I don't think we should. We have category redirects for a reason. Isn't it saying the same thing though? If the category name was Green Valley Mansion Green Valley Mansion, it would be silly. We could consider whether to just use the other alphabet but I doubt that would be popular. Are there a number of Green Valley Mansions at that exact address to need the other alphabets to clarify which one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm I see that we don't even have anyone using Category:Green Valley Mansion so this just feels like an excessively long duplicative name when the same information can be put into a title on the page itself. Suggest moving to Category:Green Valley Mansion and just writing "Green Valley Mansion (翠谷樓) is a residential building at No.49-51 Wong Nai Chung Road, Hong Kong" or whatever. Make Category:翠谷樓 a redirect or 翠谷樓 the main page if people want. This is actually more difficult for people to figure out than the shorter name. It only helps those who know this exact naming convention including the other alphabet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "airport diagrams by country" have subcategories that all are named "airport diagrams of airports in <country>" while "diagrams of airports by country" have "diagrams of airports in <country>".
I think that leading with "Airport..." in the category is important (not leading with "Diagrams...", but also that "airport diagrams of airports" is a bit awkward, but not that bad. Now, how to resolve this? Enyavar (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'Airport diagrams…' categories refer to a type of diagram created by the US government. The files they contain all have a distinct, consistent layout and the prominent text 'AIRPORT DIAGRAM'. I can only find official description of the ones made by the Federal Aviation Administration (on its website); these have '(FAA)' in their titles. The other diagrams appear to be made by other departments of the government, for example File:EDDF - FAA airport diagram.jpg, which says '(USAF)' (United States Air Force).
StrongDisagree as explained at Category_talk:Time_Magazine. I would support a move to "Time magazine". Details: The reason for proposed move is "because the magazine is not named "Time Magazine"". Well then, the proposed move does not help since the magazine is certainly not named "Time (magazine)" either. (And as mentioned, it did not become simply "Time" until decades into its history.) Wikimedia far from the first to ponder the question as to how to refer to the magazine. The Chicago Manual of Style and AP style guidelines among others have agreed upon "Time magazine". We should do likewise. There is no need to invent a neologism with gratuitous parenthesis that seems unrelated to how anyone outside of Wikispace actually refers to the magazine. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
Oppose modified proposal, the reason sources use "Time magazine" is because they're saying "magazine" isn't part of the name which is why it needs to be put in brackets here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some church organs are in the category Pipe organs in Finland, some are in Church organs in Finland. What's the point? Is there some logic??? Periegetes (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I organized Category:Pipe organs in Finland by creating topical sub-categories. So this category in my opinion is in order. However, I do not have much motivation for doing the same thing for Category:Church organs in Finland because the content is actually 99% the same. This seems to be a problem plaguing in other countries as well. There are very few instances of church organs not being pipe organs and pipe organs not being church organs. These exist, but making the distinction results in 99 % overlapping categories. --Periegetes (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andy, it seems that it is internationally established category. If it is conceptually clear and items exist, then it is probably ok. --Periegetes (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should never work on that basis! This isn't a Wikipedia, we don't enforce WP:RS and WP:V. But at the same time, we shouldn't invent new distinctions based on no more than coincidence.
We have a lot of images of church organs. Some of those are installed behind the altar. So it's unsurprising that it has been possible to drag these out into separate groups, even if it's only a handful of images. But is this a meaningful distinction? Would someone, an organist or an organ maker, recognise this group as distinct? Are those organs any different, or is it merely that they were mounted on a different wall? Can we link to en:Altar organ ? (no)
I'm in the UK. I can't think of a single 'altar organ' in an Anglican church. There are a few centrally located in the larger chapels. This is owing to a clear theological distinction in church architecture: Anglican churches follow a traditional pattern of stained glass windows behind the altar, chapels do not. So there is a simple question of where the best piece of clear wall space is to place an organ. In particular, most of those chapels are from denominations which place the preacher centrally by not having an altar at all. So is a centrally-mounted organ like that an "altar organ", if it's not even behind an altar?
This distinction requires some evidence for its existence if it's to continue. If they're only found in Lutheran or Calvinist churches, I'm fine with that. If they're only common in Germany, then that's fine too. But then we should be able to give some background to them, and architectural or theological background as to why they're placed there, and only in some countries. Even better if it turns out that they're somehow distinct musically. But what we shouldn't do is to infer a distinction by nothing more than counting images, when no such distinction is recognised within the discipline of church architecture. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It ia a question of classification, not a scientific definition. Could you please help out and point to the right guideline because I was unaware of requirement of 'sourcing' category definitions. Where are these category definitions documented then? To me as a layperson an 'altar organ' is an organ located at the altar (of a church) and it is a distinct phenomenon. For instance there are numerous categories for 'beaches' without any definition of beach. To me it seems people just classify content based on "common sense". Maybe I need to study more, so I would be grateful if you would provide pointer to the guidelines. Periegetes (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand the principle. After going through the categories Category:Church organs in Finland and Category:Pipe organs in Finland and benchmarking with other countries, it seems the overlap between categories is c. 99%. The overlap and confusion in categories is universal regardless of country. The exceptions could be a) pipe organs in parish halls, homes and concert halls (found one image), b) electric/digital organs in churches (did not see any images). Universally, unfortunately, documentation concerning organs is split between categories 'organs...', 'pipe organs...' and 'church organs...'. This makes search and especially browsing quite frustrating. Anyway, I assume that people interested in "organs" are looking for info concerning pipe organs. Therefore I did some work inproving the category of pipe organs (regardless of location). Without proper organization of the category 'church organs in Finland', it is useless. I guess I'll leave that to others. --Periegetes (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at English examples. There is a lot of overlap between the two categories, church and pipe organs. Obviously, not all pipe organs are in churches, but many are. There are a couple of photos of organs in churches which appear not to be pipe organs, but overwhelmingly it is the pipe organs in churches which are photographed. In the case of Gloucestershire, someone has put church organs in Gloucestershire as a sub-category of pipe organs in Gloucestershire. I think that this makes sense for many English counties, but I am not sure that it is a universal principle.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite hopeless to clarify this. In terms of finding media concerning pipe organs, I prioritized organizing the Category:Pipe organs in Finland, on the other hand, theoretically, it is useful to have a listing of organs located in churches, there Category:Church organs would be relevant, but organizing both category structure involves lot of duplicate work. May I point out also the there is Category:Concert organs where organs in concert halls fit. Periegetes (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Je croyais que User:Birdie avait pour langue maternelle le Français. Passons. Donc Birdie, alias Gato76680, a entrepris de créer partout où c'est possible des sous-catégories par arrondissements à l'intérieur des catégories de département. Aucune discussion n'a évidemment eu lieu sur la pertinence de cette entreprise. Pourtant, il suffit de regarder un peu de quoi il s'agit pour comprendre que cette entreprise est sans pertinence, et même d'effet négatif. Tous les organismes d'état décentralisés (enseignement, santé, équipement, agriculture, etc.) le sont aux niveaux région et département, aucun au niveau arrondissement. Symétriquement, toutes les organisations syndicales, associatives (pêcheurs, boulistes, sportifs), professionnelles (industrie, agriculture, médecine, etc.) sont structurées au niveau du département, jamais de l'arrondissement. Alors, pourquoi diviser artificiellement les rubriques départementales en sous-rubriques d'arrondissement ? Pour que M. (ou Mme) Birdie soit fier d'avoir créé quelques centaines de catégories, et puisse dire aux autres qu'il n'y a qu'à les remplir ?
L'User:Fr.Latreille semble ne pas avoir noté que Commons est un site anglophone et que réserver une discussion à quelques francophones semble pour le moins méprisant pour la majorité des participants. Je ne vois pas le rapport entre une fédération de pêcheurs et la subdivision des catégories mais passons. Ce n'est pas moi qui ait décidé de l'utilisation des arrondissements et d'ailleurs, où discuter ? Sur la page de l'arrondissement d'Abbeville qui est le premier alphabétiquement ? Sur celle de l'arrondissement de Belley qui est le premier numériquement ? Je n'ai fait que suivre le schéma adopté dans le Grand Est, le simplifiant même puisque l'on y trouve des catégories de mairies par arrondissement ET par siècle et bien d'autres catégories par arrondissement. Les département situés en PACA comprennent certes peu de communes et la situation serait encore gérable. Mais il en est tout autre dans la partie nord de la France où les départements ont comporté plus de huit cent communes, ce qui donne des listes départementales bien trop peuplées. En taxonomie, suivre la même catégorisation est toujours la meilleure solution et c'est la règle que je suis sauf lorsque c'est exagéré. Une petite remarque en passant, je crée les catégories, je les remplis moi-même au fur et à mesure comme chacun peut le faire, et je n'ai fait que faire remarquer que les remplir plutôt que de demander leurs suppressions semble une attitude plus constructive. La seule fierté est celle du travail bien fait. --Birdie (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai certes le défaut de ne pas faire quelque chose sans me demander si c'est utile et pertinent. Et je persiste à considérer que l'arrondissement n'est pas un niveau pertinent de gestion des écoles, mairies ou autres entités qui ont un rapport privilégié avec le département. J'aurais aimé pouvoir en discuter, et pas seulement avec des francophones si d'autres le souhaitent (où ai-je manifesté un quelconque mépris pour eux ?). Mais justement "où discuter ?". Ce n'est pas moi qui restreint l'espace de discussion, je demandais au contraire à l'ouvrir. Je ne vois qu'un fait accompli, et qu'on m'intime de faire avec. Je n'aime pas çà. J'ai aussi ma fierté, qui m'empêche de contribuer à un travail que j'estime mal fait. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today I came across this draft article w:Draft:Fergus O'Connor (publisher) and it shows the photographer died in 1952, so their work will not be in the public domain until 2023.
We know that the "no known copyright restrictions" claims should be verified and just because the NLI does not know of any copyright claims, does not mean their images are in fact freely licensed. Some of the NLI images have been deleted and some kept when their status has been verified.
Both the category and its contents should be deleted and restored in January 2023. However, as it is only one year away is this really a rather pointless exercise? The proper PD license could be applied at that time. Ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To confirm Ww2censor, Fergus O'Connor was a publisher. He wasn't the photographer of all of those images. (And probably didn't take more than a handful of those images himself. If any at all.) Hence I'm not sure if {{PD-old-70}} ("author's life plus 75 years") is the most appropriate licence/timeline to be discussing. As O'Connor wasn't author. He was publisher. If his "rights" to the images didn't expire with his death, or when the images/collection were handed over to the National Library of Ireland, they likely expired when the National Library of Ireland released the images under the Flickr Commons ("no known restrictions" licence type. Otherwise I'm not sure that an "author plus 70" applies here. Because he was publisher. Rather than author. Personally, I would advocate keeping the contents of that category. But, if we delete them, it should be because we have identified the photographers (and found them to have died after 1947). Or because we otherwise have clarity that no other Commons-compatible licence applies. Otherwise I think those images (like this one taken and published before 1910) are correctly labelled. And "safe" for Commons. Guliolopez (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ww2censor: I was the creator of that draft, but Guliolopez has done the heavy lift. To be clear I am indef'd on the English Wikipedia though still active on other projects including commons (where I'm currently doing most focus). meta, wikidata, wikibooks, ga under this username or appropriate declared alias. My interest in O'Connor was initiated by OCO 346 WooHoo, Choo Choo, Great View (Where O'Connor is the claimed photographer), and I was reluctant to transfer that image until 2023. I recall, correctly or incorrectly, there may have been some uncertainty of O'Connor's date of death but I think Guliolopez has now cleared that up for certain. As an indef'd on :en its an issue if I incite a edit on that place but its on my todo to do an attributed translate to :ga albeit I'm not doing much there until the silage and turf is home and a cite book equiv is in place. I'm looking at File:Street (running over bridge) Athy, Co. Kildare (16293997882).jpg / [1] which is an unknown photographer in the Eason Collection / Fergus O'Connor. Collection which is the sort of more problematic. Hmmm. Now it would be good if the man had an article which would make him notable and entitable to a wikidata article and he could can his own cat for his own attributed photographs separate from these in his own collection, and while the latter collection is likely a subset of the former it might not actually be the case. I'm talking myself towards leaning towards a delete by I'm really sure of little except that wishing those photographs attributed to the man himself were place in a separate category. I'm made more sense after chasing rambling heifers. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ww2censor, @Guliolopez: I've just come in from the garden and noticed a bot had touched File:Inniscarra is in Cork!.jpg which was on my watchlist and for which I did the upload from NLI/Flickr a while ago. I've added that to Category:Fergus O’Connor as NLI specifically specify this image was by him. My immediate thought is this category should be more helpfully moved to Photographs by Fergus O’Connor. On a practical note I'm happy to volunteer to move images identified by NLI as photographed by O'Connor (as opposed to simply in his collection) from Images from the National Library of Ireland Fergus O’Connor Collection to (Photographs by )Fergus O’Connor ... by this it means I'll add it to my to-do list ... and not everything on my to-do is being done (actually it might be doable with a simple batch task) but I'd really like a go-ahead to do it rather than my usual bold boy approach. Thanks. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:Request: Move Category:Fergus O’Connor to Category:Photographs by Fergus O’Connor per comments above. I intend to do boldly this at some point after 30 3 August 2022 04:00 (UTC) if there are no objections. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC), Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC):Request: Move images designed by National Library of Ireland as photographed by Fergus O'Connor to Category:Photographs by Fergus O’Connor and set Author parameter value of {{Information}} to [https://www.flickr.com/people/47290943@N03 National Library of Ireland on The Commons]. I intend to do boldly begin this process at some point after 30 August 2022 04:00 (UTC) if there are no objections. At the end of this process the images remaining in the top level of Category:Images from the National Library of Ireland Fergus O’Connor Collection should only be those in the collection that do not have Fergus O’Connor specifically designated at the author. If in the process should I happen to identify other license relevant information I may also add it to images at that time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC), Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the images in this "featured pictuers" category have been selected as featured pictures. Recommend deleting this as misleading. Eureka Lott20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Art Library Project aims to upload high quality pictures comparable with artworks in Google Art Project. We have been able to get support from the National Gallery in Prague and from other institutions in the Czech Republic, including Ministry of Culture. This category was created for high resolution photographs (obtained free of charge) from the National Gallery or from individual artists. We do not wish to mix them with other photos uploaded by lay photographers. NoJin (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Crown Bridges" is a translation, which is not the name of the bridges. Other bridges with proper names have not been translated either, like Pitkäsilta or Sateenkaarisilta. Category should be renamed to Kruunusillat. —Nelg (talk, contribs)18:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct heraldic term in English, which should be followed (as elsewhere on commons), is "mullet", which has five points. Categories also needed for "mullets of 6 points" and other variants. Five-ray is not an heraldic term. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward Oppose. @Lobsterthermidor: is it? It need citations and this is not really what en:Star (heraldry) says. And even if it was, "five rays" is still a common term in heraldry and easy to understand ; should we really favour precision over understandability? Plus, why nominating only this category and not all the 93 categories with "five rays" in the title? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking that we should actually split this into subcategories under Category:Hearts in logos. There are some logos that have a heart as a component of the logo:
So you emptied the more specific category and put all the content into its broader parent category, leaving an empty node in the category tree? I didn't invent the structure, I merely put it in place as the thematical maps of the US were mostly not sorted at all. "Category for Discussion" exists for a reason, so I am starting this one in your name. English is the defining language of the Category tree, so following your argument, there shouldn't be any "Cultural maps of <places>" for anthropocentric thematical maps, and each one needs to be emptied into the parent category, preferably "Maps of <places> by theme". I bow to your superior knowledge of English and will not argue for the non-existent concept of "cultural maps", but there may be other ideas by other users on how to treat this category and all of its subs. Enyavar (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of why calling thematic categories "cultural" can be a problem: None of the categories and subcategories inside this overall "cultural" category seem right to me:
I created Category:License plates of Wales, because Category:License plates of Scotland and Category:License plates of England already existed. As far as I know, you are correct. England, Wales and Scotland (Great Britain) uses the same numbering system, while Northern Ireland uses a separate system. There is a Category:License plates of Northern Ireland category as well, also a subcategory of Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom. In order to be consistent, perhaps the Scotland, England and Wales categories could be merged into a Great Britain category, similar to the Northern Ireland category. Otherwise that category seems redundant as well, as Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom could actually encompass all UK plates.
I don't know what you refer to when you say restore to "registration plates". The Scotland, England and Northern Ireland category already used "License plates of ..." which is why I also created the Wales category with that same terminology. I however also created "Category:Vehicle registration plates of Wales" by mistake, and redirected that to the other one.
IMHO when deciding what to do with the Wales category, the Scotland and England (and perhaps NI) categories should also be considered. Megyeye (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This name "Logo dialect" doesn't mean logo, but programming language Logo. And dialect is one implementation of Logo language. Skim (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible that these splits would be justified if the grounds of the church were extensive and justified separate coverage. That's possible, but not from the content which we have at present.
The 2022 qualifier certainly seems excessive. If there was some event in the grounds that was time-specific, then that would be justified. But not for photos of buildings that are largely timeless.
@Andy Dingley: Category:Exterior of Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church (San Miguel, Bulacan) was actually the result of my move action. I moved it from its previous title, "Category:Exterior and fences of the Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church in San Miguel Bulacan," so that it will only focus the exteriors of the building itself. The auxiliary images that are usually of little use have been moved by me to the parent category, Category:Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church in San Miguel, Bulacan, so that the "Exterior" category will only show relevant and highly usable images of the church's exteriors, not the adjoining unnotable and unfamous elements of the property like the nondescript statue at its front and the fences. And yes, I totally agree that the church is virtually the same from 2014 and from 2022 — if there were renovations those are too negligible that do not change the look of its façade. The scenes these images depict do not show major national or province-wide events, thus classifying them by year or time is an overkill. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I fully agree that this subject subcategory must be Delete; initially, I would have created a better [Category:Brick fences of San Miguel Church, Bulacan] (as I could put in there all photos); See my terse discussion here before I end this piece, allow me to say Hello to you (as you said "Pretty much retired from scanning now. Fed up with the attitude at Wikipedia.", and I am very honored by your presence, for with millions of photos, still you opted to gracefully visit my photos and your 413,335 edits will remain a legacy); I never desire to edit Wikipedia due to edit wars and my edit will be burried by tons of over writing edits like Manny Pacquiao: Revision history; here in Commons, each and every photo I upload Here is the Sacred Rule: "You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki."; ergo, like Wikipedia stub, my created category, for me are start stubs which can be reviewed and made better by veteran editors, best of luck and sincerelyFBenjr123 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Since there are only military aircraft of this type, I think we don't need any distinction for "type of operator" and a subcategory "in military service". All Panavia Tornados are in military service unless they have been phased out and are now in a museum. When Tornado warbirds come up, i.e. preserved and airworthy aircraft owned by private individuals or organisations, we might reactivate this category, but until then I think it should be deleted. De728631 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few, if any, of the files and categories in here seem to directly relate to the topic. They're either incredibly broad (Canidae, Felidae etc.) or photos of live animals (clearly not "paleo"-anything). Boylarva99 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I created the category a decade ago, I can't claim to know which is the more important, I'd have created the category because of the number of relevant images to categorise, not because of any knowledge of its real world importance. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know at all how one could compare a footpath/hiking trail and a section of a road in terms of importance. What's more, the hiking trail touches Elland as well, making a clear distinction between the two even more necessary. Who's got an idea? --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nantucket is an island, a town, a county, and a census-designated place (CDP). However, the island, town, and county are all essentially the same exact thing; they have the same population, same area, same government, same everything (the CDP, however, is a smaller village within the island/town/county). I propose we follow English Wikipedia's lead, and combine Nantucket County and Nantucket into one. This means redirecting Category:Nantucket County, Massachusetts to Category:Nantucket, and renaming all other categories with "Nantucket County, Massachusetts" in their name to a name with just "Nantucket". Nantucket (and all Nantucket subcategories) would then need to be categorized as a town/city, a county, and an island, as necessary. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
add all Nantucket subcategories to appropriate "by county" categories
fix the logic in Template:Counties of Massachusetts to always use "Nantucket" and not "Nantucket County, Massachusetts" (currently, the template is a bit confused about Nantucket)
The categories were merged on Wikipedia last year but there are other islands in the county that aren't part of the island. While this distinction may not be worthwhile on Wikipedia, this may be useful at least for some categories here since we can be more granular than Wikipedia since we tend to have a much larger potential amount of images than Wikipedia does in articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it could be renamed with the case number CRI-2019-009-2468. then everything about the case could be put inside the same cat, not just the sentencing. RZuo (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with MuzikMachine, while populated places may be the most common subcategories, the geographic features will also be very common (and in the case of some highways) the only subcategories. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I agree. There is no evidence that these authors are Rodnovers, and their drawings express Rodnoverie, and not just their artistic vision. For example, on Andrey Shishkin's website, most of the drawings do not relate to the topic of paganism in general. Perhaps the only exception is Category:Viktor Kryzhanivskyi, whose drawings are placed in the temple of Silenko (see Category:Sylenkoism). Perhaps the category needs to be renamed into Category:Slavic folk religion in art and expanded with drawings by other authors. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion it would be better to choose one name for modern religion(s) and use it as standard – now we have few categories which have used Slavic neopaganism, few with Rodnovery and few with Slavic Native Faith. Personally I suggest Slavic neopaganism as the most neutral of them – no one would be shocked by seeing Ynglism, Slavic Wicca, Slavic Esoteric Nazism and so on with Slavic polytheist reconstructionism together under this name, as long as we haven't accurate classification in reliable sources. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rodnover art: The category "Rodnover art" implies that the art represents Rodnover themes but does not imply that the artist himself is Rodnover; that would be the category "Rodnover artists". In any case, the artists Aleksandr Borisovich Uglanov, Andrey Alekseyevich Shishkin, Andrey Guselnikov, Andrey Klimenko, Boris Olshansky, Igor Ozhiganov, Leo Khao, Maksim Kuleshov, Maksim Sukharev, Maximilian Presnyakov, Nella Genkina, Nikolay Speransky, Valery Semochkin, Viktor Korolkov, Vladimir Pingachov, and Vsevolod Ivanov, are listed as representatives of Rodnover art in: Gizbrekht, Andrey I. (2016). "Образы деятелей российской истории в дискурсе современного "Языческого искусства" (на материале изобразительного творчества)" [The images of public figures of Russian history in the discourse of modern "Pagan art" (based on fine arts material)]. Krasnodar National Institute of Culture. UDC: 298.9:7.044/.046. Another one is Konstantin Vasilyev, cited in: Aitamurto, Kaarina (2016). Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism: Narratives of Russian Rodnoverie. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781472460271. p. 26.
