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" to category "Symbols of Lithuania" so that it would be identical to categories "Symbols of France", "Symbols of Hungary", "Symbols of Sweden", "Symbols of Germany", etc. Please respect the scientific truth and point of view of Encyclopedia Britannica, European Commission and reject various false, pseudoscientific manipulations about the Lithuanian history per WP:NPOV rule. The Encyclopedia Britannica, written by prominent scientists, clearly is the most reliable information source in the world and there are no grounds to question its reliability. The official website of the European Commission also obviously is a fully reliable source.
Following the implementation of scientific approach by merging the "Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" to "Category:Symbols of Lithuania", the "Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" should be locked from editing in order to ensure that there will not be any disruptive editing in this category in the future (see massive edit warring in a similar category Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania why this is absolutely necessary). -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opening several discussions for the same issue is another reason do not assume good faith in the actions of well-coordinated disruptive group of users (more proves for this statement are provided here). Changing a more neutral and specific name to a less neutral and specific one is clear POV pushing, which I've already shown in the other similar discussion opened by the same group. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for what users were invited, it is only reasonable that those that were present in previous discussions would be notified. It is you who is in the wrong by pinging users you know support your view, when they were nowhere to be seen previously.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the "fourth platform for discussing a similar issue", because in Category talk:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it was the common consensus that the categories of Belarus and Ukraine be removed. Then, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Never-ending edit wars by User:Лобачев Владимир was created because Лобачев Владимир repeatedly and flagrantly, counting more than a few dozen times, broke the rules of Wiki projects. Finally, Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/11/Category:Seals_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania was indeed concerning a similar issue, but that is not surprising or anything. Actually, portraying it as something nefarious is actually the bad faith action. It is unreasonable to suspect that there is "coordination". It is funny that not only do you accuse those you disagree with as being chauvinists, but you make accusations of a conspiracy of chauvinists against you. This is obviously absolute nonsense like the distorted history POV you push. It is incorrect to portray the proposed changes as somehow less neutral or specific, because what is being done is standardizing content on Wiki projects to follow already established mainstream patterns, instead of creating unneeded exceptions.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category talk:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it was the common consensus that the categories of Belarus and Ukraine be removed. — This statement is not true. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a true statement that there was consensus: four editors (I, Ke an, Pofka, Super Dromaeosaurus) voted for the removal of the unrelated categories of Belarus and Ukraine, and one (Лобачев Владимир) against the removal of those categories. Four versus one is a clear consensus. Your denial stems from your inability to accept the obvious. If anyone wants to verify it, they can check it here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, Kazimier Lachnovič accusing everyone that disagrees with him as part of a "chauvinist" "conspiracy". The arguments why the category of Belarus are related have been refuted or, at best, irrelevant, and finally denied by consensus. Moreover, if you really cared about Wikipedia guidelines, you would listen to consensus and follow the rules, instead of reverting actions that you disagree with and calling consensus you disagree with as "illegal".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements are total distortions of reality and misrepresentations of mainstream history.
There is the possible relation of shared territory, which means practically nothing in terms of succession. To illustrate, there are these examples: an important part of medieval Sweden is now modern Finland, but that does not mean that modern Finland is the successor of medieval Sweden, even if their territory is common. Another is that large parts of medieval Hungary are now in Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Slovakia, but none of these countries claims Hungarian history. In an environment without any Litvinist POV, there would be no obstruction to the fact that modern Lithuania inherits what belongs to medieval Lithuania. As has been said before, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian state, just as the Kingdom of Lithuania or the Republic of Lithuania.