Rodnovery = Slavic Neopaganism: It was decided through a long discussion in the Russian Wikipedia that "Rodnovery" and "Slavic Neopaganism" are synonyms, and while "Rodnovery" is the main term in English (Slavic Neopaganism is hardly ever used), славянское неоязычество prevails in Russian, at the moment, though родноверие is used to the same extent and possibly will prevail in the near future. In all the other Slavic languages, the equivalents of "Slavic Neopaganism" are not used, each language using the localised variation of "Rodnovery" (see the reflection of the Russian decision here on Commons: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Rodnovery). So, I am against changing the main categorisation here on Commons from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" (which, anyway, is always written with uppercase "Neopaganism" in Englisn, so to distinguish modern systematically revived European and Middle Eastern religions from pre-Christian and pre-Islamic ancient "paganisms", written lowercase; such standard practice was decided time ago in the English Wikipedia). I think that the recent hasty move from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" is an umpteenth attempt to split up the movement at the hands of some branches which would like to exclude others (namely, the self-proclaimed "true reconstructionists" aimed at excluding Ynglism or similar eclectic branches); there is no need to bring up "Slavic Wicca" or "Slavic Esoteric Nazism" to muddle the waters, as they are not Rodnovery/Slavic Neopaganism, as the former is a Slavicised branch of Wicca while the latter is Esoteric Nazism in Slavic countries.--Æo (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i didn't notice the older category that's a good reason. Explanation. When I formed this category I did not notice the older category, because the older category was not in the corresponding category: Category:Straits of Croatia --Vhorvat (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, is it better to leave an English translation: Neretva channel, or later renamed after the Croatian name of this sea channel: Neretvanski kanal. --Vhorvat (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:Astros4477) rational: this category to be moved to Category:Dominator (Kings Dominion), because: "Not the only roller coaster under this name". Date: 2 February 2022
This category treats a certain korean projectile as if its the prototype of all torpedos. A better name should be found, and the conspiratorial tone of the descriptions be changed. Enyavar (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the subcategories are strange as well; I think but am not absolute certain that this category and its subs are intended to hold "evidence photos" for the Original Research of the uploader. I have no idea if we have a user portal for naval matters where we can ask if some of the photos are Commons:out of scope anyway? We could keep some, delete all the subcategories, and rename this parent category. --Enyavar (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is something weird here... I googled "Erie Basin". This page seems to say it is a store, in Red Hook neighbourhood of Brooklyn, founded in 2008. [2] So, why does this category contain so many photos that clearly predate 2008? Did someone redirect Category:Red Hook to a category about a store? That does not seem like a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, another google hit [3] says that, as the original sandspit, of Red Hook, eroded, a new one formed, was extended with land-fill, and this was known as "Erie Basin". Then this category is in DESPERATE NEED of a hatnote. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a considerable mess has somehow built up. Google Search has for unknown reasons given first place to a neighborhood jewelry store that named itself after the 19th-century marine terminal that was built to serve ocean traffic on its way to and especially from the Erie Canal. In the 20th century the Basin was the site of a ship repair business with dry dock, and now is the site of the Erie Basin Park and an Ikea store. So, far as I see, Forgotten NY has it right, and ought even be used as a principle source for an ENWP article. I see no reason for either WP or Commons to notice the jewelry store, which is only interesting for its success in Search Engine Optimization. Perhaps when Springtime returns I'll bicycle there and snap some more photos and, umm, maybe this time get one of the jewelry shop. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Mateus2019: . If you think these are redundant, please ignore the See also category advice, and please use the category what you think it is right. Each category has a different role, in my opinion. --Clusternote (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the contrary in my humble opinion, each one is a synonym.
Operation manuals are the manuals for the owners, users, and possibly others.
Owner's manuals are the documents (manuals) about the item that consumers can purchase, and does not correspond to the software or services that have a license agreement.
User's manuals are for the software or services that have a license agreement.
User's guides are often the supplemental documents to the user's manuals.
Comment – For our purposes, these terms are synonyms. (A lexicographer or librarian may find the nuance of interest, but Commons needn't be hyper-specific. Why? Because a person browsing for a reference booklet on how to use, operate, or maintain a product, vehicle, software, or process will not know which subcategory to peruse. There is general agreement that this is so. Senator202922:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if you don't need these category, putting everything in one category might be useless temporary complacency. This discussion seems that for the people needing these sub-categorization or the umbrella term category (for the sub-categories mentioned above).--Clusternote (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC) [edit] --Clusternote (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Juandev) rational: this category to be moved to category:Pítko pod pergolou, because: "No need to have disambiguation". Date: 2022-01-23
"Pítko pod pergolou" is very unspecific description. There are many drinking fountains under pergolas around the world. --ŠJů (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Astros4477, for providing what you consider other precedents; as in our earlier discussion you'd provided only one. Broader discussion involving other cases may or may not be useful, but at present categorization of this particular building is the subject of this discussion. Let us focus on this particular case. Quite simply, "Smoothie King Center" did not exist until 2014. As I understand it, "New Orleans Arena" is the permanent name of the structure. On or about February 2014 Smoothie King company arranged a marketing deal to have the Arena branded as "Smoothie King Center" for 10 years - going forward, not retroactive. I do not object to having media from during this time in a category with the advertising name. I do object to having media predating this agreement categorized with a name that did not exist at the time of the photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say an important matter in this conversation is if venues have "permanent names". Take, for example, en:Footprint Center. This arena lost its sponsorship in 2020. Instead of reverting back to some sort of "permanent, non sponsorship" name, the arena had two names (PHX Arena and Phenix Suns Arena) in subsequent seasons, implying this arena has no "permanent, non sponsorship" name. Thus, if Smoothie King Center lost its sponsorship, there is no guarantee they would revert back to New Orleans Arena.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know that I can take credit -- or blame -- for setting the precedent, as I was just following what others had done with related venues. Anyway, I do believe that images of a venue should all be in a single category regardless of whether or not the name applied to each of its years of existence. While this is not technically correct, from a reader's point of view, it's more convenient to have one category. They are probably more interested in finding all of the media rather than only that which used a certain name at a given time. Therefore, in this case where a "permanent name" has not been established (as was the case for SkyDome), I support the single category Smoothie King Center with New Orleans Arena redirecting to it. I will let someone else have the soapbox now. Waz8 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, unless major renovation or tenant changes differentiate the eras that used the different names, there is not much reason for a different category. Only arena I have separated by different eras it had different names was Seattle’s (and only for interior shots), because its interior has been vastly redone over the different eras. SecretName101 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedias have Smoothie King Center as the name, but as User:Infrogmation notes most photographs in the category pre-date 2014. So should Smoothie King Center be a subcat or should we do the catmove and have New Orleans Arena as a redirect? Abzeronow (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't feel it's particularly necessary, I would have no objection to "Smoothie King Center" being a subcat for media from 2014 - present. I would however object to earlier media being categorized under that name, since no such entity existed before 2014. Some observations and thoughts: I understand the branding rights have been renewed (I don't know for how long) - if that hadn't happened, the Arena would be having another name about now. Understand that this is branding, ADVERTISING - the Smoothie King company is paying the venue and media broadcasting from there to use their name. While some newer stadiums might not have original and inherent non-advertising names, such is not the case with the New Orleans Arena. As Wikimedia is not a partner being compensated, Wikimedia is under no obligation to give them free advertising. In any case, the marketing brand agreement is for set amounts of time going forward - not going backwards in time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted (atleast, to my knowledge), that this is the only main category across sports venues that does not follow the current name of the venue. While I respect User:Infrogmation's perspective, as the concept of corporate sponsorship on sporting venues is a great topic for an online (opinion) forum, the vast majority of respondents, and precendents linked above provide overwhelming support of this category being renamed.—Astros4477 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the precedents that have been set with other venues that have been renamed. In each of these scenarios, the former name is redirected to a category featuring the current name (examples: here, here, here, here, here, and here). All media is moved to the current name. If you would like to propose a discussion on whether this is best practice, I would be happy to weigh in in a separate discussion. However, in this instance, New Orleans should fall in line with every other category.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think it's still pretty firmly "record producer" in industry parlance, and the English-language article is at en:Record producer without even mentioning "music producer" as a synonym. I have a lot of musician and critic friends (and even a few producers). In context, they usually just say "producer", but out of context that is way too ambiguous. I actually can't remember ever hearing "music producer". - Jmabel ! talk03:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not taking my questions as a criticism. I have some correspondents who think categorization is obvious. I think it is anything but obvious.
One school of thought is for the category name to reflect what insiders call the thing. And another approach, often at odds with that, is for the name to be one that makes sense to outsiders.
Here are some examplesː
There are some related technologies that replace ordinary canal locks. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have two lift-locks - my preferred name. Up until I started working on the wikipedia I thought everyone called them this. However, in the UK, this technology is called a boat-lift. In China, their name for this technology is translated as a ship-lift. They finally completed the largest one in the World at the Three Gorges Dam. And, of course, they have about a dozen of them in Germany, where they use a German name. I always thought naming the technology either a boat-lift or a ship-lift was a bad idea because both terms ALSO refer to a completely different technology - large dockside cranes that lift vessels out of the water for maintenance.
Vehicles I have always thought of as streetcars all fall under the highlevel Category:Trams. Another synonym - trolley.
Category:Bridges (nautical). Some people have argued this room should be called a pilothouse, or even cockpit.
Modern charcoal is made by baking wood in a permanent, re-usable, brick kiln. Traditionally, charcoal was made by digging a shallow hole; building a big pile of wood in that shallow hole; then cover the pile of wood with the dirt from the hole, and light it on fire. The dirt makes sure there is incomplete combustion, that leaves the charcoal behind. The volatile elements in the wood are either burned off, or drip to the bottom of the hole. I found some pictures of the charcoal piles, and tried to add them to a category for charcoal piles, only to find that redirected to a Category:Charcoal clamps. I was told that charcoal clamp was a technical term, where-as charcoal pile was just a term I made up. I pointed out that early in the history of atomic energy the term "atomic pile" was used for stacks of Uranium bricks packed close enough that neutrons shed durng atomic decay was captured by nearby atoms, turning them into Plutonium. I am sure Szilard and Fermi picked the term "pile" because there were analogies between their atomic pile and primitive charcoal piles.
What would he call a guy like Scooter Braun? Okay, looked him up... Category:Scooter Braun ...his current categories say nothing of his role in the music industry.
Today I moved the few files/categories from the countries-visited-category to the Ptmotw-category and created sub-cats. --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: I find it sad that so many images have been nominated and have gone through this process without any response. I'd much prefer if they were declined if they aren't meeting QI status. Others think differently though. However, this discussion is whether this maintenance category should be deleted, which it sounds like you'd support? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd favor deletion, too, as I agree with User:Smial in the linked thread that nominators can make up their own minds about whether to renominate them or not. I think the reason why most of the photos in this category are never rated is probably that no-one can decide whether to promote them or decline them. I know I've sometimes bowed out of rating a photo because I couldn't make up my mind. They could be moved to CR, but it's possible there will be cases in which no-one votes on them there, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of disagree. I think it is still useful, if there is a way to look up which QI candidates went completely unassessed. I however think a category might not be the optimal solution for this. As I see it, this would be a good use for structured data. The wikidata:Property:P6731 with the value wikidata:Q63348069 is added, when an image is determined as QI. In case of unassessed QI candidates, we could add this as a new value and automatically add it to the unassessed ones.
No, but it's much better than manually digging through the QI archive to tell if the nomination was rejected, withdrawn or unassessed. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about this thread. In terms of the quality of a candidate, being unassessed is the same as being declined in the vast majority of cases. We have a lot more people who only ever promote, comment, or abstain, than people willing to decline. Being unassessed usually means a few people looked at it, and none of them thought it should be QI. There are some exceptions, though. For example, if a nominator responds to someone's criticism, because of the way QIC is structured the person who provided criticism doesn't get a ping. It has happened to me multiple times that I've addressed a problem but nobody noticed before time ran out. Upon renominating, they typically pass. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the category. I agree with those who have said they don't see the purpose. In terms of the QIC rules, there's no difference between something that has never been nominated and something that's renominated after being unassessed. You can nominate them just the same. So I guess I'm in the Delete camp. That said, I certainly don't object to using structured data for this. I think we should be doing that more. Using structured data would mean more easily being able to say, for example, "show me unassessed candidates with more than one version" to find those where someone may have fixed a problem, or "show me unassessed candidates sorted by when they were nominated" or something. — Rhododendritestalk | 13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't really care much about this category, even though it can be useful and give you a hint whether a previously nominated image got declined or whether it was an unassessed candidate, only by looking at the entry of the file, without a tedious search in the respective QI candidate archive. Nevertheless, this category may be deleted if it annoys anyone as soon as QICBot stops adding imagex to it (after which it would be useless anyway). Before that happens, I am strongly in the Keep camp. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had been trying to tag unused & poor files that are nowcompletely superfluous, and in future should not be used because of their very low quality.
I did not request their deletion - others may decide whether they are worth to be kept or not.
If they are removed from the normal category tree, they are difficult to find. If they are superfluous, then they are either not in scope or {{Superseded}}. What is the point of the category? –LPfi (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: As told in the category a user had been very busy two years ago in generating a flood of poor PNG images; may be that he intended to use them somewhere, but currently almost all are unused; the few usages are now replaced by SVG.
The told user categorized his images mostly into Icons or other main categories, instead of selecting a more differing one.
I thought that keepeng them there, or in better differing categories (instead of "icon" e.g. Eye icons) bears the danger that somebody finds and uses them. Images so poor IMHO should not be used; when needed a much better SVG can be generated swiftly.
Unfortunately another user was upset by that and started an edit war re-categorizing these images; therefore I stopped caring about.
The images are not all out_of_scope, and not all have a superseding image. Their common property is their superfluousness. -- sarang♥사랑10:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no better image for some in-scope use, then they are not superfluous and they should be in a category where they can be found. If their quality is so bad that they are useless even in that case, then they should be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to me that the "Superfluous images" refer to png that are originally svg. is that correct, User:Sarang?
it's so freaking annoying that new users just keep uploading these crap. another perennial example: youtube logo, like File:Youtube Simgesi.png. (i did nothing about this file because i knew of sysops' reluctance to delete and clean up these crap.) RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy mass deletion of PNG images converted from existing SVG images. But not with random moving into less useful or useless categories. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb Glacial streams sub-categories seem to be about streams whose waters originate from a Glacier. This category is not redundant. You could rename perhaps to "Glacier fed streams" or "Glacial fed streams." "Supraglacial streams" are streams on the glacier itself. When this supraglacial water emerges below the glacier's terminus, it becomes a glacier fed stream or glacial stream. The same idea with a "subglacial steam" upon emergence below the terminus. Ooligan (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i've handled quite a lot of "panaram..." cats. in the process it's always a problem seeing users dumping whatever into the cat trees "panoramas / panoramic..." i decided i wont take that as my responsibility to discern what is and what is not and the resultant recategorisation effort.
i'm also not sure what the definition of panorama should be. here're some dicts:
the kind of photo that's produced by a scanning mechanism, which gives an appearance of a U shape.
the kind of photo that looks like multiple photos stitched together, so they dont give a U shape but still feature more details than usual.
imo if a photo doesnt have a wide angle, and it shows only a small part of landscape, then it's definitely not a panorama. (many members of this cat are.)
there're probably some linguistic problems here, because my impression is that more often it's the italian and spanish speakers who tend to use this word for all kinds of photos? i dont know coz i dont speak these languages.
When @Mike Peel said "most photos are wide views but not panoramas", I guess what he meant is, a wide-angle shot is not considered a panorama by him, but only probably the #3 #4 #5 I listed are. So it seems the method, by which an image is made, is for some users a factor in deciding whether an image is a panorama, even if fisheye lens, wide angle lens, 360 panoramic camera, mobile phone, etc., might produce some visually similar images. RoyZuo (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An end user looking for a "panorama" does not generally care whether it was made with a very wide lens, a moving camera/phone, or by stitching, as long as there are not a bunch of artifacts. But if you look in these categories, there are a lot of photos that simply are not panoramas in any sense other than that they are taken from far enough away from their subject that they cover a fair amount of terrain, and would not fit any of the criteria you listed. - Jmabel ! talk23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: makes a lot of sense here. Panoramas are a particular type of photography, and should be at least twice as wide as it is tall, if not more. You might be confusing them with vistas. Renaming and trimming back to actual panoramas might work well, although I'm still not convinced that this category is worth keeping. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:George Ho) rational: this category to be moved to category:Commodores (R&B band), because: "Must be disambiguated. Photos previously categorized incorrectly". Date: 2022-01-28
OK, struck the 1st suggestion as ambiguous but the 2nd may still be an option as natural disambiguation though the original proposal is probably best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic (?) and old (over 3 weeks) requested moves:
Nominator (user:Iain Bell) is requesting to bulk move many of RENFE categories, and most of the cases the rational is "Show history of this locomotive" or "More precision in description". Any objections here? Affected RENFE categories are:
Comment Hi @Estopedist1: If you don't mind, first I'd like Iain Bell to make a statement about this massive move. In principle I am not opposed to the moves, but it seems excessive to me to create kilometric categories such as Category:MZA 1400 to 1565 → RENFE 240-2241 to 240-2315, 240-2336 to 240-2425. CFA1877 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These locomotives have multiple identities – should their post-nationalisation identity overrule all others? I don't think so. Most of these categories are also in categories for their pre-nationalisation identities (see Category:Steam locomotives of Ferrocarriles de Madrid a Zaragoza y Alicante and Category:Steam locomotives of Compañía de los caminos de hierro del Norte), where their RENFE-only number doesn't make sense. In addition the word "Class" is unnecessary when the number-block is specified. In the above list, numbers 4 and 12 need expanding, and Addition number 2 is ambiguous – there were two classes of oil-fired 2-8-2 locomotives, and another one that was coal fired.
Comment You say that "in addition the word "Class" is unnecessary when the number-block is specified." It seems somewhat acceptable to me, a shorter version of the category name. Nevertheless, you quote the LNER category as an example, in which the term "Class" appears. That makes me confused.
You propose to eliminate the term "class" from these categories, Iain, but you would have to do that with other RENFE categories ¿right? Like this one or this another one, for example. In which case it would seem to me that the transfer is incomplete and would not make sense. There are many categories that have not been "touched". There are many categories that have not been touched. If the change is made as currently proposed, it would seem to me that the transfer is incomplete and would not make sense.
Lastly...in general, the argument for the transfer seems vague to me, even if it has a basis in truth. I'm still not convinced. You may be right, Iain, but the truth is that right now most of the graphic material available in Commons refers to the stage of these locomotives under RENFE. CFA1877 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I am pessimistic about a solution. "Anti-Blackness" is rather general, in that it could refer to not liking the color black in other things, not just people. And to capitalize "Black" makes it sound like there is such a thing as a "black race" when "race" is just a construct. (But perhaps I am just feeling tired at the moment.) Krok6kola (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: That is better, maybe the best. Which of the many other categories would go under it? And some of those other categories overlap. Plus there are negative stereotypes of others in those categories (e.g. Anti-Russian, Anti-Japanese, Anti-Germany, etc.) Krok6kola (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catalogue and exhibition Rembrandthuis and virtual session Black in Rembrandt’s Time: Dutch and American Perspectivesat the Museum of Fine Arts San Francisco
substituting * asterisk for multiplication sign is a common practice. i dont think it's a spelling mistake. and it's such a common practice that i dont see why a category should be created just to collect such images. like, do you create a category of "i for ï" and then put all the occurrences of "naive" inside? RZuo (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tuválkin will create a category of "i for ï" and then put all the occurrences of "naive" inside.
by definition spelling refers to how a word is written with letters. neither the asterisk nor the multiplication sign is a word or a letter. i wonder how tuvalkin deduces the correctness of the non-existent spelling issues involving these symbols. RZuo (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still wrong and now mischarecterizing my own positions, not just parading your own. You better stop now: I am here and what I think can be readily asked from me, no need for your smarmy exegesis. Concerning your specific quips:
I just noticed you seem to dislike upper case, even at the start of sentences, in a Latin script context. What did you say about common practice? Are you just pulling my leg, or everybody else’s, too? -- Tuválkin✉✇00:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, both of you: keep civil. The writing style of somebody is not relevant for whether a category should be kept, deleted or renamed. –LPfi (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Somebody’s writing style of is not directly relevant to most CfDs and even most discussions here, I agree. On the other hand one who choses to impose on everybody else such a peculiarity as this user does is borderline trolling. (If instead of no-caps RZuo’s «obsession», to reuse a word from this discussion, were all-caps instead, then it would be considered clearly trolling.) And since writing style quirks, being harmless or trollish, borderline or not, affect any and all discussions, this is orthogonally relevant here too.
Furthermore, in discussions concerning typhography oddities such as this one, one’s peculiar writing style cannot be ignored. How can others take serioulsy RZuo’s opinion that using "x" for "×" doesn’t warrant specific categorization when RZuo’s own writing adheres to another such oddity?
By the way, no-caps itself deserves to be categorized as such, with Category:E. E. Cummings being a subcat candidate — see also “en:Letter case#All_lowercase”. I will not create a category for it at this time, though, as it would be seen as a provocation against RZuo in the context of this dicussion. That’s me being civil.
I agree that RZuos writing style makes their opinions on typography irrelevant. However, category discussions are not about somebodies writing style, so any points he rises (or otherwise come to mind) should be met seriously. And for borderline trolling: trolls should be ignored. Let's see what substance there is and discuss that. LPfi (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My hostility started on March 28th at 13:27, when I said all RZuo’s o.p. points are wrong, meaning that this whole CfD is a pointless waste of everybody’s time. I was a bit too blunt, and would normally regret it, but RZuo’s reaction seems to confirm my first impression. So, no, I’m not attempting to forge anything: Just wanted to keep the threading here according to common practice, undoing RZuo’s reversion in a way that doesn’t constitute edit warring, by means of reinserting a further comment of mine later on. As for personal attacks, RZuo made enough of them against me in this CfD to be at AN/U if I were to be bothered with such nonsense; what bugs me, though, is that RZuo is wrong, not that RZuo is impolite or unpleasant. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the category says little to me. Could you please add a description to the category page, so that also I understand what it is about. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: I just noticed this edit, thanks for that — I had misunderstood your question as a rhetorical quip as it seemed to refer to me ("namer", instead of "name") and was originally nested as a follow-up to RZuo’s hostile reply. I will add the requested clarification. -- Tuválkin✉✇16:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
normally for this kind of cats that probably only suit the creators' own obsession, i'd first communicate with them on their user talk pages, but i know from past observations that nothing constructive would come out of this user. see special:diff/643970340, this user disregarded a legitimate appeal for a simple explanation. more than a week after LPfi asked, the category page still has nothing useful at all.--RZuo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this is about «past observations». I’ll have to look up my past interactions with this user to see what is meant here, but this seems to be an unabashed admission of COM:POINTiness. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly necessary. The question is whether there are use cases. I assume there are, but a few examples would be nice to have. Regarding the scope of the category:
"This category is meant to gather examples of the common practice of representing the multiplication sign as an asterisk especially in cases where there is no technical justification for that choice — namely anything later than about 1995 and not related to coding."
It seems the category isn't meant to be exhaustive. That is uncommon for Commons categories. Would perhaps a gallery suit the purpose better? The category can be flooded with examples of a single kind (a problem for Commons categories in general, but especially here, where there is no reason to be able to find all of the files).
I think there indeed may be technical reasons for avoiding the multiplication sign in non-coding context even today. I still tend to avoid the multiplication sign in informal context, such as in plain-text e-mail, while taking notes and in rough drafting of articles. I don't see that as a typographical error. A one-byte ASCII-compatible encoding can be managed even in situations where few tools are available. The multiplication sign is not on the keyboard of my smartphone, and my impression is that the Finnish multilingual keyboard layout is quite alone with providing easy access to it (alt-gr x). I assume there are compose sequences for it, but Windows does not have a compose key.
The cut-off year of 1995 is odd, as at that time ISO-8859 was the dominating standard in the West, while other encodings were dominating in Russia and much of Asia. Anything beyond ASCII was problematic in environments where several scripts were used. When did Unicode become standard in Windows and Unix? Add half a dozen years to cater for old systems. Now any mainstream system supports Unicode, but there are still legacy systems around, which may be a concern for some.
@LPfi: The explanation is tentative (operational words: "about" and "especially") and this cat, as any other, is rather defined (or inferred/implied) by its name and parent cats. As for 1995 it is arbitrary and porous: I chose it because that’s when Windows first offered some measure of Unicode support. As for ISO-8859, I remember it well enough to know that some of it most popular flavours (such as Latin-1 and Latin-15) did include "×" (I just checked: they all did, at 0xD8, directly preceding Unicode’s U+00D8), so I’m not sure what the matter is even being discussed here. What about keyboard coverage? Does it even make sense in a world of virtual keybords (you even mentiond a smartphone — and I’m sure you do not mean a Blackberry), infinitely interchangeable and modifiable? In a world where millions of emojis are being transmitted every second, do we worry whether "×" is too fancy? Is anyone staying there’s not media files in Commons to populate this category, when in a few minutes of unrelated work 4 were found? (That’s why I thought this category was a good idea in the first place.) I really fail to see the point of this discussion. -- Tuválkin✉✇09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for Latin-1: I thought I checked, but somehow missed it. Anyway, I didn't know it was there at the time. About keyboards: few users modify their keyboard layouts, which means that if a character cannot be found on default keyboards, people have to resort to the ALT-keypad codes or menu browsing. In most organisations this would mean that for productivity and consistency, people would be recommended to just use "*" or whatever, and typesetters would replace it with "·" or "×" where good typography is wanted. Do default Windows keyboards even today have the key (except in Finland, where it is on the national standard keyboard)? I don't know how to modify my smartphone's virtual keyboard, I assume I at the very least would have to enable root access, and either do a mad search in the file tree to find the tables, or download and study the source code. Now, the problem about the category isn't whether there are example files, but whether there is a use case. I can imagine some, but I am not sure a category is needed. Is there a community using the categories in the tree, or are people just putting things there? I would very much like some rationale in Category:Typographic errors, which would perhaps cover also this one. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to say other than that critique can be made about each and any category. We’d be spending more time justifying their mere existence to each other than actually populating them: Not a game I’d like to play.
There’s a lot of categories I don’t think should even exist, or at least for which I have no use for. I mostly leave them alone, just don’t make populating them a priority of mine. Should I initiate CfDs for them all instead? (RhQ)
This and all the many similarly named categories should be renamed to avoid the broken English (adjective noun in plural), at least. I’d suggest a simpler schema: "Category:n.m km tunnels". However, since these are many affected categories and there’s at least one affected template ({{Tunnels by length}}), a discussion is advisable. Maybe this whole tree could be instead renamed to match what’s done about bridges. -- Tuválkin✉✇16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These may still warrant merging, but there is a potential difference between 'of' and 'in'. I suppose any panorama depicting Kyiv is 'of Kyiv' and a subset of those which are specifically taken within Kyiv's borders are 'in Kyiv'. Anyway, I can say for sure that 'panoramas' should be used in place of the other terms regardless of whether these remain separate or are merged. Josh (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author appears to now be known by a different name (Erica Fischer) as evident in the Flickr account linked in the summaries of the constituent images. That account in turn links to other social media that confirm the author no longer goes by "Eric Fischer", which appears to be a deadname. Fischer is not a public figure, so there is no compelling rationale to retain her previously used name. The category (and related ones) should be moved, and the individual files updated. Opening this discussion out of an abundance of caution as I am unfamiliar with relevant norms/operating procedures in Commons. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from a couple of weird random categories that probably shouldn't be in here anyway like Ancient Greek brick stamps this seems to be a duplicate of either the main logo category, Category:Logos of products, Category:Logos of brands and a few other categories related to logos. Including it's parent category Category:Logos of companies. Also trademarks have to do with intellectual property law, which has nothing to do with any of the files in here. Except in the most non-meaningful way possible. Otherwise every single file in Category:Unidentified logos could be included in here. So my suggestion is that the files in this category, as well as it's related subcategories, be deleted and the files they contain be put in more descriptive categories. Obviously excluding the non-related categories like Ancient Greek brick stamps. Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If trademarks are almost always logos then how is this not just a duplicate of those categories? We can create categories for synonyms of the word "logo" all day, to account the extremely minor differences in the definitions, but after a point it isn't helpful and just makes organizing logos impossible. In this case the minor difference between a logo and a trademark is a distinction without a purpose, because for all intents and purposes 99% of the files in the category are literally logos, which is why most (or all) of them say they are logos and are already in categories for logos.
In the meantime calling Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps trademarks is stretching it since the concept didn't exist until the mid 1800s. Before that such symbols where considered seals. Which is why Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps is already in Category:Archaeological seal impressions. I see no reason not to just have it be in that category instead of every other one that is even slightly related to the concept of seals. With this category, obviously treating every random pre-modern symbol as a trademark would make this category unusable. I highly doubt anyone is looking for rocks from ancient Greece with random squares imprinted on them when they do a search for images of Trademarks anyway. Ultimately logos are already in logo categories, seals are already in categories for seals, Etc. Etc. So ultimately this category doesn't add anything to equation that isn't already being served by more descriptive ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worldwide, trademarks can have have legal protections. They may require registration by some countries. This legal framework seems to add to this particular category's differentiation from other categories. Ooligan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Your comment that the concept of trademarks didn't exist until the 1800s is incorrect. Trademarks have much older roots, early uses being cited in ancient Rome, and even several current marks go back many more centuries than you indicated (Stella Artois traces their mark back to the 1300s, for example). Modern trademark laws may be rooted in the 1800s, but trademarks themselves go much further back. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are all logos trademarks? Some are surely non-commercial that aren't copyright though most will be so I'm not sure if the distinction is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trademarks may not be a corporate "logo," but they can be. Logos may be trademarks, but not always. Both these categories should be kept. In the future, the United States Patent and Trademark Office may digitize it's full collections of millions of documents (This would be a great future Wikimedia Foundation Project/ Partnership). Then there are the trademark record holdings in other countries as well. So, just the surface of this subject is found here in Commons. --Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "both the categories should be kept." I wasn't suggesting the deleting the logo category. As far as the patent office maybe someday digitizing their collection, I'd be fine with recreating the category when that happens. As far as I can tell there aren't currently any patent documents in the category though and it would be ridiculous to keep a category that is currently a duplicate of another one just because it might be useful at some point in the future. That said, if the category is kept there at least be a warning that the purpose of the category isn't for logos, but then at the same time if the logos are removed then it would pretty much be empty and be deleted anyway. So IMO it should just be deleted now. Otherwise, I guess I could just put all the logos in the other category and C2 it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:With trademark is specifically for works which may have legal protection under trademark law in certain jurisdictions, not for all trademarks, many of which predate modern trademark law. Thus the two are not identical and a merge is not warranted. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that but this category isn't about the general philosophical concept of a "trademark", whatever that is, since it's in Category:Intellectual property law. So it specifically pertains to trademarks as a legal concept. Given that, trademarks as a legal concept or otherwise didn't really exist until the 1800s UK with the Trade Marks Registration Act of 1875. Unless you count King Henry III of England's law that required bakers to add a distinctive mark to all bread sold, but that would be stretching it. There definitely was no "trademarks" in Greek times, as a legal concept or otherwise. They distinguished the appropriation and copying of comedies by other authors as theft, but that's about it. Things like potter's marks never had legal protection. In the meantime you can't just say any symbol on an object is a trademark. That's not what the term means and it isn't the purpose of the category. Unless you want to remove Category:Intellectual property law, but then we are back to my original argument that this is a redundant category because categories for logos already exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning. You posit that Category:Trademarks is somehow constrained by being currently under Category:Intellectial property law. However, that is incorrect as that isn't how categories work. Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. This flaw unfortunately undermines the conclusion you reach as a result. Whether or not it is part of Category:Intellectual property law does not change the fact that not all logos are trademarks, and thus either way, the two categories are not redundant. Josh (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. I don't disagree, but they should at least have some kind of connection conceptually and semantically. That's kind of the whole point. Obviously no is going to advocate for putting a sub category of Category:Felis silvestris catus in Category:Neutron stars or whatever just because categories do not define the contents of their children. Get real. In this case trademarks are loosely connected to modern copyright law and they come out of it as a concept. So it makes sense to have Category:Trademarks as a child category of Category:Intellectual property law. Your irrelevant hand waving about definitions doesn't negate that. In the meantime I have yet to see anyone, including you, come up with a solution to the problems that originally led me open this CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1, Joshbaumgartner, Ooligan, Crouch, Swale, and Arlo Barnes: It looks like there are two camps in this discussion, with opposite opinions, which normally means that there will be no merger or deletion of categories and the discussion will be closed without any actions. But perhaps we can do at least something, like adding descriptions to the involved categories and making a better category structure.
What are good descriptions of the three terms, which show their differences? Can we just copy the definitions from EN-WP?
Trademarks = A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services (source: EN-WP), so they have to do with intellectual property law.
Logos (of organizations, products and/or brands) = A graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition (source: EN-WP)
Brands [new] = A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that distinguishes one seller's good or service from those of other sellers (source: EN-WP)
What kind of files should be in each of these three categories? How can an editor (like me) decide in which category/ies a file should be in? How can you see from an image if it is a logo or a trademark?
"Brands" can mean the product its self while "trademarks" only tends to refer to the logo in the sense of a picture etc. These uses overlap but I'm not sure if we need to split but it may well be a good idea since as noted these are not the same. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of how to structure the subcategories of this one for diffusion. I've already created the obviously selective subcategory Cat:Images of electronic components with rulers to indicate scale, but I'm trying to figure out the right balance of selectivity and simplicity for the rest.
Some potential subcategories that stand out are Cat:Pistol and rifle cartridges, Cat:Ammunition, and Cat:Images from museums. However, there is much overlap between these three. To what extent should the new hierarchy mirror (and take the name of) the existing categories that form their intersections?
Other themes seem to be cables, wires, ropes, and consumer electronics. Note: there are several images of human penises in the category; in keeping with the principle of least surprise, categories representing the intersection with the hierarchy at Cat:Human penis size measurement are probably also needed. — wqnvlz (talk·contribs) 07:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'images of' part of the title is rather superfluous. As for sub-cats, just sort by main subject (fish, ammunitions, etc.) and create new cats as appropriate. Any such subject that has more than a couple of images in the main cat should work for a sub-cat.
I support these proposed changes - not commenting on categories I'm unfamiliar with, but the use of "images" seems superfluous indeed and organisms seem like a place where diffusion would be pretty clear along taxonomic lines, similar to the ones found in museum categories like Category:Nature in Auckland Museum. I think it can be closed for now, as no one voiced opposition for several months since @Wqnvlz: created this. I've been waiting for the discussion closure to diffuse organisms, and wanted to point out there's tens of thousands of herbarium specimens photographed with rulers that aren't currently in here. YuriNikolai (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update - applied proposed category renames to all categories inside "Images with rulers to indicate scale", as no one opposed this and a few more months have passed. I'd like to note the problem of names with superfluous parts goes a few steps up, for example Category:Images with objects to indicate scale has a lot of subcats, and rulers are just one of them - not sure if I should BOLD move all of them or start an equal discussion one level up, even though this seems like an open and close thing for me. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious name. Should be "Bath" instead of "Baghniq", that means bath (բաղնիք) in Armenian, mistakely written in Latin script. Kareyac (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Intersection category, per Universality principle should reflect parent categories Category:Baths in Armenia and Category:Araqelots village, Acharkut. As a non-proper noun, English should be used, and even if there may be only one bath in this village that we currently have media of, plural is appropriate for non-proper nouns.
We already have a category for stations that Südostbahn owns (Category:Railway stations of Südostbahn). I think this category is for stations that Südostbahn serves but doesn't own; it at least would have to be renamed, and we don't have such categories for other Swiss railway companies. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of railway stations deserved by Südostbahn has recently grown. It now reaches from Locarno via Luzern and Bern to Basel and St. Margrethen. I don't think that we can categorize all railway stations after the railway undertakings deserving a station. There would be a similar problem with BLS.--Gürbetaler (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose to delete it. I found one case where a category like this might be correct: BLS took over ticket sale at several SBB stations where no SBB trains pass by. In such a case, BLS is locally present. SOB doesn't have such stations so far.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category should be deleted. It feels less useful than categorizing the files by taxon. I get wanting to see birds of California, or birds in water, but who is looking up birds of California in water? It's a category that has ballooned in size, since it covers a very large possible range of files, and trying to break it up into smaller chunks would be a lot of extra work. Boylarva99 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: If they meet the same criteria that I outlined above, then I do not see why they should not exist, but what do they have to do with the price of tea in China, anyway? Josh (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: That is a fair enough point. I guess what I'm getting at is that the justification seems to rely too much on personal opinion regarding the utility of any particular intersection. Those are valid opinions, but perhaps we would be better served by developing a more objective baseline for what justifies an intersection category. That's probably beyond the scope of this CfD but I do see the theme recurring in a lot of discussions. As for this one, there are a few specific tangible reasons I oppose deletion. First, as stated by @Boylarva99: , the category has a large number of files, which is an indication that at least someone finds there is some utility in this categorization. The OP also states that sub-categorizing it would take a lot of work. This work is not obligatory--it can be done by those who wish to in time--but deleting the category and upmerging into Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in water would just move the bulk up into two categories and could potentially create a large number of overcat situations that would need to be fixed immediately, thus making the very work the OP is concerned about much more urgent and potentially doubling the volume of such work. The OP states they feel categorization by taxon would be more useful. I think that makes sense, but categorization is not exclusive to one or the other--we can categorize by both. Meanwhile, keeping the category does not appear to create any urgent problems. If it is not useful to a given user, there is no obligation on them to use it. For those reasons, deletion is more problematic than retention. Josh (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I don't disagree with that analysis. While I would not personally seek deletion of this one, I am okay if the rest of the team thinks it is warranted and not run afoul of the hazards I mentioned. I would like to see some better guidelines for these sorts of categories, but that is a discussion for a different place. I've changed my comment above to only a weak keep, so it shouldn't stand in the way of a consensus. Josh (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Dvaderv2: Is there any difference between the "Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle" and the "FN SCAR-H TPR", or is the former merely the US designation for the latter? Josh (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh: I'm not 100% sure. I do know that the Mk 20 is semi-automatic only whereas the PR and TPR are or were offered in both semi-auto and select-fire configurations. Also, the Mk 20 and the TPR are visually similar if not indeed identical apart from the flash hider.
Having looked at FN's main site (offering the PR and TPR) and American site (offering the Mk 20), there are a few specification differences between the Mk 20 and the TPR 20" (the most directly comparable PR/TPR variant) but they do seem to be minor (Overall length of 40.5" to 42.5" for the Mk 20 vs. 41" to 42.72" for the TPR, weight of 10.69 lb. for the Mk 20 vs. ±11.02 lb for the TPR). Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dvaderv2: Thanks for that information! It would seem we have three different items here then, so I would recommend the following:
KeepCategory:Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle for files actually depicting the US-designated Mk 20 version of the TPR. This would include any that find their way into non-US hands.
@Josh: Except that FN clearly regard the PR and TPR as being sufficiently related to one another to offer them in the one product entry/listing; I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that there are any differences between the two rifles other than buttstock design. As for the Mk 20, what you're proposing makes sense, but as something that FN America intended primarily for USSOCOM procurement, the only real user of the Mk 20 is... USSOCOM. Now, there may end up being some non-US examples out there due to FMS and other initiatives, but without explicit identification of such rifles as being Mk 20s they wouldn't be readily distinguishable from the PR/TPR at a glance, particularly if the vagaries of photographic angles and/or quality meant that markings couldn't be easily made out or indeed couldn't be made out at all.Dvaderv2 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dvaderv2: Understood, though it is enough of a difference for FN to give them two separate designations. It is kind of a moot point if we don't have any files depicting these. As for Mk 20 in non-US hands, I'm referring to not only FMS but to captured examples and other such (I wouldn't be shocked to see them appear in Ukraine, for example). I am not finding any SCAR-H offerings that are not PR or TPR types, do we have files of any such examples? Josh (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category is a mix of photos of the Marx Brother "Gummo" (real name Milton) and WW2 painter Milton Marx. Suggest renaming the existing category to "Gummo Marx" (this having been its original reason for creation, from its edit history) and moving the other photos to a new "Milton Marx" category. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest making this category a disambiguation category and qualifying the name of the new category for the painter. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as per Auntof6 (talk·contribs) a dab makes sense here. I believe it is normal practice for celebrities to be categorized under their public name vs. birth name. If this is incorrect, I am fine with "Milton Marx (comedian)" instead.
There are two types of name in this category. Which name should we use? "related to/against" "environmental issues/problems" A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacklee: I wish to harmonize the category names. The subcategories have two differences: Demonstrations and protests "related to/against" environmental "issues/problems" As the creaor of this category, which name do you perfer? --A1Cafel (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the parent category should use “relating to”. The “against” category (and “in favour of”, or whatever wording we are using) should be a subcategory. As for “issues” or “problems”, I guess I prefer “issues” as it’s more neutral. However, I’m not sure if it is safe to decide this for all categories here without looking at some examples, because it might be that in some cases “problems” is more appropriate. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–08:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i believe we should refrain from adding such cats when references are not given. they can be added only if the references are posted on cat talk page. it's impractical and exhausting to check whether such claims are valid, so i'll just assume everything is unsubstantiated unless proven otherwise and remove all of them.--RZuo (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these are most often not justified, and added by IP users without any relevance! See for instance the edit history of the 2601:81:4300:0:0:0:0:0/48 range. See also these edits on Category:Jess Harnell (no less that 30 absurd categories of fancy ascendancies of which the Wikipedia articles says absolutely nothing: Bahamian? Belarusian-Jewish? Cherokee?) or Category:Richard Pryor (descent from 15 different African countries from Guinea-Bissau to Ethiopia and Mozambique, none of which, again, are mentioned on the Wikipedia article). I suggest not to keep any descent/heritage category that is not supported by a statement with reliable sources in the English Wikipedia or another Wikipedia project. PlaceClichy14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that wrong categorization should be corrected. I disagree that you need to open a CfD for that: Just go ahead and delete the wrong categories. In the case at hand, any justifiable category about Tom Hanks’ ancestry should be kept.
Please note that deleting wrongly applied categories from a file or subcat is one thing, while wholesale emptying and deleting categories is something else, and that would need a discussion.