As for consensus, there is no such thing as "authorised concesus". It is clear by now that the only authorization that matters to you is that everything agrees with you, otherwise, according to you, they are "illegal" "chauvinist" "conspiracy", no matter how international or uncoordinated. The vote and consensus, everything in it, followed Wiki rules and you are just angry at it because it did not go your way. Very pathetic behaviour. Lastly, it is nonsense to attach so much attention to a one-off message from June 2021, which did not even receive a response.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There is the possible relation of shared territory, which means practically nothing in terms of succession." — This is your personal point of view, and nothing more. There is not a single legal document stating that the Republic of Lithuania is the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Against The proposed change conflates the Wikipedia:Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia) with the Wikipedia:Republic of Lithuania commonly known as Lithuania to the current user. The Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania category is about the former, not the latter. The argument voiced above that some Commons categories for other countries do not make a distinction between former and current states must be rejected: unhelpful for readers practices should not be encouraged. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pro The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was medieval Lithuania, just as the Kingdom of France was medieval France and the Kingdom of Hungary was medieval Hungary. There is no conflation, only acknowledgement of historical truth, already established practices and the strong necessity to standardise content on Wiki Commons, which necessarily can only be beneficial to everyone.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Lithuania is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania - founded and ruled by Lithuanians and in favour of the Lithuanian state accquired vast territories of various Ruthenian statelets, Livonia, etc. Lithuania and Grand Duchy of Lithuania were used and is used interchangeably in Medieval Ages and now - just look at the book name - Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. https://bookshop.org/books/lithuania-ascending-a-pagan-empire-within-east-central-europe-1295-1345/9781107658769. Second - The Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth was named for a reason - because native Lithuanian and Polish dynasties and states made a union. So, of course Grand Duchy of Lithuania is Lithuania. --- Ke an (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania — This is a personal opinion. I have not come across scientific published sources that share this opinion. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a personal opinion, but something agreed to by many. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was and still is very frequently just named as Lithuania, just as in the times as the Lithuanian state existed before 1795. It suffices to just enter the term "medieval Lithuanian state" and you have very many cases of it being described as such. Your refusal to admit that shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge in this area of history. Just a cursory look shows that published sources have indeed stated that Lithuania is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by describing it as "medieval Lithuanian state".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly against changing more specific and hence more neutral category name to the less specific and less neutral one. There are no reliable sources were provided that Lietuva (modern Lithuania) is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania. On the other hand, Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). Given these definitely reliable SPECIALIZED sources the Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can not be renamed. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago,
– having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania,
– having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence,
– having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs,
– embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers—in the independent State of Lithuania,
– fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania,
– striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law,
by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution.
Nationalistic propaganda on the state level is a really problem for a modern state with own name Lietuva (English name: the Republic of Lithuania), which according to many reliable sources (sure, not from this state) is completely different state with the own name Litva (English name: the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakvietimas Lietuvos gimines..." (English: Invitation of Lithuania's relatives...), dedicated to Grand Duke Sigismund III Vasa, 1589.
Title page of a book, published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1653, with text "Ant wartoimá Báʒnićioms dides Kunigiſtes Lietuwos" (English: For the use in the churches of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).
There is no place here for false claims that the Republic of Lithuania (since 1918) is synonymous with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (13th century - 1795). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category is not notable and is too vague such that it encompasses just about all R32s as few have zero modifications. Few other car model categories have a dedicated section for modified examples. I nominate that this category be deleted and an R32 in competition category be created instead as that fits within the current style of wiki categories for cars TKOIII (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TKOIII: The category was created to remove the hundreds of modified cars that make it hard to find pictures of standard vehicles. It is not for competition cars, it is an attempt at making the R32 category more useful. The same situation exists for other cars that are wildly popular with modifiers, such as Category:Modified 1932 Ford automobiles and Category:Modified 1949 Mercury automobiles. I agree that it can occasionally be unclear where to draw the line (does a wheel swap count? Tinted windows? Air freshener?) but I think that WP works best when we allow editors to exercise judgement. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a standard category? The category would probably make more sense if it includes also Category:Cultural institutions of Luanda (I added it). In general to involve contributors from Africa it can be relevant to trigger the involvement of institutions (often GLAMs are organised as NGOs and it can be relevant to include them among institutions rather than museums or other categories); having a category facilitating the upload of content can make sense. In any case I have no particular affection for the "category:Luanda institutions" and if it is not standard it can be of course delated. thanks --iopensa (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this category (almost) does not exist in real life. There are very few handouts of housing units, or any other sorts of welfare apart from state-paid pensions. The individual housing units are usually privately owned and can be sold on the market at will. Recent stats: as of July 2021, 31 million or 83% of all urban housing units are properly privatized. The balance, 17% or around 6 million units, remain "unprivatized" for various reasons. Of these 6 million, 2.37 million units are legally equivalent to true en:Public housing[2]. The catch: these are mostly individual units, not whole buildings. The buildings shown in the category (random picks?) may include state-owned units, but they are not "public" as a whole. Suggestion: disband and delete. Review other sister categories as well.
Retired electrician (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The government(s) (plural, for federal, regional and local level) own units and not whole buildings. Speaking of buildings, the government(s) usually retain the land rights and the underground infrastructure, but not the usable housing. Retired electrician (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: , here's an example. This block of around 400 luxury condo was built in 2013 on federally-owned land. The federal government took ownership of around 1/3 of the units, and issued them to ... well... government employees. You have probably heard how it happens across the border. At the moment of handout, these units (but not the whole building) were indeed public housing. But almost immediately the new tenants privatized their units, and the latter ceased to be public in any sense. After the three year taxable period expired, these apartments can be sold free of any tax - and are, indeed, floating on the market. 188 units listed for sale today (link blacklisted). Retired electrician (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Sdkb: The criteria of this category is quit simple: The name of facilities (or files) containing the words "music" and "hall", are categorized in this category. This kind of name-based classification is important in understanding the cultural history of the facility, in my opinion. The facility names containing the "music hall", seems likely to be associated with the entertainment culture in English language area, music hall culture, so these may be categorized as this category. On the other hand, if the facilities are NOT in the this cultural area (i.e. the en:Music hall cultural area), please categorize the facilities as the generic categories, music venues or concert halls (or their sub-categories). best, --Clusternote (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic requested move: Nominator's (user:HLHJ) rational: this category to be moved to [[:category:]] (category not given), because: "We need to distinguish functional stones serving as part of a structural foundation and dedicatory stones commemorating the construction somehow, currently both are landing here". Date: 4 November 2011 Estopedist1 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Estopedist1. I wanted to distinguish stones used as part of the structural foundation of a building from stones with an inscription pertaining to the building, and often built into the building. These are two distinct semantic categories that may have drastically different names in many languages.