"cast of movie xyz"/"movie xyz cast"... such cats are really dumb. for an actor like tom hanks he would be put into hundreds of such cats.
i propose the category tree handling the relations between actors and movies should be: "person xyz" -> "films starring xyz"/"films directed by xyz"/"films produced by xyz"...
also, we should delete the "xyz filmography" cats, because for most filmmakers they only specialise in a single profession. even if someone is multitalented, it's not necessary to create this extra layer.--RZuo (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that these categories are useless. I opened a Village Pump discussion suggesting that placing actors in film categories, and films in actor categories, is not useful. Also, it creates forbidden category loops. Note that in most cases this information is (or should be) on Wikidata, and the Wikidata infobox provides exactly this information, with useful links. PlaceClichy14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until the files of this person are deleted, the category should be retained to hold them. If the files are out of scope, their deletion should be requested at COM:DEL and once they are deleted and the category is empty, it can be speedy deleted at that time. Josh (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-educational category— Commons is not an indiscriminate collection of antiwar propaganda; redundant to Category:Action of solidarity with Ukraine (all subcats should be deleted too) Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to very Weak delete. As far as I see not all files in the category are non-educational. If you think some files are potentially out of project scope, please start a DR on those files. However, this cat could be a redundant. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion signs of solidarity with Ukraine are a widespread phenomenon in various countries and are the main topic of thousands of images. Therefore it must be included in the category tree. ~CybularnySpeak?11:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm neutral on this but if the category is kept it should at least have the whole "and" thing removed since we don't normally allow for categories that encompass two different concepts and they aren't the same thing. Probably I'd just axe the word "friendship." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category should be just "Revolución Libertadora", as it is a period of time that already has an unique name. Year, place and type of event, all that be included in the description and/or infox and the parent categories. There's no need for this overcomplicated long name. Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from a couple of weird random categories that probably shouldn't be in here anyway like Ancient Greek brick stamps this seems to be a duplicate of either the main logo category, Category:Logos of products, Category:Logos of brands and a few other categories related to logos. Including it's parent category Category:Logos of companies. Also trademarks have to do with intellectual property law, which has nothing to do with any of the files in here. Except in the most non-meaningful way possible. Otherwise every single file in Category:Unidentified logos could be included in here. So my suggestion is that the files in this category, as well as it's related subcategories, be deleted and the files they contain be put in more descriptive categories. Obviously excluding the non-related categories like Ancient Greek brick stamps. Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If trademarks are almost always logos then how is this not just a duplicate of those categories? We can create categories for synonyms of the word "logo" all day, to account the extremely minor differences in the definitions, but after a point it isn't helpful and just makes organizing logos impossible. In this case the minor difference between a logo and a trademark is a distinction without a purpose, because for all intents and purposes 99% of the files in the category are literally logos, which is why most (or all) of them say they are logos and are already in categories for logos.
In the meantime calling Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps trademarks is stretching it since the concept didn't exist until the mid 1800s. Before that such symbols where considered seals. Which is why Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps is already in Category:Archaeological seal impressions. I see no reason not to just have it be in that category instead of every other one that is even slightly related to the concept of seals. With this category, obviously treating every random pre-modern symbol as a trademark would make this category unusable. I highly doubt anyone is looking for rocks from ancient Greece with random squares imprinted on them when they do a search for images of Trademarks anyway. Ultimately logos are already in logo categories, seals are already in categories for seals, Etc. Etc. So ultimately this category doesn't add anything to equation that isn't already being served by more descriptive ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worldwide, trademarks can have have legal protections. They may require registration by some countries. This legal framework seems to add to this particular category's differentiation from other categories. Ooligan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Your comment that the concept of trademarks didn't exist until the 1800s is incorrect. Trademarks have much older roots, early uses being cited in ancient Rome, and even several current marks go back many more centuries than you indicated (Stella Artois traces their mark back to the 1300s, for example). Modern trademark laws may be rooted in the 1800s, but trademarks themselves go much further back. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are all logos trademarks? Some are surely non-commercial that aren't copyright though most will be so I'm not sure if the distinction is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trademarks may not be a corporate "logo," but they can be. Logos may be trademarks, but not always. Both these categories should be kept. In the future, the United States Patent and Trademark Office may digitize it's full collections of millions of documents (This would be a great future Wikimedia Foundation Project/ Partnership). Then there are the trademark record holdings in other countries as well. So, just the surface of this subject is found here in Commons. --Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "both the categories should be kept." I wasn't suggesting the deleting the logo category. As far as the patent office maybe someday digitizing their collection, I'd be fine with recreating the category when that happens. As far as I can tell there aren't currently any patent documents in the category though and it would be ridiculous to keep a category that is currently a duplicate of another one just because it might be useful at some point in the future. That said, if the category is kept there at least be a warning that the purpose of the category isn't for logos, but then at the same time if the logos are removed then it would pretty much be empty and be deleted anyway. So IMO it should just be deleted now. Otherwise, I guess I could just put all the logos in the other category and C2 it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:With trademark is specifically for works which may have legal protection under trademark law in certain jurisdictions, not for all trademarks, many of which predate modern trademark law. Thus the two are not identical and a merge is not warranted. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that but this category isn't about the general philosophical concept of a "trademark", whatever that is, since it's in Category:Intellectual property law. So it specifically pertains to trademarks as a legal concept. Given that, trademarks as a legal concept or otherwise didn't really exist until the 1800s UK with the Trade Marks Registration Act of 1875. Unless you count King Henry III of England's law that required bakers to add a distinctive mark to all bread sold, but that would be stretching it. There definitely was no "trademarks" in Greek times, as a legal concept or otherwise. They distinguished the appropriation and copying of comedies by other authors as theft, but that's about it. Things like potter's marks never had legal protection. In the meantime you can't just say any symbol on an object is a trademark. That's not what the term means and it isn't the purpose of the category. Unless you want to remove Category:Intellectual property law, but then we are back to my original argument that this is a redundant category because categories for logos already exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning. You posit that Category:Trademarks is somehow constrained by being currently under Category:Intellectial property law. However, that is incorrect as that isn't how categories work. Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. This flaw unfortunately undermines the conclusion you reach as a result. Whether or not it is part of Category:Intellectual property law does not change the fact that not all logos are trademarks, and thus either way, the two categories are not redundant. Josh (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. I don't disagree, but they should at least have some kind of connection conceptually and semantically. That's kind of the whole point. Obviously no is going to advocate for putting a sub category of Category:Felis silvestris catus in Category:Neutron stars or whatever just because categories do not define the contents of their children. Get real. In this case trademarks are loosely connected to modern copyright law and they come out of it as a concept. So it makes sense to have Category:Trademarks as a child category of Category:Intellectual property law. Your irrelevant hand waving about definitions doesn't negate that. In the meantime I have yet to see anyone, including you, come up with a solution to the problems that originally led me open this CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1, Joshbaumgartner, Ooligan, Crouch, Swale, and Arlo Barnes: It looks like there are two camps in this discussion, with opposite opinions, which normally means that there will be no merger or deletion of categories and the discussion will be closed without any actions. But perhaps we can do at least something, like adding descriptions to the involved categories and making a better category structure.
What are good descriptions of the three terms, which show their differences? Can we just copy the definitions from EN-WP?
Trademarks = A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services (source: EN-WP), so they have to do with intellectual property law.
Logos (of organizations, products and/or brands) = A graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition (source: EN-WP)
Brands [new] = A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that distinguishes one seller's good or service from those of other sellers (source: EN-WP)
What kind of files should be in each of these three categories? How can an editor (like me) decide in which category/ies a file should be in? How can you see from an image if it is a logo or a trademark?
"Brands" can mean the product its self while "trademarks" only tends to refer to the logo in the sense of a picture etc. These uses overlap but I'm not sure if we need to split but it may well be a good idea since as noted these are not the same. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this category is super obtuse and it's purpose doesn't make any sense. There's a lot of stamps and other things in here, like covers and block stamps, that don't follow the CPA Catalogue order. So I'd like to up-merge this and other categories with the phrase "all stamps" in them to the existing "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" categories. Maybe stamps of the Soviet Union can be ordered by their catalogue number in a gallery or something, but this isn't the way to do it. A stamps number in some random catalog isn't meaningful anyway, which is why no other category for stamps is organized this way. Having one countries stamps organized by catalog number is just nonsensical. More so because the whole scheme gets screwed up when a file that doesn't follow the order of the catalog numbers gets put in the category. Plus it makes it impossible to put anything in a sub category because doing so will just create random gaps in how the files are organized. Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Название этой категории синхронизировано с названиями окружающих ее категорий и поэтому является оптимальным. Эта категория создана для: 1) учета почтовых марок СССР 1923 года для загрузки недостающих марок; 2) для поиска нужной марки СССР 1923 года. Важно, что эта категория является подкатегорией упомянутой вами категории "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923", в которой могут находиться другие категории, в данном случае "1th standard issue of Soviet Union stamp series" и "First USSR stamps". Если категория "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923, all stamps" будет отсутствовать, то почтовые марки 1923 года окажутся раздробленными по указанным и аналогичным категориям в общем случае. Марки одного года окажутся раздробленными по правилу Склада, по которому загруженный файл не может ОДНОВРЕМЕННО находиться в директории и ее поддиректории. В результате: 1) будет непонятно, загружены ли все марки данного года 2) возникнут проблемы с поиском нужным марок конкретного года. Эта СИСТЕМА КАТЕГОРИЙ успешно работает много лет, я с ней активно работаю, и менять ее не следует. Matsievsky (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "this category is synchronized with the names of the surrounding categories", but I said I'd like to up-merge all the categories with the words "all stamps" in them and "Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923" is linked to the other Stamps of the Soviet Union by year categories. So the stamps will still be "synchronized" if they are in the parent category. The same goes for your other two points. People can still find missing stamps of 1923 if the stamps are in "Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923" and there's nothing special about this category when it comes to searching for Stamps of the Soviet Union from 1923. If anything the words "all stamps" are just redundant. True if you search for "all stamps" in the search box it will give you only stamps of the soviet union, but that's not the point of category names. Just like I can't put random, made up words in the name of a category to act as a search filter, and that's essentially what your doing.
Outside of that, I don't think your other two points are valid either. Like I said, literally no other stamp category has the term "all stamps" at the end of it. None of them are "fragmented" and no one has issues with finding the stamps of a particular year for a particular country. I can literally find stamps of Greece from 1911 right now by searching for "Stamps of Greece, 1911." Nothing you said addressed the issues I brought up either. It's hard for me to care about what your saying or take it seriously when you completely ignored what I said. If you think we should stick to the status quo then you should at least address the reasons why I started this discussions. In the meantime I don't really care if your actively working on things in the categories. Categories don't exist for the purpose of a single user's pet project. Otherwise create a "Stamps of the Soviet Union uploaded by Matsievsky" category or something and do your pet project there. Or create a gallery for it like I suggested. You could do literally the exact same thing with a gallery in the main stamps of the Soviet Union category. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Вы не потрудились меня понять. Речь идет не о поиске с помощью инструментов или фильтров, часто такой поиск бесполезен. Речь идет о заходе в конкретную категория и поиску в ней файлов непосредственно, глазами. То, что таких категорий больше нигде нет, означает, что там категории не развиты. В почтовых марках СССР много категорий, например, с сериями марок. На каждый год приходится много серий марок. Вы так и не поняли, что обсуждаемые категории созданы не по капризу, а по необходимости. У меня сложилось, впечатление, что вы считаете, что сможете перенести все файлы из "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year, all stamps" в "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year". К сожалению, не сможете. Если бы это было возможно, я бы не предпринял столько усилий. Часть файлов, иногда большую часть файлов, вам придется удалить, поскольку они находятся также в подкатегориях категории "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year". Также с марками Греции я не понял, зачем вы вытащили файл из годовой категории и поместили его в общую категорию. Я вообще не понимаю, что вы делаете. Вы просто развели самодеятельность. Если есть вопросы - спрашивайте, вам ответят. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you perfectly fine. I just disagree with what you said. What exactly do you think I got wrong? Because you still haven't said anything that addresses or disproves any of my points. If anything your just talking in circles. Like you say said isn't about searching for the files and then in the same sentence you said it's for searching for the files. Which one is it? "The category is a valid way to organize the stamps because I created the category" is just more of the circular nonsense. Also, how exactly can people not search for the files if they are in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" when they will have the exact same file name, image, and order? I'm aware that there are many series of stamps for each year. Putting the files in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" doesn't negate that, make it impossible for there to be specific categories for the stamp series', or effect them in any other way. So I have zero clue what your on about. Other then that my edits to stamps of Greece have no relation to this. If you have an issue with how I edited the stamps of Greece categories this isn't the place to discuss them. I'd appreciate if you stuck to the topic of this discussion and not make it personal or about other categories. If anything the fact that your looking through my edits for other things to discuss just proves you have no argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Начнем с начала. "The name of this category is super obtuse and it's purpose doesn't make any sense." Вы начали общение со мной с оскорбления. Затем вы утверждаете, а не спрашиваете, что цель категории не имеет никакого смысла. Я вам разъяснил, какой смысл имеет эта категория, что она необходима для удобной работе с файлами. Также я объяснил, почему в других странах такой категории нет. Мне виднее, как мне комфортнее работать с файлами, содержащими сканы почтовых марок. А про Грецию вы сами начали. Пример с Грецией говорит о том, что вы еще мало размышляли о файлах с почтовыми марками и не имеете соответствующего опыта. С марками СССР сложилась оптимальная структура категорий, которая проверена многолетней практикой. Вы единственный, кто недоволен. По поводу "галерей". Имеются другие годовые списки: 1) вами названный "the main stamps of the Soviet Union category"; 2) в Русской Википедии имеются статьи с описанием всех марок конкретного года. Но: 1) это не первичные, а вторичные объекты, которые основаны на категориях "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year, all stamps"; 2) эти годовые списки содержат только "основные" марки как файлы в формате "jpeg"; 3) с этими годовыми списками неудобно и даже иногда невозможно работать по нескольким причинам. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I didn't address the first message to you. Secondly, the purpose of this discussion isn't to ask you questions. You don't own the category. You could explain why the category isn't obtuse and how it make sense, but I don't see you doing that. I don't think your whole "there's no other categories like this one because there isn't any other categories like this one" thing is valid. If your going to push the thing about the Greece category, I removed the stamp from it because the purpose of categories is to organize multiple files, there was only one file in the category, and there's almost zero chance of there ever being more because stamps of Greece aren't in the public domain. What the purpose of categories isn't for is to just make parent categories or navigational templates look pretty. You should know all that though since your supposedly the expert here. It's ridiculous I have to tell what categories are for when your the one that supposedly has the experience and are calling me an amateur. That we don't create separate categories for every single individual file on here is pretty basic day one stuff. Other then that how Wikipedia does thing isn't relevant. This is a different project. Again, that's pretty basic knowledge that any amateur should know. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the purpose of categories is to organize multiple files". Не только это. Еще одна цель категорий заключается в облегчении поиска файлов. Вы затруднили поиск файлов. Верните греческую категорию. --Matsievsky (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In no way did I make it harder to find files. Again though, this isn't the place to discuss my edits to Greek stamps. If you genuinely think there is an issue with my edits then take it up on my talk page or at least somewhere else besides this discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else maybe you can at least answer me this, say I have a 1960 block of Stamps of the Soviet Union that I want to upload and put in a category. Does it go in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960", "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960, all stamps", "9th standard issue of Soviet Union stamp series", or "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960, stamp series" and how exactly would I determine that by looking at the stamp I scanned and/or the titles of the categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Очень просто. Как всегда. При загрузке файла на Склад вы помещаете файл во все подходящие для него категории. Если ошибетесь - ничего страшного, вас поправят заинтересованные пользователи. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you'd answer the question. So essentially, no one except you can organize Russian stamps. Sure dude. Obviously people can be corrected if they make a mistake, but that shouldn't be the default and people should still be able to organize files without having to dump them in the main category because they don't understand how the system works. Your answer is exactly why I said the categories are super obtuse and nonsensical. You can't answer a simple question about the categories or how to use them, and there's no other way to tell where to put a file. I don't know what else to call that except for obtuse and nonsensical. Seriously, categories shouldn't have naming schemes that require gate keepers. Personally I'm not going to waste my time uploading my collection of Russian stamps, covers, and other postal items if I have to ask you where the files go just so they can be half organized. It's no wonder I'm the only that has had an issue with the categories when you've acted this defensive about it. You clearly have serious ownership issues. Get over it. "You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single image in this category is a circumcised(?) penis and not related to the operation itself like every other similar category. Should be deleted as empty of relevant files. Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category and its sub-categories are unhelpful in that they hide large numbers of aircraft images from the main Category:Collections of aircraft by museum group. The idea was started by a user who left the project two years ago after tagging only 12 museums (there are currently 349 aircraft collection by museum categories). It is impractical to sift through all the museums and populate new military categories (it's possible that the creator realised this and abandoned the idea).
A further complication is determining what 'military' means. Many aircraft museums display aircraft in military markings but often they are civil registered and owned. Many military museums display civil aircraft. It is far simpler to group all aircraft museum collections in one category with no qualifiers. I am happy to populate the main category before deletion which I believe I'm allowed to do (i.e. temporarily have images in both categories as opposed to depopulating the categories). Thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contents (categories and files) of the 10 subject categories have been copied to their parent 'Aircraft at X museum' categories as allowed by the template. There are now 321 of these categories with potential for more as not all museums have the standard structure yet (i.e. they lack any sub categories). Nimbus227 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look at it from the Category:Military aircraft. This is an absolutely legitimate category. Due to the large number of illustrations in it, it is divided into standard subcategories: "...by country", "...by manufacturer", etc. Including of course "...by museum". What will you do with it? Come to this category every 2 weeks and delete all the sub-categories "...by museum", explaining to other users that subcategories "...by museum" are prohibited for this category? I think this would be a bad option.--Gandvik (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: It is not unlimited. It is expressly limited to those such names which are used by people we have content on. That is and always will be a finite set. However, I do not see a problem with the compound name being categorized under its component names as you listed. Josh (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, not sure. Geosites was created first, if that is a criteria on Commons. Also, not sure if there is a requirement that category names are in the plural form (so it should be Geological sites). GoEThe (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are "coal ships" if not "colliers"? Why have we two categories, one inside the other? In British English, "collier" is the usual term for a ship whose usual cargo is coal. "Coal ship" is not usual usage. Motacilla (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all English, collier is a term for coal miners and ships. It's just "coal+er". Of course the category for the ships should stay Coal ship. Category:Colliers is just a well-intentioned Britlish mistake that should be turned into a disambiguation between Category:Coal mines (="colliery"), Category:Coal miners, and Category:Coal ships.
Deleting. Si fuera tan tan necesaria algún día se puede abrir "Category:Transgender testicles" en el futuro. (Para que la gente se burle de Commons por estas tonterías...)
Without any rationale arguments. Just because this is initially based on the en-wiki articles structure (on state at the ~2005), and their interwiki links. Currently, this is sub-category of the
you may convert soft-redirect Category:Soviet-German War 1941—1945 into regular category (like Category:Soviet–Japanese War (1945), as example). And then started moving/copiyng relevant content there (in such a way that in the original category there will be kept content related specifically to the term - campaign materials, commemorative signs, examples of printed materials and images of memorials).
Before merging category, you should discuss about it. Why you want to merge the pitched percussion instrument (English Wikipedia article as of 20:09, 9 June 2020) and melodic percussion instrument (English Wikipedia article as of 13:54, 31 March 2022) in one category ? The difference of two notion had been clearly described on previous versions of each article on English Wikipedia (linked above). In my eyes, merging two categories with different definitions into one category is inconvenient for others, and it seems just your complacency. --Clusternote (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have different definitions. That's the issue. The old definition was one user's old preferred term; it's not supported by any source. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the Hornbostel–Sachs classification system for musical instruments, the homogenous sets of Idiophones (i.e. a subclass of percussion instruments) and Membranophones (i.e. drums), might can be called melodic percussion instruments, if these provide the musical scales for consisting the melodies.
On the other hand, Pitched percussion instruments are not always consisting the set of instruments that consists musical scale, merely its sound spectrum is recognized as the pitched sound. Therefore, Melodic percussion instruments is sub-class of Pitched percussion instruments. --Clusternote (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC); Updated byClusternote (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it's not really a term that's supported by any source. It's cool to come up with a system that somewhat works, but then touting it as something commonly used is something different. I still have not seen a source that clearly says melodic percussion and pitched percussion are two different concepts. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new name of the company is "Dr .Richard Steiermark" – shoud I change the name of this catgeory or make a new one for the buses with the new logo? Öffis Graz (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, this process needs to be automated a bit more. Anyway, posting this to say, no, of course Category:Statues of the benefactors shouldn't be moved to "Category:Statues of the benefactors from Random Italian Name of a Closed Hospital". Aside from being the wrong preposition and the wrong hospital and the wrong language, it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. If there aren't any other "Statues of the Benefactors" to distinguish, the page should simply stay at the correct short form of the name.
There really isn't one. So the logos should be up-merged to either one. There was actually a change to Commons:Categories recently that inserted "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided." The same thing should apply to all the "associated with" categories IMO since most or all of them just duplicate pre-exiting, clearer categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest closing as Kept. It's a hidden category, populated with more than 500 images. Apparently at least a few users find this of some use, and for the rest of us seems harmless. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cette catégorie ne contient que des photos de la cheminée d'une unique usine située dans le quartier de Montredon. Il est souhaitable qu'elle soit renommée : Cheminée rampante de Montredon. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sans autre avis, j'annule cette proposition. Je crée une catégporie pour cette cheminée, et je la regroupe avec celle de l'Escalette sous le nom pluriel. Affaire réglée. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge to Category:Radio control transmitters. They're not specific to aircraft, it's not clear if that includes or excludes drones (drone controllers at least do tend to have some distinguishing features), and "controllers" isn't the COMMONNAME in use, they're referred to as transmitters. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chattogram is the official spelling. It has been 6 year that spelling has changed. Use of Chattogram has been increased enough & increasing. I will say use it. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this indeed be useful for topics without a name but definitely exist, see the "Thistle 100 metres north of Mill Lane" example at Commons talk:Category inclusion criteria#Answers though as noted for these to have their own categories there should probably be a reasonable number of images otherwise just keep in the "Objects without name" or sub set category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There could exist objects that haven't yet been named, or given an official designation. The category description makes clear that this category is not for unidentified objects or that do have a name but the name is missing on Commons description. Senator202912:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, standard and useful categorization. Not unique, not suspicious. See also Category:Unnamed places and all its subcategories. As categorization progresses, the more it will be necessary to distinguish unidentifiable or unsorted content from identified sites that are merely not named, and at the same time as a complement to the flat categories "by name". For example, I am considering systematic use for nameless streams in Czechia up to the district level, and maybe also for some particular streams (to categorize their bridges etc., and to link them in Wikidata). For now, the biggest need and application of this categorization seems to be for places. Nameless people or organizations are out of the question, and cosmic objects always have some systematic marking. Objects that have at least some public ID codes need not to be treated as nameless. However, the naming pattern can be unified. There exist at least three forms: "unnamed", "nameless" and "without name". "Unnamed" seems to be most used. --ŠJů (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be pointless category, included its subcategory (artists). Do we really need Economy of, Culture of, Transport of etc. of the Baltic region? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should be. When I originally created this category (and numerous others following the same naming convention), the intent was for the categories to host flags that were specifically national flags. Each category would be a subcategory of a respective (and more generic) flags category for that country.
However, some of the categories I created were renamed from Photographs of national flags in X to Photographs of flags in X, while still containing files representing national flags in X. Others were emptied, subsequently deleted (for example, the previously linked Category:Photographs of flags of Canada by country), and the files moved to a category with the more generic name. Some of this was done by SpinnerLaserz (or subsequent account SpinnerLaserzthe2nd), but that user has stopped categorizing flags (see message at User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd); I had also left a message for that user regarding these changes. I'm sure that user meant well, but it has resulted in these inconsistencies.
In my opinion, we should have a structure such as:
contains provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, ceremonial, royal, vice-regal, administrative, military, civil, institutional (corporate, educational, etc.), ethnic, or other flags of Canada photographed in the United Kingdom.
No objections of that proposition, both variants look about the same. Current version is shorter and thus probably more convenient, but do it as usual. — Olgerts V (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ist das wirklich sinnvoll? Für mich umfasst das auch so alle Alleen, Gassen und Ähnliche, nur unter weniger kompliziertem Namen? -- Kürschner (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vermute, die neue Kategorie soll heißen Roads and streets named after Cologne.
Kann man so machen, muss man nicht. Was für eine Änderung spricht, ist die geringe Zahl von Städten, die sich auf Streets beschränken. Bei einem schnellen Überblick habe ich für Deutschland nur Bonn gefunden. Gruß Im Fokus (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the parent “Category:Roads and streets named after cities“ is not named correctly, as it has united a parent (roads) and a child (streets) categories. So it (and its subcategories) should be moved to “Category:Roads named after cities” and “Category:Streets named after cities” should be created accordingly. --Elkost (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Provided that nobody mistakes this shortening of "country subdivisions" to mean instead subdivisions of something else, of course. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Numbers on discs and Category:Number in circle and Category:Numbers in circles seem to be disparate efforts to achieve the same goal. Regardless of the matter of what exactly is a circle v.a.v. a disc, these categories should be categorized and populated with awareness of this triplication, and it should be fixed: Either by splitting the subject or by merging (if these two words are deemed to be synonyms for our purposes). -- Tuválkin✉✇23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also related to this matter, duplicated pairs such as:
Unless, as Tuvalkin said, there is an explicit distinction intended between "disc" and "circle", which AFAICT doesn't seem to be the case. --Waldyrious (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category was the result of my move of Category:Airport Road to Category:Airport Road (Parañaque), after more images that do not show the Airport Road in the Philippines (yes, a road near Manila is named as such) became more frequent. I moved thise showing the Airport Road near Manila to that renamed category, and I randomly removed the redirect by adding Category:Roads. I will leave the decision to other users, as I only focus on roads here in the Philippines. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine there are many roads named "Airport Road", and this category should be a dab for any of these we have files of. Josh (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the images are out of scope they should be deleted. Until then, the category is valid. That said, the name is way off. Josh (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Then maybe we should. 1932 is a significant date in the registration of UK road vehicles, and it's useful to us for our purposes because it's also identifiable post facto. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is should this category name (as well as some of its sibling categories) be in French? Category names are supposed to be in English unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1]: Busts → Busts by location → Busts in North America → Busts in the United States → Busts in the United States by city → Busts in New York City → Hall of Fame for Great Americans → Hall of Fame for Great Americans inductees → Luther Burbank → Solanum tuberosum 'Russet Burbank'
I see this as a subcategory of "fire-damaged churches". "Burning" implies that the picture represents the state of currently burning, not just already burned ruins. Niera (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might only be slightly related, but the whole "former countries" category scheme is fundamental scheme is massively screwed up. For instance, it contains categories for a lot of former European monarchical states, which weren't really countries in any way that mattered or anyone cares about. There's also some former Medieval states in there, a couple of "empires", and even a few Roman territories. At that point the category and really the term "country" itself is essentially so general it's useless. Anyway, the reason I bring it up is 1. Because I'd like "former countries" to either be better defined or the category gotten rid of 2. I think your issue with former colonies is more about the general problem with these types of categories then it is specific to this category. So I think the whole structure needs changing. Don't ask me how, but I've made one suggestion at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the subcategories here has a parent category of 27 December XXXX. How do can we better acknowledge that some Christian churches celebrate in January? -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I don't know of any churches that celebrate Christmas in January, there are just churches that use a different calendar. This is actually a systemic problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. This brings up a really tricky subject. We can just use two categories: both December 25 [year] and January 7 [subsequent year], but some churches hold it on January 6 and January 19, evidently. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there could be a clear distinction between the two. At least not a distinction that is a suitable base for the categorization of pictures at Commons. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. This distinction might work for an article, but how could one look at an image of a particular piece and decide which category it belongs in? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When used as an adjective, as it is here, there should be a hyphen. For example, you would write, "The window is made of stained glass," but "That is a stained-glass window." --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
City of Moscow not only federal subject, but also (and primary) megapolis, a largest city in Russia. And this property is crucial for the categorization of streets (as parts of a connected street infrastructure). --Kaganer (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what categories should Lesnaya Street of Malaya Dubna village in Moscow Oblast be included in? I mean why Moscow with streets in its cities, towns, villages can have flat list category and Moscow Oblast with streets in its cities, towns, villages cannot?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but NOT these same structure. «Flat list» of streets is created for cities/towns, not for regions. New Moscow (or Greater Moscow) is a problematic modern expansion of Moscow. I do not have a firm opinion whether the street network of settlements in this area should be included in the general «flat list» category of Moscow. Maybe not. At least - until the full integration of these territories.But in any case, this should not be done for the Moscow Oblast and other regions. No one rationale arguments for this. --Kaganer (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Russian) Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name — по большому счёту категория, не имеющая общности. Тут принципиальный момент в отличие от Москвы — Москва это не только субъект, но и город, поэтому где бы улица не находилась — в районе Братеево, в городе Московский, в районе Хамовники, в районе Бабушкинский или в Пресненском районе — это всё улицы Москвы, компактного города-мегаполиса. Т.е. это логичная категория. Такую логику по субъектам РФ можно применить только разве что к Петербургу, и быть может, Севастополю (хотя сейчас статус последнего неясный). Поэтому категория по московским улицам Category:Streets in Moscow by name возможна, но не является обязательной, все улицы могут лечь и в Category:Streets in Moscow, как было ранее. Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name да и Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name (flat list) — в такой категории содержатся улицы типа Category:Komsomolskaya Street (Podolsk), Category:Gagarina Street (Reutov) и Category:Ostrovskogo Street, Kolomna — то есть объекты, географически вообще мало связанные (в данном случае — Подольска, Реутова и Коломны). Так что склоняюсь к тому, чтобы удалить — Delete. По поводу аргумента, что, мол, есть же похожие категории — Category:Streets in Krasnoyarsk Krai by name — тут ещё более большой географически регион и более бессмысленная категория (зачем категория, которая включает в себя улицы Норильска, Красноярска, Канска и Минусинка — для меня большая загадка). Если какой-то человек будет искать улицы, то он будет искать сугубо по населённому пункту, где бы он не находился. Т.е. по условной категории Category:Streets in Krasnoyarsk, если ему нужен будет Красноярск, либо же по названию улицы, если он знает, - он просто тогда наберёт «Category:X Street» и всё. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Стейтмент по существу будет, или мне вас таки сразу заблочить за массовые неконсенсусные правки и злоупотребление Cat-a-lot'ом? --A.Savin12:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a category requiring permanent diffusion by city, and never ever a flatlist. Once again: any statement on what you did, not me? --A.Savin18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, allstreets in Moscow Oblast should be included in this category. This includes all streets that can also be found in the subcategories.
Please don't use analogies. Canyons are not so similar to streets as to cite them as an example. Let's try to stay on the topic of the streets. --Kaganer (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the presence in the project of a similar template and the technical possibility of using it does not give this an strength of an argument. --Kaganer (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jilotepec es un pueblo en el estado de Veracruz en México (lo encuentran como Municipio de Jilotepec (Veracruz)) , tiene pan parecido a sus vecinos de banderilla, Xalapa o Coacoatzintla o Naolinco, pero todos tienen ligeras diferencia. asi es estoy poniendo una categoría por el pan de cada municipio en el que voy comprando pan y documentandolo. La cuestión es a quien perjudica que tenga pequeñas categorías de pan en Veracruz? Claro que podría poner todas las fotos en la categoría de Bread of Veracruz, pero se han dado cuenta lo enorme que es el estado de Veracruz? que sentido tendría para alguien que quiera ver las diferencias de pan en el estado que le pusiera solo una categoría en lugar de poner categoría por el pan de cada municipio o población? es mejor de una vez poner categorías más pequeñas. Koffermejia (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
En cuanto al pliural. En español la categoría se llamaba pan de Jilotepec, no se requería decir panes para que se entendiera que se hablaba de más de un pan, no se si en inglés haga falta tal cosa. Koffermejia (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support perhaps the WP article needs moving as well but categories are in the plural so confusion is more likely with categories than articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good point, but other cats in parent seem similarly abstract, although I'm not sure foodies or artists would agree that "fresh" can't be visualized. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess someone could paint or draw an LGBT pride flag in a particular location and that would be by country of location, but not under photographs. Josh (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to distinguish "soldiers throwing grenades" from "[anyone else] throwing grenades"? Especially since, by the category's own admission, any apparent intention to distinguish military grenade throwing from non-military grenade throwing is defeated by restricting the category to personnel meeting the formal defintion of "soldier"? Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the fix for that is to delete "people throwing grenades" as an empty category. If it's by some chance not empty, then we can reconsider this.
There is also a good argument that "people throwing grenades" should appear as a sub- category of soldiers throwing them (probably renamed as "civilians throwing grenades". Grenades are a military device, they are thrown by soldiers. To have them thrown by non-soldiers is the exceptional case to this, which should thus be the narrow special case (and subcategory) of the main category. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth clarifying that "soldiers" here includes marines, grenadiers, carabinieri or any other armed forces combatant handling grenades. The US Marines in particular make a point of distinguishing themselves from GIs, but that's totally irrelevant for our purposes here. If we were to start caring, we'd begin with splitting by country, and then handling branch of service properly. There is no benefit to us whatsoever in excluding marines from soldiers in general, only to then lump them in with civilians as "people"! (And while it's clear that US Marines distinguish themselves from soldiers, it has never been shown that they're "people" either.) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The top of the category page clearly says "Please note that sailors and marines, as well as airmen and certain other military personnel are not soldiers", which rather obviously restricts the category to depictions of formally defined soldiers. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this when opening the discussion.
Also, how would deleting the "people throwing grenades" category be a fix? Surely the proper fix would be to deprecate this category and move everything to the "people throwing grenades" category? As for "civilians throwing grenades", I've seen more than enough pics of people running around with commercial smoke grenades (when I was looking for pics of people running around with military grenades, but I digress) to know that grenades aren't the exclusive preserve of the military (though obviously it's rather unlikely for a civilian to be walking around with a frag grenade!). There's also the issue of militias, insurgent groups, and other bodies that are completely unofficial (and so cannot really be counted as military personnel) but nevertheless equip and organise themselves along military lines. Lastly, what about law enforcement organisations, officially recognised paramilitaries, and the like? They're obviously non-military but at the same time are official bodies under the control of their originating nation state and so can't be likened to civilians.
P.S. - Your comment about "splitting by country, and then handling branch of service properly" reminds me that we have a category for "People with HK G36" and then a separate category for "Bundeswehrsoldaten mit G36". It gets even more ridiculous with the G3 - "People with HK G3", "Bundeswehrsoldaten mit G3", "U.S. military personnel with HK G3", and then a separate "People with HK G3A3" category with further categories for the Norwegian ("People with AG-3") and Swedish ("People with Ak 4") variants. Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to set up "US Marines ..." as a sub-cat, then go for it. Likewise "Carabinieri of Grand Fenwick" if there's enough to get past SMALLCAT. But "marines" in general would be too broad (it would just become another empty container and layer of indirection). We have (AFAIK) 1 sailor here with a grenade. We don't have any civilians here and if we do, then we can do something relevant there. But as it is, we shouldn't build empty cats for content we're unlikely to get.
The description can be changed. We're after what's the best solution, not just one that an editor wrote down in the past. That's what CfD is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, Category:Soldiers is defined as just members of armed forces. any country's narrower definition of the word soldier is not the primary consideration of commons cat tree. RZuo (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zelenymuzik: No. For neo-latin speaking people (italian, french, spanish) "Sportspeople by country in 1872" is "Sportspeople by country by year". For english speaking people it's "Sportspeople by year by country" (reverted form). Now Commons is an international project and his official language is english. So we have to apply the english form. About 10 years ago we were forced for the italian categories to change all the categories names to the english form. Can somebody that speaks english confirm that ? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DenghiùComm: Yes, categories should be named in English as a general rule, per COM:CAT. However, since English is such a poorly structured language with exceptions and caveats throughout--not to mention the whole US-UK divide, how exactly to implement that is often a matter of debate. Josh (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zelenymuzik: They do not appear to be reversed here. The contents of this index are in the form "year in sports by country", where year is the indexed criteria and 'sports by country' is the topic. Since an index name should be in "topic by criteria" format, Sports by country by year is the correct category name for an index of 'sports by country' indexed by 'year'. For example, the see the difference in contents we should see in reversed versions of this category:
@Zelenymuzik: Got it. In that case, probably best to change the link to the category that is actually the best match instead of what might have been thought to be a correct match just based on the name. Since links can be changed at any time, I certainly do not think the right answer is to change our content to match a link, but instead change the link. Josh (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ich sehe, Du schreibst viel auf Deutsch, daher antworte ich auf Deutsch. Ist Dir die Historie von Mercedes-Benz bekannt? Zunächst gab es das Unternehmen de:Benz & Cie. in Mannheim mit der Marke Benz sowie das Unternehmen de:Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft in Cannstadt / Stuttgart mit der anfänglichen Marke Daimler und dann Mercedes. Beide stellten unabhängig voneinander von 1886 bis 1926 Kraftfahrzeuge her. 1926 kam es zur Fusion. Das neue Unternehmen hieß de:Daimler-Benz mit dem Markennamen Mercedes-Benz. Somit kann man Mercedes und Mercedes-Benz nicht durcheinandermischen. --Buch-t (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the numbers you mentioned: Each categorization starts once from zero. Now there are a few entries. Commons is certainly not yet perfect and not fully categorized.
What it's meant to include: A system is a set of entities, real or abstract, comprising a whole where each component interacts with or is related to at least one other component and they all serve a common objective. For the purpose of organizing articles into categories, there are four major type of system which can reasonably be expected to contain every type of system under its category tree: Physical systems, Biological systems, Social systems, and Conceptual systems.
So possible entries as "... systems by country", like
i'm nominating this cat tree now before it becomes too big to handle. i believe it's a bad idea to put actors into "XYZ cast members", because for example for prolific actors who have appeared in 100+ movies (not that difficult actually), this would put them into hundreds of cats, which is very difficult to manage.
the better scheme of categorisation is:
John Doe -> (John Doe filmography) -> films starring John Doe / films directed by John Doe / films produced by John Doe... RZuo (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (only if any categorisation of this kind is even needed.)--RZuo (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part but not the second. The whole point of the categorization scheme is to categorize files currently stored in the Commons, not people or movies. It is not to try and map out every film an actor has been in. That is what Wikidata statements and Wikipedia lists are good at. If we have a photo of John Doe as a cast member in Awesome Movie, then the file belongs in both categories. If we have a number of them, we can create Category:John Doe in Awesome Movie to categorize them and that category can be under both actor and movie. The effort to put every person's main category under a category for of every movie they were ever associated with is ridiculous and leads to massive and clumsy parent category lists for each person on their main category. However, I feel the same is true for the reverse, which is why I disagree with your second comment. I feel trying to put the movie's main category under the category of each person associated with the movie will be just as unwieldy (scan the credits of a movie...do we really want every line of those credits turned into a parent category for each movie?)
Generally speaking, using categories and categorization to actually contain verifiable information about a topic is a problem, as it isn't structured to do so properly. Categorization links are not cited, and so can not be verified. Wikidata does a much better job of this, allowing intricate webs of relations between entities (e.g. actors to movies, etc.) without a problem with large datasets and with the ability to connect references for validation along with those statements. Categories also make for a bad presentation as they are difficult to order and cannot be sorted or tabularized for readability, and the completeness of such a list cannot be marked. Wikipedia lists do a much better job of presenting a filmography or credit roll in a way that allows for the list to be ordered, sorted, cited, and checked for completion in a readable presentation. Josh (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. it's not commons cat tree's purpose to handle wikidata's job. even though there's a relation between an actor and a movie, it's not for commons to document this relation.
Delete all cast members categories. Let's focus on what this discussion is. If people want to have a different categorization, that can be done elsewhere. I don't think this is a good way to have this discussion unless put this notice on each subcategory and you ping everyone who created one of those pages. Even though we are talking about more than 200 subcategories, it would at least get a lot more eyes to this discussion and avoid the repeated arguments about whether this discussion or that discussion was properly done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682 and RZuo: What about pictures of the cast (such as group photographs for a given set)? I completely agree that individual person categories should not be listed under each film they played a role in, as that is a relationship best maintained elsewhere, but pictures of people actually during their participation as a cast member are fine. For example, I would remove most all the categories under Category:Harry Potter cast, but the files are appropriate to be retained as they are particular to their participation in that cast. Josh (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a new scheme/cat tree is probably needed for all "behind the scenes"/"making of" kind of files about a movie, if there isnt an existing scheme. "Category:Film production/Production of <film title>" maybe?
another cat tree is probably needed for promotion of a movie e.g. premieres, press conferences. "Category:Promotion of <film/tv series title>"?
i think most photos/videos of the crew (cast is only a subset (all the actors) of the entire crew) would fall under either of these two cat trees.
some things would still be left out by these two trees. for example the cast of Friends (TV Series) "reunited" from time to time long after the show was over. those photos/videos would not be "behind the scenes" nor promotion. :/ RZuo (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the gain from keeping pictures of the cast that way. If we have that, we can put it under the film or film series but images like File:Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson & Rupert Grint colour.jpg are just as fine split under the images of the three actors (oddly enough we only have a Emma Watson category) and it is under Category:Premiere of Deathly Hallows - Part 2 in London which is what I expect. The few instances would likely be on the set or at a premiere which can be its own category so that the location and date are better categorized and it's not like the vast majority of these categories are anything other than just categories that are collecting categories of people. In theory, it could be useful but in reality we just have lots of time spent on categorizing actors by their roles which consume the categories for each actor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. I agree that cast categories (and possibly also "Films starring" categories) are problematic. Similarly, it's common to simply put actors in the main category, such as in Category:Friends (1994 TV series).
However, look at the Wikidata infobox in that category; it transcludes a collapsed lists of actors. If such lists were to be rendered as wikilinks, that would make it a little easier to navigate between media of interrelated topics, which I believe was the intention behind both cast categories and actor categories added to production categories.
this title should be clarified. jelly also commonly refers to the gelatin snack. (as a cantonese we only call the gelatin snack jelly. all fruit preserves are called jam. i didnt know it could also refer to fruit jam until today.) RZuo (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make this a disambiguation category. @RZuo: , in case you're interested, in some places the difference between jelly and jam is that jam has fruit pieces in it and jelly does not. They are both under the umbrella of fruit preserves or preserved fruit. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguation page, as this term can have different and contradictory meanings, both casual and perhaps legal, in different regions. Josh (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Observation in" is an unique country category. Subcategories to be re-categorized, and the category in question to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Estopedist1: I presume by 'unique country category' you mean that it is the only "observation in country" category that currently exists, and you do not mean that observation is unique to Germany, which would make the 'in Germany' category inherently redundant to the main category, is this correct? Josh (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Observation is a current main category for the activity of observing. Presumably this is an activity that can take place in Germany so thus I see no fundamental issue with existence of the category Category:Observation in Germany. The fact that no other "Observation in country" categories have yet been created is not cause for this one's deletion. Once others are likewise created, they can be gathered under Category:Observation by country or some such. Until then, it appears fine as is. Josh (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not convinced by Josh's argument even though I share it went it comes to categories with a fairly clear scope such as objects.
For "observation", the situation is comparable to the one found at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/07/Category:Systems_in_Germany. One refers to overly broad definition nowhere else to be found on Commons that could essentially encompass anything that would also be in Category:Germany directly. It may not matter, but it can lead to people just recategorize files into "by country" subcategories at Category:Observation instead of seeking to improve it by subtopic.
Not sure if there is a need. All subcategories should have other parent categories. We do have categories by name, so "categories named after observation" wouldn't be inconsistent, but not really needed either. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prepositions in country categories are often difficult to choose. Yes, it should be unified with other cloth category. Thank you for suggestion. I would prefer preposition "of". Can you change all the files ?