Many dedicatory building stones, including the Wikidata sample image, are not foundation stones in the structural sense; they may commemorate the founding of the building, but they are not part of the foundations. They may be stones located well up a wall, at eye level, not set into the foundation, to avoid having to stoop to read it; they are sometimes used as a lintel over a door; some of them are even free-standing, with nothing above them. The subcats include, for example, a stone commemorating the creators of a garden, not a building.
I'm suggesting that we focus Category:Foundation stones for stones actually used in foundations; we could be even clearer by renaming it Category:Stones used as foundations or similar. We can call the ceremonial incribed stones something else. There's Category:Dedicatory building stones, which I created, but that may not be the best name if we are including stones that commemorate the creators of gardens (or dedicatory inscriptions on brass plaques, or wood, or concrete). Logically, we should have parallel naming for the subcats (by year, by decade, by country, Category:1887 foundation stones, Category:1880s foundation stones, Category:Foundation stones in India etc.). This could rename 170-odd categories, and when I realized that I decided this should be a formal request.
I was looking for images of structural foundation stones, such as are frequently archeaological remains, and had trouble finding them among the ceremonial stones. Any alternate suggestions are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to recognize that there are many stones that are both dedicatory and structurally part of a foundation, and have a cat for them which is a subcat of both "Category:Stones used as foundations" and "Category:Dedicatory stones", or their equivalents. Many dedicatory incriptions are written on a brass plaque or some such; these are not stones and could be placed in "Category:Dedicatory plaques, metal" or similar, which could be grouped with "Category:Dedicatory inscriptions, wood" as a subcat of "Category:Dedicatory inscriptions". We might want to specify fixed dedicatory inscriptions or some such in order to include dedicatory inscriptions for gardens, but not, say, a flyleaf saying "This book is dedicated to my family". Or specify foundation-date and dedicatory inscriptions specifically for construction projects. Any set of names that makes the ontology clear is fine by me. HLHJ (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't answer. Category:Foundation stones should be a disambiguation page, or people will add stuff to it. I like option 1 form both lists. There are dedicatory building inscriptions that are metal plaques or carved into wooden beams, so we need cats for those; a metal plate is not a stone. HLHJ (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceremonial foundation stone (in a stone wall). This stone commemorates the laying of the foundation, it seems to be set on top of the foundation, and it is not really part of the foundation. Structurally, it's a quoin or cornerstone.
European padstone. Wooden sill on padstone.
Japanese padstone (dodai-ishi). A wooden pillar on a padstone is much better for earthquakes than a sill. Sills have to be bolted down or they slide off the foundation.
Foundation stones (+ house). A more conventional European foundation wall.
..which isn't sure if it's a ritual inscription on a structure, or a quoin. Our Category:corner stones and Category:Foundation stones overlap heavily, and include dedicatory inscriptions which aren't on stones.
Problematic and old (over 4 weeks) requested move: Nominator's (user:Lhikan634) rationale: this category to be moved to category:ant nests (or category:Formicidae nests), because: "These are two existing, duplicate categories based on different colloquial terms. Though presumably, shouldn't probably form a new category:Formicidae nests since this is a taxonomically-defined group (and should exclude nests by velvet ants and similar)? This seems to be the current policy on categories using common names. This would also parallel the current structure of related categories".
"Ant nests" and "ant hills" are duplicate categories based on different colloquial terms. Presumably, they should form a new category:Formicidae nests since this is a taxonomically-defined group and excludes non-Formicidae "ants" like "velvet ants" in Mutillidae. This seems to be the current policy on categories using common names. This would also parallel the current structure of related categories.