Comment Categories using "Itemfromcountry" should be specific items which originated in the country (i.e. manufactured or developed there). "Itemofcountry" simply indicates a relationship of any sort between the item and country (origin, location, ownership, etc.). Josh (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it is laudable to seek consistency across category trees, it is far more important for the category name to fit the contents of the category correctly. Josh (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "of" is best because it's intentionally ambiguous to cover both "in" and "from". People can subdivide if they want to be very specific, but what do you do with a "Japanese" karate belt made in Bangladesh but photographed in France? =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of the moment of writing, the images in the former category seem to be about a type of candied fruit, while the latter is more of a candy (mostly sugar). --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Category:Mesir Macunu is classified in Wikidata as subtype of the toffee version. If it were up to me, I would probably reorganise this as:
@Sbb1413: Hyderabad State became a part of India in 1950. There is no 1956 in Hyderabad State category. It is either in Andhra Pradesh or separate but it doesn't belong in the name of a princely state that did not exist at that time. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyderabad city still had its separate existence as the capital of Hyderabad State in 1953. So, instead of renaming the city category, we should include it into the Hyderabad State category, where we may add old images of Hyderabad State outside Hyderabad city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories make it easy to find images of a particular place or topic on Commons. This category, which I have nominated for deletion, is unnecessary. Evaluation of whether the picture is related to a subject is a subjective opinion. These are opinions that differ from person to person. The category is inappropriate and needs to be deleted. KadıMessage11:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent days reorganizing the mess I found when adding pictures to the Side category. Many wrong attributions, many wrong names, and pictures like the ones that I put in this category for lack of a better one. Pictures that might have been taken anywhere and in my opinion are not what people look for if they want to find images of Side. Unidentified parts of roads, shrubbery, a hedgehog, a sea view with nothing to see, a sundown. Having spent about a week in Side town I managed to identify many pictures, that I added to specific categories, many of which I created. If you think people will enjoy seeing the pictures I put in this one, be my guest and contribute to the mess I find on many categories. I am from Amsterdam, people ride many bikes here, and it seems every tourist needs to take at least some picture of a bike, preferably parked on a bridge. But luckily they are in a sub-sub-category (which has many sub-categories itself), and not in the main category. I claim that people too easily put pictures in main categories, and that this makes it increasingly difficult to find a specific thing. I use the Commons and Wikipedia on a daily basis, and find it flooded with useless pictures. But as you state “I am fighting with vandalism on Turkish Wikipedia” (leave that “with” out) you must do what you want. Only don’t call me a vandal, with now well over 36000 pictures (many of Turkey) and thousands of categories under my belt. Oh, it may be clear I suggest the category remains, and people should create more like it. Dosseman (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had and have read it, but still disagree with deletion. I was following this suggestion on the Side site: "This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories." So the struggle now is about the appropriateness of this category. I will wait and see. Dosseman (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wait for the verdict as I ran out of steam. Kadi, by the way, is "judge" in Turkish and many languages, being Arabic. If convicted I may appeal to a higher court. I wonder if Kadi took a look at the content of my collection and compared it with any of the sub-categories I created. Dosseman (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sé si es ésta o la que sigue la categoría mas tonta de Commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.20.182 (talk • contribs)
@Dosseman and Kadı: I understand the sentiment here, and yes "side" would attract a lot of spurious categorization, especially by users of the upload script. However, this solution does not really work in Commons. I am not sure why this category would make it any easier to maintain the main category. If an image does not belong in a category, it should simply be removed from that category (this can be quickly done) and if it doesn't appear to have other more relevant categories assigned, either find a better category for it, or simply add {{Check categories}} to it. This will put it into a proper maintenance pipeline automatically, where other editors can categorize them as their expertise permits. On the other hand, if the images are actually of Side but just need to be better sorted into sub-categories, they should remain at the main category level until so sorted. Thus, this category should be deleted, the images in it removed from it and placed in Category:Media needing category review by using {{Check categories}}. Josh (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the name that's the real problem. It only makes sense in the context of the parent category.
If these pictures mostly come from the relevant geographic area, then we should probably turn this into a maintenance category (with a more appropriate name). Otherwise, just delete the category. - Jmabel ! talk05:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories make it easy to find images of a particular place or topic on Commons. This category, which I have nominated for deletion, is unnecessary. Evaluation of whether the picture is related to a subject is a subjective opinion. These are opinions that differ from person to person. The category is inappropriate and needs to be deleted. KadıMessage11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This cat was created only recently with a specific rationale: "People often dump pictures they happened to take in a town in its category without showing anything about town, thus drawing attention away from relevant pictures. The Sinop ones are here." While I fully acknowledge the underlying problem, IMO such a cat doesn't sense. We might consider creating a template, that could be used to tag such kind of images (and eventually also put them on a path to deletion). --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Túrelio. I just wrote my opinion at the other deletion suggestion (Pictures_of_little_relevance_to_the_main_category). I have been hoping there would be a template like the one you describe. I think you are aware I work in good faith, but am sometimes blown away by the amount of senseless pictures people see as their contribution to what should indeed be a place where one can see what a town, a region is really like, instead of their selfies and other rubbish. "Easy to find pictures", my foot. Dosseman (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio and Dosseman: If a file is out of scope (i.e. it adds no value to the project), it should be deleted, not buried. So long as it remains part of the project, it should be properly sorted in appropriate categories. As for a template to use, it already exists and has a corresponding maintenance category pipeline it puts the file into. It is {{Check categories}}. This should be used instead of this category. Josh (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: This picture is a problem. It absolutely is appropriate to be under Category:Sinop (Turkey), and it should not be removed from the topic category to a maintenance category. If it needs to be sorted into a subcategory then do so, but dumping into a burial ground is not appropriate. Josh (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also this category should be deleted, created by the same user. Why closing discussions in commons take months, even years?--Tün (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proszę o skasowanie całej kategorii. Żaden z obrazów znajdujących się w tym muzeum nie jest obrazem orygjnalnym (być może poza jednym obrazem van Gogha, ale co do tego też są wątpliwości). Każdy z opisów jest fałszywy i wprowadza w błąd. Kriis bis (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Paddle wheels" (currently restricted to wheels installed on ships and serving propulsion in tangential direction) is inconsistent with the description at Paddle_wheel that includes other types of wheels, most notably waterwheels. How can this get fixed? Is there a hypernym that covers both paddle wheels of ships and waterwheels? Maybe "blade wheel", "bladed wheel"? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer, essentially equivalent to "let's give a f**k into wikipedia" is less helpful for resolving this inconsistency. It does not contain any usable suggestion. Either commons or wikipedia can be edited. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 and Andy Dingley: Commons categories have their own policies and guidelines seperate and distinct from English (or any other) Wikipedia. Simply citing Wikipedia as a reason to conform Commons categories is not in and of itself enough to warrant a change. That said, if there are good reasons behind Wikipedia's decision, they may well also inform the Commons decision process, but one still needs to show how a proposal is specifically good and appropriate for Commons.
This category seems to be being used as a dumb for such a varied and ambiguous set of concepts that it's essentially worthless. For instance it combines images of painters, ukulele players, and models into the same category. Also the note on the top says that no images should be directly in the category, but that's clearly not being followed. So I'd like to either turn it into a disambiguation page that contains more specific and clearly artist related categories like Category:Painters and Category:Photographers, or someone can suggest a workable alternative that fixes the issues. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support making this a disambiguation page. It could include:
Keep I am not sure why this category is worthless. Yes, it is a very broad topic and media should be sorted into sub-categories, but turning it into a dab is not the right solution IMHO. We have tons of topical categories that cover a wide variety of sub-categories and they all end up with files in them that really are best sorted into subs, but essentially deleting the top-level cat (turning it into a dab) is a bad idea as this is often the starting point for a files journey to ever more specific categorization over time as users with greater expertise are able to more precisely identify the content. I do however Support removing the no-files tag on this one as it isn't really correct and is at best just an attempt to discourage people from putting files here when as I explained, their is a purpose for that and nothing wrong with it. Josh (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is often the starting point for a files journey to ever more specific categorization over time@Joshbaumgartner: Sure, that's the case in general. The fact there's still over 3,000 images in this category a year later shows it's not the case in this specific instance though. Per Commons:Categories "A category is a special page which is intended to group related pages and media. In practice, it implies that you'll associate a single subject with a given category. The category name should be enough to guess the subject." Two things about that aren't being followed here 1. "artists" aren't a "single subject" 2. "artists" aren't related to each other because the term is extremely broad to the point of including essentially anyone who is skilled at an occupation. So what's your answer to those problems? Just allowing people to continuing adding files to the category when those files ultimately aren't going to be organized into sub categories clearly isn't a solution. Turning it a DAB would be one though. Otherwise what's your alternative fix besides the status quo? And no, handwaving about why things are often done a certain way isn't one. I didn't start this to discuss general practices that aren't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
art comes in a wide range of forms, so there is also a large variety of artists. i dont see what needs to be fixed. RZuo (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proszę o skasowanie całej kategorii. Żaden z obrazów znajdujących się w tym muzeum nie jest obrazem orygjnalnym (być może poza jednym obrazem van Gogha, ale co do tego też są wątpliwości). Każdy z opisów jest fałszywy i wprowadza w błąd. Kriis bis (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be inconsistent to not include the city in building categories that are mere addresses, even if English Wikipedia doesn't. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguation of the specific addresses, i.e. 55 Public Square (Cleveland). These disambigs are not essential ("55 Public Square" is unambiguous within our own namespace), but they are clearer to readers, especially those unfamiliar. As someone working a lot on geographical categorization (although not in Ohio) clarity at this level is a great help to me. If we have two choices, neither has a strong reason to enforce it but one is slightly more helpful, then I'm going to prefer the helpful one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, User:Enhancing999, will you please quit moving categories out of process? You knew there was disagreement about moving these categories, and now you've moved them to inappropriate titles for a second time. This isn't how consensus works. - Eureka Lott18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I stumbled across this old category, which contained a wild mixture of stuff and seemed to be created when the guidelines were pretty fresh. It's basically a collection of two comma-separated tags, and I suggest deleting it.
Todas las fotos en este contenedor son de la "réplica" de la nave. Por eso se debe renombrar agregando "(replica)" a su nombre y después se debe hacer una subcategoria de la actual categoria. Ojo con la otra subcategoria... 186.173.207.19902:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hola. Son fotos de diferentes réplicas: la de Ancud, la de Punta Arenas, quizás la de Quinched (no he revisado todas las imágenes). Pero no veo el problema, la categoría no dice que se trate de la goleta original, es una categoría de Commons para reunir cualquier archivo multimedia de un tema denominado "Goleta Ancud". Por ejemplo, también hay una pintura y si alguien subiera el diario de guerra, debería estar aquí. Saludos. Lin linao¿dime?17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a different flavor of 'other' category, which is unnecessary. Images should be sorted by the country they are in, not the countries they are not in. Josh (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use unnecessary category. I'm not a sock and even I never creating out of scope images, but I creating educational images. Heraldrist (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're proposing creating one giant category with a name that you're not specifying that will then require a {{CatDiffuse}}? And you're going to require that categorizers know that "Campus center", "Student activity center", "Student union", etc., etc., etc. are all synonyms? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is dead, and not notable. Only 2 photos exist on Commons, one of which is a cropped version of the original. Category superfluous. Recommend deletion. MxYamato (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
c'é una datazione erronea in wikiwand per il ritorno in possesso del Castello all'Archimandrato del S. Salvatore di Messina in Lingua Phari. Nel sito di Wikiwand si indica il 1386 come data di restituzione, mentre documenti del registro degli atti della Cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia dal 1282 al 1390, pubblicati da A. Marrone, il documento di restituzione risale al 28.09.1367.
Gli atti della Cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia dal 1282 al 1390, sono pubblicati in rete, all'indirizzo https://www.storiamediterranea.it/portfolio/repertorio-degli-atti-della-cancelleria-del-regno-di-sicilia-1282-1390/?mode=grid. Il documento cui faccio riferimento é a p. 453.
How necessary is it to distinguish "Bellevelle (Rhône)" and "Belleville-en-Beaujolais" and the corresponding sub-categories? Everything here is extremely nested into very tiny subsubcategories, and it's difficult to find the correct ones. For example, these three images are currently childs of four categories (vehicles of B/Rhô, vehicles of B-e-B, Buses of B/Rhô and Buses of B-e-B) when there is only need for two, namely the B-e-B categories. Enyavar (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category matches a category that contains it. Athens is a consolidated city-county and thus is the same as Athens-Clarke County. The categories Athens, Georgia and Clarke County, Georgia should be merged. Ivangiesen (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Athens is the urban centre of this. Is there any rural periphery to this that would generally be regarded as Athens-Clarke, but not commonly referred to as Athens? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From en:w:Athens, Georgia: "... the consolidated city-county (all of Clarke County except Winterville and a portion of Bogart)..." This suggests Clarke County includes not only Athens, but also Winterville and Bogart, yet the latter two are not regarded as part of Athens. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda The county has become Athens-Clarke County. When you say "not only Athens" that there is a difference between Athens and Athens-Clarke County, which there is not, because they are one and the same. See here for clarification from the county government of the issue. Bogart resides partially in Athens-Clarke County and Oglethorpe. The consolidated city-county is fairly rare, so I understand the apprehension to this kind of change. See also for more clarification: Link here. And by the way, earlier in the article that you referred to, en:w:Athens, Georgia, it says "referred to jointly as Athens-Clarke County." Governing wise Athens-Clarke County wholly contains Winterville (which has its own city council and resources). This resource refers to Clarke County as Athens-Clarke County. (see here) and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs refers to the county as Athens-Clarke County (here.)
Although I also see why there could be some confusion because, while all local and Georgia state government related resources refer to the county and everything inside the county as Athens-Clarke County, the census (the two websites I found for census come from data.census.gov and census.gov) (see here) refers to Athens-Clarke County and Clarke County as the slightly different entities for population counting purposes. However, the website I was looking through (census.gov) doesn't even offer the option to search Winterville or Bogart (though I do acknowledge that may be a deficiency in the search query algorithm, you can search up Winterville and Bogart in data.census.gov).
To finish off my point, despite the existence of a slightly (and I argue outdated) naming and differentiation convention of the census for the county and the contained cities, it makes the most practical sense to organize the wiki commons category around the naming and classification conventions of the local peoples and the local and state governments. Ivangiesen (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Athens-Clarke County" = About 462,000 results. Google search for "Athens, Georgia" = About 5,270,000 results. So "Athens, Georgia" seems to be by far the more common way to refer to the location. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks to both of you for y'alls quick replies. I am from and live in Athens, Georgia. It's the smallest county in Georgia and everyone thinks about it the same, Athens is Athens-Clarke County. We use it to say the same thing. The consolidation happend roughly 20+ years, so for me, they have always been the same. --Ivangiesen (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Quick web search says the city and county were consolidated in 1991. We might have have historic media that would be in the county but not the city. That could seem to me a point against merging. Have you noticed any such media? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I think any such media that refers to Clarke County is scant compared to media that explicitly refers to Athens pre-1991, however I’ll do some digging. I mean just speaking about the Clarke County, at minimum there should be a redirect or a name change for that category, as it has been renamed Athens-Clarke County. —Ivangiesen (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on some digging, there are some (I couldn't find more than a handful) photos of Clarke County out there. How many constitutes enough? And more importantly, let's say I take a picture it what pre-1991 would be considered Clarke County. Would I put it in the Athens or the Clarke County category? @InfrogmationIanVG (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a move is suggested, then which would the eventual target be? (or a new name). I assume that all existing names would either stay unchanged, or would redirect to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The family name of "Jing Wumu" is "Jing" (井), not "Wumu". I tried to move the category to Category:Jing (surname), but the category already exists. However, Category:Jing (surname) corresponds to a different Chinese family name (敬), which has the same transliteration "Jing" as 井. So I'm not sure what to do with it. Stevenliuyi (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scheint sich ebenfalls auf Folkwang Universität der Künste zu beziehen, nur auf Englisch. Frage ist welche Bezeichnung ist offiziell? Hiddenhauser (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing some distinction, this category looks like it is the same as the parent Category:Harmandir Sahib but with a different name. I suggest upmerging these images upward so people can better see how many images need diffusion. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cette "chapelle" n'a pas la qualité d'église abbatiale.
Elle fait suite à l'église priorale, du prieuré dit de l’Abbaye-sous-Dol, fondé en 1068 par Jean de Dol-Combour ; l'archevêque Even lui conféra en outre la qualité d'église pour la paroisse dite de l’Abbaye. La même église servait à tous, la nef pour les laïques et le chœur pour les moines. Bien qu'il n'y ait jamais eu d'abbé à la tête de ses religieux le prieuré porta le nom d'Abbaye, vocable rappelant le souvenir de leur lointaine abbaye-mère de Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, en Anjou.
Le prieuré devint séminaire au 17ème siècle, en même temps que la paroisse de l'Abbaye continua de jouir de la chapelle-église dédiée à Notre-Dame.
Références : l'étude réalisée par Michel Pelé : "Le prieuré de l’Abbaye-sous-Dol, Le Prieuré de l’Abbaye près Dol" https://clergedol.free.fr/etudes-pdf/prieure_abbaye_sous_dol.pdfContes-et-merveilles (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example discussion for all the "Maps of rivers IN <US state>":
These maps are sorted into "Maps of rivers OF the United States", and as far as I can see the normal structure for most if not all countries in the world is "Maps of rivers OF <country or subdivision>".
For internal consistency, all these categories should be renamed to "Maps of rivers of Texas", "Maps of rivers of Ohio", "Maps of rivers of California"; with the "in"-names being kept as redirects. Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand the category-tree, you didn't understand numbers (0 does not exist, 1 exists) and you didn't understand the arguments of the other users in the discussion 1 bridge by country. You only want to disrupt the work of experienced users (with hundreds of thousands of edits) that comply with the category-tree, with no meaningful arguments on your part. -- Triple C 85| User talk |09:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just resort to personal attacks and ignore the opinions of people who actually contribute to the field and present a reasoned opinion. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have understood the structure of commons. The Category:Categories by quantity start at 1,2,3,4 and go to Many. If you want to abolish the number 1 in Categories by quantity in Commons, you are discussing here in the wrong place, you should start a discussion at the top of the category-tree,... try to discuss Category:Groups of 1. I wish you a lot of fun with a pointless effort to change the existing structure in all areas. That will cost nothing but your lifetime. -- Triple C 85| User talk |10:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a place where that distinction is outlined? None of the categories you mention actually say that. Quite the contrary actually. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cardinality of 1 may not seem reasonable, but it should be there for consistency alone. I do not want to discuss the meaning of "Views of", "Remote views of" or "Photographs of". --XRay💬11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not enthusiastic about the scope defined by the comment "Category:Views with 1 bridge is from far away". "Views" can mean a lot of things and is not consistent across Commons, so I think there will continue to be controversy and misunderstandings going forward. I think something like "Distant views of bridges" would be more clear, and go along with others such as "Aerial views", "partial views", "top views", or whatever other perspectives we have pictures of all under "Bridges by view" (see Category:Aircraft by view, for example). Josh (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can help out Triple C: above they are referring to some standard they are following when using "view of 1 bridge" for "remote views". Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the use of this category (no argument or supporting guideline was provided for the use), I'd go ahead and have it deleted. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to provide a different view because I don't see why the "views of bridges" category is needed. Category:Views of bridges generally isn't much. For 6 bridges or 5, I don't see a need for the 'views subcategory.' For Category:4 bridges, I think it's more clear to have the images of the bridges in the main category with art and by country as subcategories. For 2 bridges, we are merging 98 images with the 6 in the parent and I imagine a number go really into different ones by country. For the most complex one, Category:1 bridge the views could be broken down into top view or bottom if people find that useful but we are talking about 10 images that get mixed into 22 others. I understand Category:Views of buildings because we are breaking images down into top views, bottom views, remote views, but we don't do anything other than duplicate the number of bridges with "views by number of bridges." I could see renaming these to Remote views of bridges to match Category:Remote views of buildings (and whatever other views of bridges people have) but nothing in the title "views of bridges" makes it clear that it is supposed to be remote but that is more of a categorization problem than anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help that you can't read. I wrote Transport buildings = Verkehrsbauwerke (Brücken, Straßen, Tunnel etc.) and i wrote that your disruptive actions against categories created by me should not be conducted at the community level, but you should start the discussion above so that it affects all categories. -- Triple C 85| User talk |05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You added that comment after I closed the discussion, however, it doesn't address the explanation already provided by Yeerge.
Bear in mind that no content is deleted merely because we rearrange it. This is unrelated to you, but does concern bridges.
We can fix other categories with the same problem afterwards.
To Yerge: Incidentally, he did not comment at this discussion. He had a question on my user discussion, not here. And: I had answered him the same as you... that it only makes sense to change this for the whole of Baden-Württemberg or all of Germany, not only for Zaberfeld. You like to have discussions at the lowest community level. Take care of the whole of Germany and adapt it everywhere instead of having a discussion here. Look at the Category:Streets category at the top and do it everywhere in Category:Streets in Germany. Instead, you're having a discussion for a single municipality. -- Triple C 85| User talk |12:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to go through the category tree to check if nothing else needs fixing. Triplec85 thinks they fixed all of them, but [4] isn't yet. So others may be affected. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed "Streets in Zaberfeld" (infrastructure instead of transport buildings) and fixed Baden-Württemberg and other "Landkreise" (districts) too and within Landkreis Heilbronn all municipalities. In my opinion you can wrap this one up now (because the discussion is about Zaberfeld). Other discussions here are not necessary. If something is not perfect categorized according to the main category, then everyone wo can should change that and don't need a discussion for every change (if it's according to the categorization of the main categories). But for me, this topic is done. I will not look after all other categories. @Enhancing999 You are free to do better categorization about Highways. But this is not the topic of this discussion. Greets -- Triple C 85| User talk |22:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't changed/corrected you this? It seems you just want endless discussions. Just DO IT. I mentioned that i don't understand when you discuss one municipality and others not. But this discussion is about Zaberfeld and it's done. So i am with User:Joshbaumgartner. Wrap this one up. And I have an advice for you: Just change/correct wherever you can and don't discuss so often about every community. -- Triple C 85| User talk |
Just because I was once the one who created a category for the first time doesn't mean that I have the obligation to correct it, if you have found out that it works better, then just do it. be brave. It doesn't take a discussion for every improvement (according to the main category) when you find a incorrect subcategory. Just do it. -- Triple C 85| User talk |23:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To wrap this up, we just need to list, check and then correct them. Nothing really to discuss. You don't need to do anything, User:Yeerge either. Thanks to them for noticing this problem. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the two should be combined, and one turned into a redirect to the other. But which way? I note that de:w has her as "Eliza O’Neill", while cy:w as "Elizabeth O'Neill", and en:w as "Elizabeth O'Neill (actress)". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. As there is media and a referenced article on en:w, a category for it is legitimate. There are other cases where neighborhoods or sections of a city have a name and identity historically recognized by locals that are not the same as official city government divisions, nothing wrong with having categories for such. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very clear name: Define “big” as to why this should be a separate category. Especially since almost all images are taken in one location in Tokushima. Rename acordingly or move images to general cat. Zenwort (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP conventions “kaidou” should be transliterated as “kaidō” (i.e. Hepurn-shiki). Even better rename to English so non-Japanese speakers get an idea what this cat is about. Zenwort (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category has been redirected to Roman Catholic Churches in the Northern Territory. While the Northen Territory and the Diocese of Darwin cover exactly the same territoty they come down two completely separate category trees. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both categories are important. On the one hand the category for the church area and on the other hand the area with the state area.--NeverDoING (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think both should be kept. The boundaries of the diocese or the territory or both could change in the future. (Probably not likely with the territory, but not impossible.) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
La Samaritaine était composée de quatre magasins voisins les uns des autres et communiquant entre eux par des passerelles ou par les sous-sol. Ainsi, les façades des différents magasins donnaient sur sept rues différentes :
le quai du Louvre (magasin 2) ;
la rue Baillet (magasins 2 et 4) ;
la rue Bouchet (magasin 3) ;
la rue de l'Arbre-sec (magasin 2) ;
la rue de la Monnaie (magasins 1, 2 et 4) ;
la rue de Rivoli (magasins 1, 3 et 4) ;
la rue du Pont-Neuf (magasins 1 et 3).
J'ai donc créé une sous-catégorie par rue, afin qu'on puisse trouver facilement les photos des façades de la Samaritaine donnant sur une rue donnée. Ces catégories sont-elles utiles ? On peut en discuter comme pour toutes les catégories et sous-catégories mais cela me paraissait constituer une classification intéressante des photos des façades de la Samaritaine.
Vous vous interrogez sur la catégorie « La Samaritaine quai du Louvre » mais la question se pose autant que pour les six autres catégories de rues que je cite ci-dessus. Si fusion il devait y avoir, cela devrait concerner les sept catégories. Je ne suis pas favorable à une telle fusion car je ne vois pas ce que la fusion apporterait à Commons, ce serait enlever quelque chose qui peut être utile sans rien apporter de plus, je pense.
@O.Taris: Ah, I see. Could you create a Wikidata item that describes this, and link it to this category? At the moment there is no context, which doesn't help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we still need these categories? The competition was in 2013, and has other tracking categories. The 'unfiltered' ones probably arent' needed any more? Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just mention again here the existence also of Category:woodlands, and the question of whether "woodlands" are distinct from "woods" (in the "treed area" sense), and moreover whether it is useful to distinguish in categories between "forests" and "woods" (in the "treed area" sense) -- whether a clearly defined distinction can be maintained here. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and if we decide that it is not useful to differentiate "woods" and "forests" then IMO the category encompassing both should be called "Woods and forests" (or "Forests and woods"). ITookSomePhotos (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Woods" is generally the term for a small forest (the current scope of the category) and it generally doesn't mean the material as its generally uncountable however its debatable we need to make a distinction between woods (small forests) and normal forests just like the distinction between rivers and streams probably isn't appropriate. If we use "Forests" it makes sense to have this category as a DAB category as there are several other uses and Wikipedia has a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems excessively granular and down to a single subcategory. There aren't any other observances in the Philippines but that's likely underpopulated so I think we should delete this category and upmerge the Feast of King subcategory to the three respective parent categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Empty category : there is no recent "catalogue raisonné" of this artist which can tell that there is a painting by poussin in this museum Mel22 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Iamthecheese44: With is not the same as wearing: for example, there could be an image of a fashion designer surrounded by some of their dresses in a single color. But since the category is empty anyway you could just tag it with {{Empty page}}. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response. That is what I had initially assumed, but upon further inspection I noticed that multiple with and wearing categories appear to redirect to one another (with no noticeable rhyme or reason). One example of this is Category:Women wearing necklaces, which is empty aside from a redirect to Category:Women with necklaces.
Admittedly, I am the one who emptied out Category:Females with dresses by color, but that was because, a) I assumed it was a duplicate category given the redirect issue, and b) all the of the items it contained were examples of women wearing dresses. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one image in this category - an image of the ship under its earlier name. That image should be in the other category, and there is no need for this category, so long as we don't have any images of the ship under this name. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the name we can see starts with HA. The names this ship had starting with those letters were Hanjin Cairo (2001-2006) and Hanjin Venezia (beginning in 2008). The damage shown was done November 7, 2007, and the photo taken on 12 November 2007 (according to the text with the image). The only name the ship had starting with HA on or after the date of the damage was Hanjin Venezia, so I don't understand how this image is under a name before that. Maybe the category is misnamed, though, and should be called Category:Hanjin Venezia (ship, 2008). -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the company name you're seeing. On all three images where the name is visible on the bow, the name "Cosco Busan" is pretty easily visible. Delete until some images of the ship carrying the name "Hanjin Venezia" are located. Also, changing the category name to "2008" would be entirely inappropriate, since the vessel was completed in 2001. — Huntster (t@c)22:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion, in 2016, at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2012#Category:Blacksmithing_tools. Someone there asked about whether "Blacksmith's tools" was proper English. It isn't. This category's name implies the world has only had just one blacksmith, who had multiple tools. Category:Blacksmiths'_tools would correctly recognize that this category is for the tools used by all the world's blacksmiths.
WRT that discussion from 2016... I disagree with its closure. Farriers are a separate but related occupation from blacksmiths, and merited their own hierarchy of subcategories. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are both names for the same dockyard. Ships built in Portsmouth Dockyard has been found to be the most popular; easier to type. Therefore this one needs a redirect. Broichmore (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar issue with Category:Islam by century. But I actually think all the "Centuries in X religion]]" should be turned into meta categories and renamed to "X religion by century" instead -- that's the pattern followed by essentially all the other century categories; logically and linguistically it makes more sense; and I can't imagine when you would put a file into a "Centuries in X religion" category as opposed to a specific century or more general "History of X religion" category. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this category and the subcategories by country should be merged into or retitled "Printing works..." etc, for which we already have a very full set of categories by country and by type of business. I don't think it's easy to distinguish between the two types of business. The difference, between them, such as it is, is very nuanced (print shop would mean a smaller concern and maybe one that does work for customers that show up, printing works larger-scale and maybe part of a bigger business like a newspaper), I don't really think it's possible to have a clear definition of what would get put into which category. I think having two sets of categories on the same topic without any clarity on what goes where is causing confusion. Blythwood (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps these categories should be subcategories of Category:Printing works (they are already in Category:Printing companies, which is good), but they really should stay as categories on their own. This category is about real shops, usually in a shopping street, where consumers, students and office workers can make copies theirselves, also bind reports, theses and other documents, and where probably a limited range of office supplies is offered. Other services might be scanning and previously faxing. Category:Printing works is broader, all places where all kind of prints are made, also were only professionals operate the printing machines. Even in the Netherlands we call them "Print shop" or "Copyshop" (and not "Kopieerwinkel", what would be the proper Dutch name), so I would be happy if the name stays as it is. JopkeB (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead: Can there please be a good description if this category will be kept? Perhaps for native English speakers the name is clear, but for foreigners it might cause confusion because printing and copying are closely related terms. --JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It just doesn't make sense to me to have this category. A river basin can have a wide variety of features in it. Currently, the only two files in this category are pictures of the river itself, and these files are already in the river's category. To have this basin category in theory creates unhelpful overlap among categories. It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Jsayre64 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that I disagree categories like this one are totally unnecessary in general, but in this case the basin is an actual, named, geographical feature with an official government website, government lead research papers discussing it, Etc. Etc. Really, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a Wikidata entry for it all things considered. That said though, random non-notable basins that we only have a few images of probably don't deserve to have their own categories. Also as a side to that the category for the river should really be a child category of the basin, not the other way around, and it probably be worth up-merging some of the more zoomed out images of the river into the category for the basin. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its basin is named in research papers and on government websites—you could say the same about almost any large river. Every river has its own basin. What is there about the John Day River basin that calls for its own Commons category aside from the John Day River itself? Certainly nothing that's in the category now. Not that it's a big deal, but I still think this is a redundant category. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the fact that we have multiple images showing the basin as it's own geographical feature separate from the river? I don't really get your whole "all X's have Y. So we shouldn't have a category for Y" thing here. Like most water body have beaches. So we shouldn't have categories for named, popular beaches that we have multiple images of because of it? That doesn't make any sense. "All continents have mountain ranges. So seperate categories for mountains are redundant." OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soup in art was moved to Soups in art; but soup is a mass noun, and is more appropriate for the category; soups would only be used for types of soups. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
distinguish between UG rivers and lakes, change name to "Underground bodies of water" and make subcat of "Bodies of water" (and consequently omit categorization within "Rivers/Lakes by type" — Draceanetalkcontrib.21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category structure needs to be re-evaluated: Please provide a template to go with "xth century maps of Montral", "17X0s maps of Montreal" and only below that the individual years. Check out the structure of Quebec for an example.
Also, consider to dissolve single-year map categories of the city into decade-categories: There are 9 Files deserving to be together in "1720s maps of of Montreal" instead of being distributed over six supertiny categories. Enyavar (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, better, put everything back in one single category and order it by year, so one can see at a glance how Montreal and maps of it developed.
This current structure that requires one to look at 60 categories to see that is a disaster. It helps nobody. The task of categories is to bring similar maps together (and maps of the whole of Montreal, even decades apart, have that similarity). The present structure splits similar things apart, and makes them impossible to view together.
Well, structures like this make sense with London and Paris etc, when there are 2823 old maps. Depending on how much stuff there is, my recommendation is first make century-categories, and if these overflow, go with decades. Enyavar (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a classic case of excess fineness undermining the usefulness of the category tree. Someone started with "by year" which is too fine since most years have none and the average is fewer than five. One could start with "by century" but that's a bit coarse, so "by decade" will make it most usable. And in any case, do make a parental "by century" category. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently almost nobody is watching this CfD. I'll take that as meaning I can make the decision myself. So, my plan for the first step is to create the decadal categories, patterned on Category:Architecture in Montreal by decade starting with the oldest. Not rushing; I only intend to finish it this month. After that, I'll return and seek possible discussion of which annual categories ought to be deleted and which ones kept. None of this will start today; I'll await comment or a day's silence before proceeding. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support, please proceed. After this got done however, I will have to look for another "bad practice" example to explain what good practice ought to be. Enyavar (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested moves:
Nominator's (user:Yasu) rational: this category to be moved to "Category:Stuctures of Foo" because: "according to what the category contains". Date: mostly June-July Estopedist1 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just did some recategorizing on these. They were under structures categories, so I moved them up to architecture categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Do you mean the recategorizing I did? I'm fine with that. If we're still talking about renaming these from architecture to structures, the only issues I have with that are 1) we'd lose the architecture parent categories and 2) a couple of the subcategories (Kobe and Nagoya) have subcats for underground cities, which I don't think fit under structures (they may not even fit under architecture, either). -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Yes, I was referring to your work so far. I guess I was not sure if that restructure obviated the need for a rename. If renaming is still on the table, I'm happy to leave the discussion open. Josh (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave my opinion for the generic problem with the RENFE categories. For this case, my [contrary] opinion is the same. In general, the argument for the transfer seems vague to me. "Show history of the class of locomotives". For this RENFE Class, the locomotives were under three differents owners: «Andaluces», «Oeste» and «RENFE». If you want to be historically accurate, you have to mention the three companies. At the end you would have a kilometric category. After all, most of its time service was under RENFE. CFA1877 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Showing the history of something is not the purpose of a category name. The name should succinctly reflect the contents of the category. In cases where the contents have gone by different names for whatever reason (language, customs, name changes over time, etc.) one should be used that best covers the contents as opposed to trying to include multiple different names in the category name. Josh (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Yasu) rational: this category to be moved to category:Defunct junior high schools in Japan, because: "as per what this category contains". Date: 2022-01-16
Estopedist1, you said the rationale I provided was "problematic". I'd find it very useful if you could return here and explain why you found the rationale problematic.
Are you disputing that "Colonia" and "Kolonia" are two different transliterations of the same name? Germany acquired Pohnpei, that is why the town uses a German transliteration. Colonia, Yap was founded by the Spanish, and so uses a Spanish transliteration.
Are you disputing whether it would be best if the disambiguator for the names of the two separate categories should be the name of the state within Micronesia, where they are located?
Could you please look at the disambiguation page for Springfield on en.wiki? Would anyone agree to having the first article on a Springfield in the USA to be at Springfield (USA), with each later one being disambiguated by State? I suggest no one would ever agree to that.
But, it seems to me, that this is what your challenge to the move I suggested really means. Is this what you really meant to suggest? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up User:Estopedist1. It says you are from Estonia. I took a peak at Geography of Estonia, and saw a mention of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa counties. (1) Suppose each of those counties had a town in it named "Colonia"? (2) Suppose someone created an article on the Colonia in Saaremaa, and called it Colonia, Estonia, not Colonia, Saaremaa, because they were unaware that there was a second Colonia, in Estonia, in Hiiumaa? (3) Would you find it acceptable to have the first article continue to be named Colonia, Estonia, after someone else started Colonia, Hiiumaa?
@Geo Swan OK, I looked the situation. Given that toponym "Kolonia" and "Colonia" is used for both objects in Micronesia (although enwiki two articles don't mention it literally), then solution is easy:
Kolonia (standalone DAB)
Kolonia (Pohnpei) (alternative spelling Colonia), town in Micronesia
Kolonia, urban area in Micronesia. See Colonia (Yap)
...
Colonia (standalone DAB)
Colonia (Yap) (alternative spelling Kolonia), urban area in Micronesia
Colonia, town in Micronesia. See Kolonia (Pohnpei)
...
"Kolonia (Micronesia)" to be redirected to Kolonia (DAB)
"Colonia (Micronesia)" to be redirected to Colonia (DAB)
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your suggestion. You seem to be suggesting having two disambiguation pages point to one another. That would be confusing.
However, I don't think it as simple as you suggest. Did you see the en.wiki disambiguation page Colonia? It lists places called Colonia in Germany, Uruguay, New Jersey, California, and Romania.
Yes, I agree Commons should have disambiguation page(s), but one should be the real disambiguation page, with the other merely a redirect to the main page - not two equal disambiguation pages, pointing to one another.
With regard to whether we should use Category:Kolonia, Pohnpei or Category:Kolonia (Pohnpei), I'll tell you a story. 41 years ago I was a young teaching assistant for an introductory computer course, for Arts students. One of the students was an elderly woman, the wife of an elderly Professor, who got to take courses for free. After I had given some lectures that kept returning to the terms "input" and "output", she came up to tell me that she thought I had explained these terms in a very confusing way. She told me she had finally figured out that when I said we "opened a file for input" that meant "we wanted to take something out of it", and when we "opened a file for output" that meant "we wanted to put something into it". She asked why we hadn't simply called output input, and input output.
I explained that it really made more sense to use the terms the way every computer language used them.
She politely heard my explanation with an expression of great skepticism.
Her skepticism was a big lesson for me. Because, as I walked home that afternoon, I tried to marshall the reasons why the longstanding convention made more sense the way all languages used it.
I concluded I had been wrong, that it did not make more sense. I concluded that lost in the early years of computer programming the convention as to what input and output really meant was arbitrary. If the convention had gone the other way, the way that made sense to her, it would have been just as defendible. I concluded the only reason to keep on using those terms the way everyone else did was convention and consistency.
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:83.61.237.190) rational: this category to be moved to category:Portrait of Maffeo Barberini by Caravaggio (Galleria Corsini, Florence), because: "According with the Italian article about this portrait, the title is Ritratto di Maffeo Barberini (English: Portrait of Maffeo Barberini). Also, one of the references of the article cites this: "Roberto Longhi, Il vero «Maffeo Barberini» del Caravaggio, in «Il Paragone», XIV (1963), n° 165 (settembre), pp. 3-11.", given the title "[Ritratto di] Maffeo Barberini". Also, the Cini Foundation gives the title "Ritratto di Maffeo Barberini" (English: "Portrait of Maffeo Barberini"). For disambiguate with the another portrait named "Portrait of Maffeo Barberini by Caravaggio", it was added the collection in which this portrait is located.". Date: 2022-06-29 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Geof Sheppard) rational: this category to be moved to category:Bath Bus Company, because: "Tootbus is a brand used by only a small number of Bath Bus Company buses". Date: 22-06-30
English Wiki needs fixing too, but of 85 images in this category only 2 are buses branded Tootbus and in Bath. The redirect needs to be from Tootbus Bath to Bath Bus Company as it is a subset of that company, or we can categorise those two images in both categories. But to do that we need to restore the Bath Bus Company category. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't Wikipedia and a lot of times how they do things don't transfer over to Commons well. Especially not down the line. What I'd do instead of turning it into a DAB is delete it. There's already Category:GLAM that redirects to Category:Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM). We don't need fifteen different versions of essentially the same thing. There isn't even really any reason to have this be a DAB in the meantime anyway. Category:Projecto Crono has nothing to do with "glam" (whatever that is). Nor do any of the images in the category that aren't directly related to Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. So turning this into a DAB would be completely pointless. Especially if it's only being turned into one "because Wikipedia" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
one of the artists in Projecto Crono is called glam, afaiu. i think being an anonymous artist without much detail it doesnt need its own cat, though.
so i think this word invariably attracts files of different topics. if it's deleted, uploaders might mistake GLAM for this purpose and send irrelevant things there. RZuo (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hhhhmmm. Yeah I agree that the artist for Projecto Crono doesn't need their own category. As far as Category:Glam (musical group) goes, there's no reason it can't just stay how it is. For "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums" though it's always abbreviated in capitals. So I don't think it would be useful or correct to have it be included in a DAB for the lowercase version. I'm aware there's a general concept of "glam", but from what I can tell the only "Glam" category we have outside of the one for "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums" is for the musical group. There's a bunch of random categories with "GLAM" in their titles, but again I don't think having them included on a lower case disambiguation page is correct. Plus a lot of them are kind of nonsensical. So, we really only have Category:Glam (musical group). Which on it's own really doesn't warrant a DAB. That's my read of things at least. I guess we could use it to disambiguate the band, Category:Glameyer Stack? Category:Glam Zoo? Uuhh Category:Glamis Castle? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldnt include the last examples you gave, because they're not really known as glam.
the problem is that uploadwizard and hotcat would prompt GLAM if you type glam/Glam if this cat is deleted, then users unaware of how cats should be used would pick that. (you can try fbi to see the effect.)--RZuo (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per @RZuo: . Sorry, it took me a minute to notice that you had replied. Do you want to turn the category into a DAB and close this? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Badly drawn" is an opinion. While I realise that the subject matter is inherently controversial, we should not get into the habit of making categories for "badly drawn" things. Susmuffin (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To "street art of swastikas." I don't think it's worth having a category based on the shapes of the swastikas since most graffiti isn't accurate anyway and that's these images are of. What's next, creating a "asymmetrical monkeys" categories for inaccurate graffiti of monkeys? The first image is the only one that isn't street art, but it's clearly OOS anyway. So it shouldn't be a stopper to anything. Just nominate it for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it. Dust isn't anywhere close to sand even if the majority of images in the category depict sand roads. So it wouldn't make sense to redirect it Category:Sand roads. Although that said, it might be worth creating a category for images of dusty roads. As in images of dust on roads regardless of what the roads surface is. I'm not sure what a good name for it would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, 'films' covers 'live-action films' but it also covers 'animated films' so having sub-categories for both 'live-action' and 'animated' (as well as other types of films) makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a tracking category for a problem that doesn't exist. All icons that had been in it had white fills within the image, and did have transparent backgrounds. Useddenim (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As "Blue Bike" or close variations on the name are used in other countries, perhaps this should be disambiguated if it is intended as the ones in Belgium only - perhaps renaming the category from "Blue-bike" to "Blue-bike (Belgium)" or something similar? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In more detail: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a medical condition with a rather convoluted naming history. The name most frequently used in the literature is the combined term Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS is used in many government sources and academic papers. When used alone, chronic fatigue syndrome is more popular than myalgic encephalomyelitis. There are also debates, sometimes contentious ones, over which name to use--some people say CFS is a trivializing term for a serious organic illness, while others point out that ME implies an unproven cause.
To complicate things even further, ME and CFS were historically used among different groups. Perhaps ME and CFS were considered different clinical entities at some point in time; I'm not an expert on the history of this. But every recent, reliable source I can find treats them as the same entity. I opened a discussion at Category talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome where I explain this in more detail, and @Guido den Broeder: takes a different view. He is of the opinion that ME and CFS are separate conditions so the categories should be separate. As our disagreement is over the facts, we probably won't come to an agreement, so I think the opinion of one or more uninvolved editors would be helpful.