It's the norm at Commons to use colloquial terms for categories to maximise discoverability. But we can also use redirects and cat-see-alsos to help guide the categorisers. I suggest we choose a term as general as possible for the main category related to ant shelters; the simple choice would be category:ant shelters. This would include artificial shelters like ant farms, but they'd get a subcat to themselves. Then, any other distinction could be limited to those we think are useful to make. Instead of giving contributors (who may not have extensive myrmecological knowledge) the puzzle of whether their image is more 'bed-like' or 'hill-like', why not organise around characters in evidence? category:ant shelters made of clay, for example. And/or by taxa, like category:Acromyrmex shelters. Arlo James Barnes07:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A term with absolutely no currency, an unclear definition and this category is stuffed full of examples that are nowhere near it, from high-sided stake trucks, to small pickups, even a balloon tender with no loadspace at all. Any attempt to clean this up just gets reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the obscure (British?) legal concept of a rigid truck should have any merit on commons? Expecially when the legalese says "vehicles with a chassis split into two dependent parts and connected by means of a permanent steering pivot, are also legally rigid vehicles, for example an articulated bus." Retired electrician (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There should either be a clear definition/description, in which also is explained what the difference is between "Wagon rigid trucks" and "Rigid trucks" OR the content should be moved to categories that fit better. --JopkeB (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 4 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Moralist) rational: this category to be moved to category:Komosse, because: "Komosse is a nature reserve which lies in two counties - therefore there are officially two reserves. But it consists of the same natural area which should be in the same commons-category". Date: 9 May 2021 Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I should most definitely have named a reason, I can not remember myself why I moved it. Usually when I work with categories it's a part of a larger project of renaming categories following the same logic, but I am definitely not sure now what kind of logic I was following. I might have followed the convention used by the Swedish Wikipedia, where this is the name, but it should not be the only reason.
This requested move should be obvious, but I opened the CFD to give wider picture. Should be easy correcting by a native English speaker. We have these categories:
Problematic and old (over 4 weeks) requested move: Nominator's (user:El alistano) rational: this category to be moved to category:Aliste, because: "Clear toponym, without the need to specify between parentheses. The rest of the comarcas are correct except this one". Date: 5 August 2021 Estopedist1 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill I agree, looking through the Category tree, there are little to no actual instances of media showing the type sequences or geologic relevant images of any type localities.--Kevmin§17:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hello, Please remove this page, for using this page he can easily spamming wikidata. He is not notable person so his wikidata page should be removed.He is a Bangla wikipedia users so he knows very well that which institutions has notable section on google search. Wikidata information connects with google search so he inputed lots of universities name in wikidata. I have completed my graduation from Islamic university, Kushtia. I have talked with my seniors and juniors he is not our university student, but google seach showed him, he is our notable alumni, but he is not our alumni person. Already talked with wikidata administrator they agreed with me he is not notable person but they couldn't delete the item beacause of this item. please remove this item stop him to spamming wikidata and google knowledge panel Shanka2422 (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sock, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anny1190 --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain you are the person who nominated this category using IP (103.154.184.104). STOP harassing Delwar Hossain across projects by saying he is spamming, gives false information etc. You are saying "I have completed my graduation from Islamic university, Kushtia ... he is not our alumni". First of all, how do we can be sure you studied at Islamic university Kushtia? and Delwar Hossain isn't alumni of Islamic university? Do you have any proof? in case you have proof, simply remove Islamic university from that item. Why we have to delete this category for that? As i said earlier, this is a valid user category. We have hundreds of user category like this. He regularly contribute on Bengali wikipedia (also here on commons), organize workshop for Bengali wikipedia, promote wikipedia. This user category document those event, includes those photos where he was present. Why do you want to remove those documentation? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why this page should be deleted firs reason the users আফতাবুজ্জামান ([[User talk:আফতাবুজ্জামান and Delowar same person, that's why he supported himself, He mentioned he is contributor of Bangla wikipedia, so contributors of wikipedia must have wikidata page if they are not notable, there are lots of administrators and moderators but I never see they have wikidata page or something other, Cause they are volunteers, they didn't spend time for self promotion. I think it should be another reason to delete his items from here. Third reason he used this iteam as reference to create wikidata, and he gave all wrong information and spamming google knowledge panel, so i think it should be deleted Shanka2422 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sock, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anny1190 --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to vote twice. Just add new comment under your first comment. Would you kindly stop accusing without any proof? This is a big accusation & if you don't have any proof then i would consider this as a type of harassment. If you do it one more time without any proof, i will report you. This is not acceptable behaviour. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category is only empty because the nominator incorrectly removed buildings that are properly categorized here from it. The URI's campus in Providence is on the Shepherd Building in donwtown Providence. I have restored the building to the proper categories, so there is no reason to delete this category. Filetime needs to be warned -- as he was on en.wiki -- not to make changes the purpose of which is to "get" at me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the subject. Are you familiar with community standards, which say that when a person has removed material from their own talk page, it should not be reverted back onto the page by the original poster? Are you familiar with the fact that continuing to do so may get you banned? Please accept the you are not the only person who is aware of the existence of Providence and its buildings, nor are they your "territory" to do with as you see fit, which is how you've been behaving for quite some time now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first sight, all of those which belong in "characters" (Daphne, Velma, etc) are already in "cast". The others – well, they're H-B characters, but I can't see any justification for a claimed connection with Scooby Doo. So this is just superfluous. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone fix the template for this category. It should contain subcategories sorted by topic. For example, 2020 floods by country. The subcategories sorted by country should go in Category:2020 by topic by country, for example 2020 in Poland by topic (Poland, a country, being the sorted variable). I would fix these but they are controlled by a template, not sure how to fix it. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't it be about the visual meaning as a broad meaning which it does seem like it is rather than having a DAB for somewhat related meanings where it may be difficult to determine which more specific meaning is intended. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category could be misunderstood. The use of "in Italy" suggest that the artworks are situated in Italy. They are not (only a few of them). The use of the term "artworks" is not wrong, but it is not widely used in Commons and would call for a new hierarchy around the "artwork" line. A solution to these two issues would be to rename the category "Italy in art by artists from Denmark", which says the same thing, but within generally accepted terms. The subcategories made should be renamed along the same lines. Otherwise: Thanks for the initiative. Rsteen (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the name "Artworks by Danish artists in Italy" is misleading if it is not about artworks in Italy but about artworks about Italy. Then "Italy in art by artists from Denmark" or "Italy in artworks by artists from Denmark" would be a better name. --JopkeB (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Estopedist1. I do not see any harm in this category, suggested by Niketto Sr., if it gets a proper name. Artists from a number of countries visited Italy and it might be a good idea also to have them grouped after nationality. We do that in many other areas. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I agree with Rsteen, I do not see any harm in this category either and indeed it might be a good idea to have artists grouped after nationality. --JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating: Category:Cities in North Carolina by county Category:Cities in Cleveland County, North Carolina Most importantly, there is only one city in New Hanover County, so this unnecessarily pushes the corresponding category further down the tree. The overwhelming majority of categories of this type are further up the tree in Category:Cities in North Carolina and not in the by-county subcategory. RadioKAOS (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] I started out nominating just the New Hanover County category on account of it having only one entry which was not cluttering categories further up the tree. Modifying this request to include this entire branch of the tree. The main Category:Cities in North Carolina is not overpopulated. This subcategorization was not only never fully realized, it never even came close. Of the 100 counties in North Carolina, 45 counties have no incorporated cities, 33 counties have only one and 13 counties have only two. Of the remaining nine, there is a prevalence of cities which are primarily in one county with corporate limits spilling over slightly into an adjacent county or counties. This skews the numbers slightly. Overall, it doesn't add up to a need to diffuse content so finely. CDPs, towns and villages are another matter, as they often appear in larger numbers.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd To use your example of boots, boots do have different functions. Among others, there are:
ski boots which allow use of skis
work boots (including steel-toed boots) that protect the feet
snow boots that keep the feet warm
motorcycle boots that protect not only the feet but the lower leg
These are the items I think related to functions; there are some that I think don't, such as boots for holidays.
Tank tops aren't used that way, they're just a piece of clothing of a particular shape that covers the upper part of the torso. They aren't protective (at least not more than any other piece of clothing), they don't usually have pockets or anything to allow carrying items, etc. I suspect people put things in "by function" metacats because they don't know what else to do with them. In many cases, including this one, I think "by setting" would be more accurate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I think that is a reasonable suggestion, but the other categories should also be added to this discussion. Unfortunately, I do not know an easy way of doing this (apparently COM:VFC can't do it). Brianjd (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a reasonable argument that there are likely soon to be many useful well populated subcategories of "Tank tops by function". There is only one subcategory. Category:Tank tops has only a few subcategories. "Category:Tank tops in cosplay" could be a subcat of "Tank tops" with no ill effects; at present this is just unneeded cluttering extra category, making users make extra clicks while showing no additional content in the process. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Side notice: category's name part <municipal architecture> is unique in Commons database. So I suggest to delete the nominated category after we move the subcategories--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category contains only one file. It is an historic photograph that is called "Clan Ferguson", but shows a three-masted ship that patently is not either the "Clan Ferguson" built in 1898 or its successor built in 1938. The category should be deleted, and the photograph should be labelled as having an incorrect file name. Motacilla (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not EN WP. The conclusion of the discussion about the name of the main category on Commons was not to use the same name as in EN WP, en:Folk costume, but Traditional clothing.
For me, as a native Dutch speaker, "Tracht" is very recognizable (in Dutch: Klederdracht), that also might be the case for Danish (Folkedragt), Norwegian (Nasjonaldrakt) and Swedish (Folkdräkt) and of coarse for the German speaking countries. But the rest of the world will not recognize this word. That might be the reason for the Commons principle that names of categories should be in English and the Commons:Categories#Universality principle, which explicitly says: "local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible". So why should we deviate from these Common principles for Tracht?
@JopkeB: can you find evidences that there is well-established English word for German term "Tracht". If you will find it, I can start discussion in enwiki to get more input--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I do not see any difference with other Traditional clothing of other countries; yes, they differ from each other, from country to country and within countries, but the Tracht does not differ so much from Traditional clothing in other countries that it deserves a special treatment. Otherwise the categories with traditional clothing of all the other countries should also have their own names. For me Tracht is just Traditional clothing of an ethnic group, in this case of German speaking people, like there is a category for Category:Slavic traditional clothing, also a language group. So I would ask you: what is so different about Tracht that it deserves an exception, a special treatment? --JopkeB (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English word for Tracht is Tracht. There is no other word. This is not seen as "the traditional clothing" in the broad sense, it's seen as one specific style of it. If there are other styles (which I as an English speaker have no knowledge of) then add Category:Swabian duck-hunting boots to Category:Traditional clothing of German speaking regions as necessary. The idea that "items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization." is appalling and should be corrected. It's inaccurate, it discards all WP principles of sourcing and No OR and it's a cultural land-grab for America. At root it's that persistent misunderstanding that Mediawiki categorization requires matching names (it certainly doesn't). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NearEMPTiness: In German, it clearly means the same as traditional clothing. You can google "chinesische tracht" and just about every other culture for evidence. The question is if, as suggested, the English word "tracht" has taken on another more specific meaning related to German-speaking regions. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agreement about a correct name for the Commons category for traditional clothing of German speaking countries, now still "Tracht".
Pro keeping "Tracht":
The terminology in EN Wikipedia is en:Tracht. So there is no reason to change the name in Commons.
There is no other word. This is not seen as "the traditional clothing" in the broad sense, it's seen as one specific style of it.
There is no agreement about the idea that "items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization".
Keeping Category:Tracht and it's subcategories would save a lot of work for Commons volunteers.
Anti "Tracht":
We would like to get rid of all the different category names about traditional clothing in Category:Traditional clothing. Main requirements for category names :
identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization, see Commons:Categories#Universality principle (so, in this case: should start with "Traditional clothing")
Commons is not EN WP. In Commons we make our own considerations and decisions.
Many Common users will not recognize the word "Tracht".
Still open: What is so different about "Tracht" that it deserves an exception?
The only justification to keep "Tracht" is if it is one specific style of traditional clothing in German speaking countries, next to other styles in those countries. Then there should be a definition of that style with characteristics.
But if "Tracht" is just the German-language word for "Traditional clothing" then we cannot keep "Tracht". Otherwise we should change all the subcategories about traditional clothing by country to the local names, and we just decided that we want to get rid of all the different names.
It looks indeed like "Tracht" is just the German-language word for "Traditional clothing", because a Google search with "indische tracht" shows 62 results with German-language websites, while Indian traditional clothing has nothing to do with traditional clothing in German speaking countries.
I saw your change on w:de:Sorbische Trachten and drew the conclusion that you might help in an old discussion. A few years ago, one of the conclusions in Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country was that all the subcategory names of Category:Traditional clothing should be harmonized. That has almost been finished. But we did not know whether "Tracht" is just the German word for "Traditional clothing" in German speaking countries, OR that it is one specific style of traditional clothing in German speaking countries, next to other styles in those countries. Could you tell the difference? If there are indeed differences, could you point out the characteristics? JopkeB (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JopkeB, it's hard to tell. For the Sorbian Tracht, I can tell you, it's a traditional clothing with strict rules. There were colour codings for young, engaged, and married women, some regions knew five or more different states for mourning clothes, and so on. So I'd say, it's traditional clothing with a ruleset. -- kind regards, 32X (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to solve a mess. Following en:Tracht, Tracht is the (regional and internationally accepted) name for traditional clothing in German speaking countries and regions (*). Therefor it is correct, to find that category in Category:Traditional clothing by ethnic group. However belowCategory:Tracht there is no common rule wheter to call the categories Traditional costumes of region XY or Tracht from region XY. Some examples:
@Qaswed: Thank you very much for reviving this discussion. I hope we now can find answers and draw conclusions. And it looks like you know more about this subject than I do. I agree this is a mess. And I may be partly to blame. After the closing of Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country, I changed a lot of the categories involved, for all countries. But for Germany (and other German speaking countries) there were several category names, not only with "Traditional costumes", which I all changed to "Traditional clothing" (I might have missed Category:Traditional costumes from Württemberg), but there were also a lot of categories with "Tracht". That made me wonder whether "Tracht" is a special kind of Traditional clothing. Therefor I started a new discussion (this one) about this question. But uptill now there was no clear outcome.
My main question still is:
Do we indeed need a Category:Tracht? Or can we skipp this category and just have categories "Traditional clothing in XY"? What would be so special and different about Tracht that it needs a category of its own, while all other countries have categories "Traditional clothing in AB"? Those countries also have special names/words in their own language for their traditional clothing/costumes (which they might rather use, but on Commons we have the Universality principle, where you are implicitly referring to), so why should it be different for the German speaking countries? So my proposal would be to rename all subcategories to "Traditional clothing in XY" unless there is a very good reason not to.
@Estopedist1 The subcategories you mention are for people watching other things. But the article you mention is about people watching other people, that is, people being watched. Brianjd (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category is far too broad, too inclusive: millions of images could be added here. Moreover, it is not a defining characteristic of most images. An unmaintainable category and just clutter. I propose deletion of it. P 1 9 9✉20:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same problem with the subcategories, e.g. "White clouds with blue sky background" – unless it is a sunset, any other sky picture can be added; "Aircraft with blue sky background" – just about any image of an aircraft taking off can be added. These subcategories are unhelpful. --P 1 9 9✉20:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the subcategories. These too are clutter and not a defining characteristic. For example, "Buildings with blue sky background", this category too will have millions of images... --P 1 9 9✉17:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started cleaning up the category. My goal is to remove all pictures from Category:Blue sky background. I'm moving pictures with a clear blue sky background to the subcategories, all others to Category:Blue sky. Afterwards I'll move the pictures from Category:Blue sky to the country dependend blue sky categories. I think, this is a way to keep Blue sky background. Blue sky background together with an object is an acceptable category. (It looks like, some people are confused with Category:Blue sky and Category:Blue sky background.) If you would like to help sort the images appropriately, I would be happy. --XRay💬17:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my eyes, STEM seems a US Government's education policy or its nickname. And NASA seems to had used this term on a some part of their youth education. --Clusternote (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Photochrome had a very brief history centered exactly on the turn of the century. For Moscow, it's 1890s and 1900s. Splitting this narrow period over two "by century" bins seems excessive and unnecessary. It also requires very strict provenance of the first publication - and the sources are all over the place. Suggestion: disband, merge into a single parent category. Retired electrician (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there is any meaningful distinction that is likely to be maintained as people upload. Either name would probably be OK; "binderies" is probably slightly more general, but "bookbinding workshops" is likely to be clearer to non-native speakers. - Jmabel ! talk05:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These photos are personally identifiable. Micropenis has a negative meaning. The model may not be aware that his photo will be uploaded to Wikimedia. Wumingbai (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion. Micropenis has a negative meaning. Micropenis is a medical condition. Labeling a person with a congenital anomaly is incorrect.
@Wumingbai: I was aware of this guideline, but I did not realise that it covered factual statements. Actually, it is not clear whether it covers factual statements, and I am not sure whether it should. But its examples suggest that it does:
The following examples typically require consent: … An identifiable child, entitled "An obese girl" (potentially derogatory or demeaning)
It is interesting that you and the guideline both used obesity as an example: I now realise that there might be a problem with the obesity categories too, but that is a separate discussion. Brianjd (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumingbai So you are right, according to the guideline. But I don't agree with the guideline. So hopefully people will keep talking about it, and we will see what they think. Brianjd (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category may need to be cleaned out. The English Wikipedia says that the relevant measurement is of the erect penis. Not only are some of the ones in these images (and others still in the category) not erect, but we don't have evidence of relevant measurement being done. I don't think we should categorize things here just based on the fact that things look pretty small to the person doing the categorizing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the files to the super cat of the artist e.g. with comment in the summary: no valid category naming without artist's name, cat for only 1 painting not necessary and obstacle for overview.
I had done the same October 17, but was reverted concerning this cat by Maltaper.
and even in the speedy I gave the reason: no valid category naming without artist's name, cat for only 1 painting not necessary and obstacle for overview- content moved to Andrea d'Assisi, but was reverted by User Maltaper, violating DR policy
I did so many times with support of the admins deleting the wrong named categories and Maltaper is still using and creating categories without artist's name. He mostly creates categories for one painting in small cats, destroying the overview completely as yiu only see subcats and no more painting files.Oursana (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete different issue concerning the authorship of the same painting, but also questions the usefulness of cats per paintingOursana (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am Neutral for this category, but the given reason was wrong. I thought it was an abuse of speedy deletion. Three files in this category were:
Two files were from the same work and divided into two separate categories (Niccolò Pisano and Pietro Perugino). They should be in the same category. --Maltaper (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:White American history. This has most of the problems of that category, and some of its own. What is intended to be included? Cuisine of The White America? Any food prepared by or according to traditions of "white" Americans? By what definition? Can anybody see the difference between food typically prepared by e.g. "white" Americans and Afro-Americans?
There are all kinds of line drawing issues, and I wonder: isn't most Americans of European (or other "white") origin just eating some fused cuisine, based on their ancestors' cuisine but influenced by cuisines of Native Americans and of immigrants from Africa and elsewhere. And is that cuisine significantly different from that of their non-white neighbours?
Delete. Serious questions can be asked whether there is a specific White American cuisine, common to all white Americans, and specific to them. I guess the Old South folks and the Irish or Italian Americans in New York cook very different things, to take just some groups stereotypically associated with American whiteness. PlaceClichy10:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RaboKarbakian has just reverted a bunch of my moves into Category:Books illustrated by Arthur Rackham, copying or moving categories back in Category:Arthur Rackham. Having these categories in both contradicts COM:OVERCAT and having them just in Category:Arthur Rackham avoids proplerly categorizing them as Category:Books or Category:Illustrated books. Separating these images and categories out from the main category helps distinguish between illustrations by Rackham, written works about Rackham, and images of Rackham himself (and his life, like plaques). It's fairly common practice at commons, such as the extensive tree at Category:Works by artist. As far as I can tell, the only reason offered for the move is that he likes, according to my talk page, "having an instant bibliography at the artists cat." But this subcategory creates a more coherent bibliography in that it groups together only books illustrated by the artist and nothing else (like photos of him or writing about him). -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "Demonstrations against extradition bill" subcategories should be renamed to include "Hong Kong" in the name, just like this category does. Brianjd (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: seems reasonable, but this is massive renaming. Besides, some categories are named like "Demonstration against extradition bill, Foo date", and others like " Demonstrations against extradition bill, Foo date". I guess that only plural should be used--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakvietimas Lietuvos gimines..." (English: Invitation of Lithuania's relatives...), dedicated to Grand Duke Sigismund III Vasa, 1589.
Title page of a book, published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1653, with text "Ant wartoimá Báʒnićioms dides Kunigiſtes Lietuwos" (English: For the use in the churches of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).
Title page of Mokslas skaitymo rašto lietuviško (1783 edition) with text "Skaityma raszta lietuwiszka" (English: Reading of the Lithuanian writing).
Comment Just remind that creating several completely the same discussions (Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) is a clear sign of disruptive behavior. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Merge Category:Templo de Santa María, Tequisquiapan into Category:Iglesia Santa María de la Asunción, Tequisquiapan, Estado de Querétaro, México. The first is probably the common name, the last the specific name from Monumento de México|05885 classification. See also w:en:Tequisquiapan, main picture caption. --Leo Miregalitheo (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree @Themightyquill: : whenever possible we use enwiki solution. NB! enwiki uses em-dash, ie Category:Bonn–Paris conventions--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:World War II memorials of the Red Army. 
Support I agree that there should be two categories. We need indeed to distinguish foudation stones serving as part of a structural foundation and commemorating stones, most of them just being plaques embedded in a wall, not really functioning as foundation stones. Perhaps Category:Foundation stones should become a disambiguation page, referring to two new categories: Category:Structural foundation stones and Category:Foundation stones (plaques) or Category:Commemorating foundation stones (OR use Category:Dedicatory building stones for this purpose? at least incorporate this category into the category for commemorating stones). Please mention better new names for the missing categories. --JopkeB (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Ceremonial foundation stone (in a stone wall). This stone commemorates the laying of the foundation, it seems to be set on top of the foundation, and it is not really part of the foundation. Structurally, it's a quoin or cornerstone.
European padstone. Wooden sill on padstone.
Japanese padstone (dodai-ishi). A wooden pillar on a padstone is much better for earthquakes than a sill. Sills have to be bolted down or they slide off the foundation.
Foundation stones (+ house). A more conventional European foundation wall.
Foundation stones (-house)
.jpg)
Delete. This also applies to the subcat Category:Filmitadka review needed, so I've marked that with a template pointing here as well. --bjh21 (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Neutral for this category, but the given reason was wrong. I thought it was an abuse of speedy deletion. Three files in this category were:
fig. 1
fig. 2
fig. 3
,_La_Vierge_en_tr%C3%B4ne_avec_l%27enfant_entre_saint_J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_et_saint_Pierre_(c._1490).jpg)
fig. 4
fig. 5,_mus%C3%A9e_Cond%C3%A9,_Pietro_Vannucci_dit_Il_Periggino_(correctement_-_Perugino,_Le_P%C3%A9rugin),_La_Vierge_glorieuse.jpg)
,_mus%C3%A9e_Cond%C3%A9,_La_Vierge_et_l%27Enfant_et_deux_saints,_Pisano.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_369.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