My original proposal was simple, to merge the two categories. However, there are some unusual cases that might deserve their own category. For example, regardless of whether ME and CFS are the same thing, there are some sources that mainly use one term or the other. There may be some historical sources that don't recognize any connection between the two. The advice of others is needed here.
Firstly, everything you're saying above is incorrect; I've already explained that to you and pointed you to the relevant sources.
Secondly, I don't see the need to discuss this in three different places.
Thirdly, you fail to mention that ME and CFS have different parent categories.
There is no real problem here. ME files should go into the ME category, CFS files should go into the CFS category, files that pertain to both go into both categories, and any files that belong to the debate would go into the new category. Uploaders will generally know what goes where and if not, like always, they can ask or just leave it to more knowledgeable users. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me better try to understand your position, so we can at least work out an unambiguous scheme for classifying files. Your position is that ME and CFS are different conditions. CFS is a broad syndrome (or "always a misdiagnosis") and ME is a specific disease. Media that deal with CFS or ME/CFS according to definitions like Fukuda or the IOM criteria belong in Category:Chronic fatigue syndrome, while media dealing with patients who meet the Ramsay or International Consensus Criteria belong in Category:Myalgic encephalomyelitis. As the status quo seems likely to stick, and I'll keep uploading media about ME/CFS, it's important that I understand your scheme even if I don't agree with it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ME = single specific vascular brain disorder as described by Wickman, Ramsay, Hyde and many others, originally (1905) known as superior polio (the descriptions differ in detail, but the target group is the same)
CFS = research diagnosis with various different sets of symptom criteria only, to select patients and study unexplained fatigue and malaise (this excludes ME) (Holmes, Oxford, Fukuda, Reeves, and other variations, all with their own target group)
ME/CFS = fashionable name at odds with medical nomenclature for CFS-like definitions with an emphasis on post-exertional malaise (PEM, not actually an ME symptom) (IOM - they called it SEID, NICE)
To decide which file goes where it may be necessary to read the source, because researchers are not by definition experts on classification and nomenclature, and will generally write what they get paid to write.
My only remaining question is whether you'd classify International Consensus Criteria (and media about people meeting specifically this definition) as ME or CFS. I'm thinking it would be ME because the ICC authors say it's a definition for ME. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ME-ICC of 2011 target ME, so related files should go into that category. Keep in mind though that ME is a disease so a diagnosis involves examining the patient, not just checking symptoms. Without the inflammation, it is not ME. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category, Category:Admiralties_by_country, and the hundreds of subcategories under it, are a mess. If the WMF projects were commercial enterprises the boss would authorize a single person to be each project's database manager. He or she would oversee the development of a consistent schema, and try to make sure it was clear what did and didn't belong in each category. They would do their best to make sure the Schema didn't contain ambiguities, or overlap.
However, since no one has that authority it falls to individual contributors to put items in the categories that make sense, to them.
Under this category the subcategories seem to be organized according to at least two incompatible hierarchies.
Some subcategories seem to be organized under the assumption that all that the term admiralty merely refers to all the ranks of officers who are considered admirals.
Alternately, some categories seem to be organized based on the interpretation that an admiralty referred to a bureacracy that broadly oversaw the operation of a nation's Navy, and possibly other related institutions, like its lighthouse service. If I am not mistaken, in the UK, the office of Lord High Admiral was held by a civilian, not a naval officer, who may have had zero nautical experience.
The USA has a Coast Guard, with its own set of admirals, which, while smaller than the US Navy, is more powerful than the navies of 90 percent of our world's maritime nations.
Support@Geo Swan: I agree with all of the points in your concluding paragraph. Admiralties are not just any grouping of admirals, but a distinct organization primarily of admirals (not necessarily exclusively so) with a purpose of providing high-level leadership for naval matters in a country. It is not necessarily even equivalent to a naval general staff, though in many cases it may be. It is also more than a sum of admirals, so it should not be under something like Category:Admirals by country. Admirals are people; admiralties are organizations, so {{Cat see also}} may be appropriate, but not cross-categorizing. Of course, lumping anything that happens to have "admiralty" in its name also do not belong here. Josh (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently uploading over 1000 photos to the "Cultural Heritage of Russia" section (for the competition). Such a large number of photos is due to the fact that our research team has many architectural objects throughout Russia. This is not spam, but rather copyright photos that we want to make public.
In the future, we will write articles on these architectural objects, so I would like to have all the uploaded photos in one place, and not then search all over Wikipedia. That's why I created the section. Calling Нео Фициал will not be entirely correct, since this is my personal pseudonym - one person, but we have a team and the name "Unofficial History" is the name of the whole team and a tribute to each of its members. If possible, please leave such a name - "Неофициальная История" in Cyrillic. Thank you. Нео Фициал (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English: Is your account personal or is it for some organization/group of people? Are pictures uploaded from this account made by person who controls this account or not?
Русский: Давайте разберёмся: Это у вас коллективный аккаунт или личный? Фото, которые вы загрузили, они чьи? Я что-то не понимаю.
We have a research team. We are engaged in historical research, conduct expeditions, excavations, laboratory research, analysis of archival documents, and photograph architectural monuments. Works for over 10 years. Our team is completely voluntary. No one receives any payment for the work and does not count on the author's fee. All research results are the intellectual property of the entire team. We do not have individualism and do not own anything to anyone, except for the equipment that is used for general work.
Therefore, all videos and photos are the property of our "Unofficial History" team. Each member of the team agreed to this condition when he joined it.
I, as a representative of the team, express the common interests of the team. That is why I do not sign with my real name, but with the name of the team.
If the conditions for publishing on Wikimedia Commons are such that a single author must be credited, then what does it mean to credit the author as it is credited - "Unofficial History"?
I am the representative of this team. I upload photos to my account (aka team account). If it’s more convenient for you, then you can consider that I PERSONALLY MADE all these photos (I’m ready to tell you about each photo where, when, and with what camera it was taken). We are a single team, not a bunch of different people. This is a fundamental point.
I know how discouraging this can be, but rules of Commons are very strict. And according to these rules, all you've said above is license whitewashing, that is unacceptable. The only way now is to clarify for any of 3600+ pictures who was the author. This can be really hard, so maybe it's easier to delete all of them and then to upload it from personal accounts? Красныйwanna talk?03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3600+ is not even half yet. We have been doing research for over 10 years.
About any whitewashing, there is no question. Our photos are exclusive, both in content, quantity and quality. These photos are nowhere else (except for a few article publications, which also say that this is a photo of our group). This is the author's work of our group, all photos are uploaded from our group's account. I don't understand what's the problem?
There are no personal accounts, and there cannot be, for two simple reasons:
1. We have joint work and PUBLIC RESULTS. Each member of the team agreed with this before starting their activities.
2. Scientists will not sit all day and upload photos to the Internet. They have more important things to do.
I do not understand why the signature of the author "Неофициальная История" does not fit? Maybe it's a difference in thinking? In Europe and other Western countries, the individual is the basis of everything. In Russia, it is different: our team is a single organism and the team should be accepted as one person.
Be that as it may, I specifically consulted with a lawyer specializing in international law. I showed him all our correspondence. He said that there was no infringement on my part and all Wikipedia rules (published publicly) were fully implemented by me. The problem is probably a simple misunderstanding.
Поскольку юзер Красный на некоторое время в силу внешних обстоятельств лишен возможности пользоваться интернетом, попробую объяснить вам ситуацию как человек, который как минимум следил за всей этой историей. И отвечу по-русски, чтоб не было недопонимания. Никто не против ника "Неофициальная История" - в Ваикипедии подписываться можно как угодно. Все замечания, которые вам были высказаны, касаются не наименования вас или вашей команды, а именно конкретного авторства загружаеимых фотографий, которое в вашем случае не указано. Вам в двух разных дискуссиях было предложено оформить коллективную загрузку по здешним правилам, были даны ссылки на то, как это надо сделать, но вы, к сожалению, за две недели ничего не предприняли, и теперь все загруженные вами фото выставлены на удаление. И если вы в ближайшее же время не сделаете хоть каких-то шагов к исправлению ситуации, все фото так-таки будут удалены, что, конечно же, довольно огорчительно, поскольку многие фото - действительно весьма редкие, пусть и не очень хорошего качества. При этом все ваши жалобы на "бездушный Запад", так сказать, лишены практического смысла, да и с точки зрения российского права звучат довольно нелепо. Чтобы получить в России, например, пенсию за заболевшую бабушку или чтоб воспользоваться машиной брата, россияне оформляют доверенность, а не объясняют в банке или в ГИБДД, что "наша семья - это единый организм, и всех ее членов надо воспринимать как одного и того же человека". Вам, собственно, предложили здесь именно оформить своего рода доверенность (VRT), чтобы загружать фото от имени членов вашей команды. Заявите хотя бы о намерении это сделать на странице удаления - не исключаю, что вам пойдут навстречу и подождут, пока вы разберетесь с VRT. Здесь люди в общем и целом не злобные, просто они не любят, когда нарушаются правила. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Екатерина, благодарю за разъяснения. Однако позвольте уточнить, что изначально дисскуссия началась именно из-за кирилического названия аккаунта. Ну да ладно проехали. Что касается VRT то я или тупой или слепой, но ни где не видел даже упоминания ни о каком VRT или ссылок чтобы сделать так как требуется. Про VRT впервые читаю от Вас.
Я вовсе не горю желанием тащить свой устав в чужой монастырь и готов сделать всё по правилам. Однако у меня нет ни мальейшего понимания как это делать и что именно я сделал не так.
Ни кто мне ни чего не объяснил, а все толкьо требовали выполнения чего то.
Понятное дело, что объяснять каждому, времени ни у кого из вас не хватит, но можно хотя бы прислать ту же ссылку, где всё по человечески объеснено. Повторюсь, ссылок ни кто не присылал, по крайней мере я их не видел.
Развернутого ответа я не дам, поскольку не вижу смысла подменять собой страницы правил. Однако замечу, что ссылку на VRТ вам давали в соседней дискуссии. По ссылке есть разъяснения как по-английски, так и по-русски. Если вы ее пропустили - жаль, однако так-таки ссылка вам была дана сразу, как только стало ясно, что вы грузите фото разных авторов. Также хочу заметить, что несмотря на то, что все загруженные вами фото сегодня были удалены, это не значит, что теперь все пропало и уже не надо ничего делать. Вы по-прежнему можете разобраться с авторством фотографий, оформив все по правилам, а потом подать заявку на восстановление фотографий. Это реально. О процедуре восстановления рассказать вам ничего не могу, но вы можете проконсультироваться с юзером C.Suthorn, который писал вам и в этой дискуссии, и на вашей странице обсуждения, и тоже, похоже, огорчен случившимся. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the deleted files are worthwhile. VRT users will start the undelation, as soon as VRT process is completed. It would have been much less work, if it had been done before deletion. As mentioned by @Екатерина Борисова a link to the VRT page (that has a russian version) was provided. After you have sent email to the VRT permission queue a VRT agent will ask you for missing information. I cannot know, if you already started the process, a short notice would be nice. C.Suthorn (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is? It seems like there's a lot of overlap between them. To the point that this should be transferred and redirected to the other category if there is no reasonable objections. The only reason I see not to do it is that there is no main "Files by User" category yet, but that's an issue to fix. Otherwise, I'd be fine with just moving and redirecting the various "Files by User:X" categories into this one, but there isn't a justification to have both. Except I kind of like the whole "User:X" thing, but whatever. Maybe something like [[:Category:Files uploaded by user:X" would be a good middle ground. There's zero point in having both categories either way though. Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's unclear what problem you are trying to resolve. Uploader isn't creator in case you missed that.
You are mentioning "both", but included just one category for discussion. Users are free to create user categories in one way or the other. If you are not sure how to make the difference between the two, please avoid interfering with people's categorizations. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss both this and the "Files by User:X" categories in my first comment. There is no main ""Files by User:X" parent category to include in the CfD though. Which I said. Sure users are free to create user categories in one way or the other, but that doesn't negate anything I've said or make them any less duplicate categories. I'm not "interfering" with anything by having a discussion about it. I'm just trying to figure out what the best category for users would be instead there being multiple categories that serve essentially the same exact purpose. Maybe don't comment next time if your just going to be defensive, resort to ad-hominin attacks, or otherwise ignore what the CfD is about and what the person who opened is saying. Just bemoaning about how people can do whatever they want and that this is "interfering with people's categorizations" or whatever isn't at all constructive. People can do things. No really? Gosh, I didn't know people on here do things. Thanks. You really adding something useful to the discussion there. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Files by uploader is ok as it is. please write explicitly what you want to change, otherwise no changes are needed and this can be closed. RZuo (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is so there aren't multiple categories that serve the same exact purpose. Otherwise if they have the exact same purpose one of them should be gotten rid of because it's just redundant. Per Commons:Categories, "To create a new category: Do a thorough search, to be sure there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose." There isn't currently a Category:Files by user but there's a bunch of "Files by User:X" in category Category:Files by uploader. There's also "files by X" categories on top of it. So either everything should be unified to "by uploader", "by user:X, or "by user." Having three different category naming schemes that serve essentially the same purpose is totally pointless though. Otherwise, what exactly is the difference between this category and the various "Files by User:X" or "Files by user X" categories? Really, I thought I was pretty clear about that the multiple times I've said it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"want to know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories"
Category:Files by uploader is the catcat of all "Category:Files uploaded by xx".
Files by User:X is a cat of files somehow related (uploaded, edited, photographed, filmed...) to User:X.
so their purposes are different. the rest of your paragraph relies on the premise that these cats have some identical purposes, so it's moot.
Their purposes are different You can say that but then categories like Category:Files by Bococo, Category:Photos made by User:Kien1980v, and Category:Files by User:Josephjong just to a name a few are in Category:Files by uploader. So it seems to be a distinction without a purpose. As to the request that I write more succinctly next time going by your response to my last comment you probably wouldn't have understood the issue if I was more succinct anyway. Nor does it seem like you took the time to research it before commenting or you would have known "files by user:X" categories are already in Category:Files by uploader without me having to tell you. People should know the basics of what they are commenting about before writting a message. Period. I'm not here to hold people's hands or make up for their lack of wanting to research this before responding to me by writing clearer. Sorry. That said, I'm more said to clarify things if people ask, which I did. So I don't really see what the issue is. At least not on my side. I know people just can't resist making things personal though.
Anyway, there clearly isn't a difference between the "by uploader" and "by user" categories. Otherwise people wouldn't just be using the former as a dump for the later. Apparently there's even some "made by" categories in "by uploader." So there's clearly some redundancy regardless. I guess we can deal with that by creating Category:Files by user and making Category:Files uploader a child of that category, but then there's going to be overlap and people are still probably going to use both at random since they are essentially synonyms. Or conversely we could get rid of the "by user" categories since at least from what I can tell the uploader is usually, if not always, the user anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason you would see any proposed edits if you didn't read what I wrote. I did make some though. That said, I can draw a picture next time if that's your level of reading comprehension. Although it would probably be better to just not participate in the discussion if you don't think it has anything of interest or value next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems to be a distinction without a purpose", what nonsense is this?
i said
"Category:Files by uploader is the catcat...", i.e. a cat of cats.
"Files by User:X is a cat of files..."
the distinction between a cat of cats and a cat of files is abundantly clear. this user cannot understand this simple fact? then any more longwinded nonsense can just be ignored and wont be replied to. RZuo (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies things. But the "by uploader" subcats contain files. So sure, "Category:Files by uploader is the catcat..." and "Files by User:X is a cat of files...", but the "by uploader" subcategories are also categories of files. Which is why I asked what the difference between the "by uploader" categories and the "Files by User:X" are. I never said anything about what the purpose of Category:Files by uploader is. I just don't think you get what the problem is since by your own omission you didn't read what I wrote and you clearly didn't research it ahead of time either. So again, what is the difference between the "uploaded by" sub categories (not the catcat!) and the "Files by User:X" categories? It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
did this user remember what s/he wrote? or is s/he even able to comprehend his/her own writing?
1st sentence: "Anyone know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is?"
"this" certainly refers to "Category:Files by uploader", the topic of this cfd.
@RZuo: A year later and there's still zero evidence that these two categories serve different purposes. Do you have any now or is it just condescension and insults all the way down on your side with this one? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created presumably because of an error. "Land camera" is not a specific model name, but was the name of almost all Polaroid instant cameras until the early 1980s, named after Edwin H. Land, himself the inventor of the "Polaroid Land process" and co-founder of Polaroid Corporation. 86.103.239.23811:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The number of search engine hits is hardly surprising, because "Polaroid Land Camera" is, as I tried to explain above, a synonym for "Polaroid Instant Camera". So what is the use of the category? Therefore, I propose to turn it into a redirect. --86.103.239.23813:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer but a Category:Polaroid Land Camera (neither in the singular nor in the plural form) as a subcategory of Category:Polaroid instant cameras makes no recognizable logical sense. "Polaroid Land camera" was neither model name nor designation of any class of Polaroid cameras or the like. "Polaroid Land Camera" was the Polaroid company's name for its instant print cameras from the time of their introduction in 1948 until the retirement of Edwin H. Land in 1982[6] and is therefore imprinted on afaik every Polaroid instant camera of that era (early roll film cameras have it on the back, later models on the front side). After that, "Land Camera" was omitted and only the name "Polaroid" remained on the camera housings. So changing the category name to Category:Polaroid instant film cameras with the visible imprint "Land camera" would be one way to eliminate the redundancy - but the better solution would be to make Category:Polaroid Land Camera a redirect to Category:Polaroid instant cameras. --86.103.247.3217:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a Land Camera is an Instant Camera from before the 90's, that makes it a valid and defining subcategory of Polaroid Instant Cameras, not a synonym. That it's not the name of a specific model isn't relevant - category names don't have to be of specific models, they just need to have certain characteristics in common (e.g. categories such as "Red cameras" or "People with cameras" would still be valid). ReneeWrites (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves; I think this is a big change that likely warrants discussion. Cc: Thewolfchild. Original template for COM:CDC: {{move cat|1=Groups of the United States Army Air Forces|2=Groups of the United States Army Air Forces|3=Please move all cats ending in "2d" to "2nd" and "3d" to "3rd", so that all ordinals are correct, uniform and in compliance with mos:1st on wp. (45 cats total) Thanks|user=Thewolfchild}} —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is, both of these categories contain photos that depict the exact same T-55AM tank, hull number 4133 (on the side of the turrett) and inventory number 4767 (on the front right track cover), so the 'T-55AM' category looks more appropriate.
It would confuse future users if a user page for a personal photo set is entitled "The City of San Francisco". I think it should be renamed "The Beat of the City by JCruzTheTruth" to better identify the purpose of the category. BriefEdits (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was the label on the original picture. Of course a mistake is always possible. Did you know Martin Rosciszewski personaly ?
If it is someone else, it must be a well-known geographer, possibly from Poland, invited to the Festival international de géographie in 2001. Could you find out who he is ?
In the first place we can remove the file from Wikidata, but please do not delete it on Commons.
There is only one painting by Strozzi in that museum - this situation is unchanged since 1893 and not likely to evolve. If another painting is acquired, the category could be recreated and would make more sense. Edelseider (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Although there is only one painting by Zanobi Strozzi in that museum, keeping that single file in a category makes it possible, or easier, to link it to "Paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg by artist" or "Paintings by Zanobi Strozzi by museum". This applies to every artist, with one or more paintings in that museum. --Fabrizio Garrisi (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree completely with Edelseider. A Category system is only helpful for greater units and not 1 file 1 category. The micro atomized categories make it more difficult to see the files. Better painting categories are for e.g. Paintings from Italy .., Religious paintings....Oursana (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway pubs is broader than that, it currently includes Railway House, Railway Hotel, Tap on the Line, The Railway, Railway Tavern, Station Inn.
If a pub's category is named "The Railway Inn", I'd still add it here. If "Inn" is absent, not.
Should be deleted. Contained only reproductions of colored lantern slides (German: Glasdiapositive), which are technically something else than photographs on reversal film; the files were moved to the new category "Hand colored photographic lantern slides of Switzerland". I doubt if there are any colored black-and-white pictures on reversal films, because color reversal films were available soon after the invention of the reversal film; so the parent category "Colored photographs taken on black-and-white reversal films" should also be deleted. Lu-xin (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to Oxford dictionary and Merriam Webster, laurel (uncountable) is the plant; laurels are "honour and praise given to somebody because of something that they have achieved", not only laurel wreaths. So category:laurels in art must be a subcategory of category:laurel in art, and category:laurel wreaths in art a subcategory of category:laurels in art--Pierpao.lo (listening)11:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference. Another issue: it seems to me that these should be under text logos anyway. What's the difference between a text logo and a letter logo? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: To confirm, you do agree that these 10 categories with the word "alphabet" should be merged up to their respective parents as listed above, keeping the categorization of the number of letters envolved, yes? -- Tuválkin✉✇03:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell arms in this category are examples of fantasy/fictional arms created by the same user with no indication of any real-world use. User appears to be using Commons as repository for their own artwork. Pseudomonas (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the filenames together with the contents has the potential to mislead webgoers (in the same way as bucket shops do, albeit in not such a profiteering way). Either they should be renamed to clarify their attributed/unofficial status and marked with {{Disputed coat of arms}}, or deleted. Arlo James Barnes14:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like these aren't really even disputed; it's one person who's come up with all of them as an art project. If there's evidence that some people are using them but others say they shouldn't, that's disputed. If no-one's using them they're… hypothetical, I guess? Pseudomonas (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seek a name change to: Category:Camps McKay and Russell, Paekākāriki. There are two reasons: (1) the two Camps were close together as shown in the photo in the reference cited below. Many images in the category (such as those of the 70th Anniversary celebrations) will related to both camps, but there are some images that are particular to one or the other. Changing the existing Category name will enable some images to be put into new sub-categories. (2) The recognised name of the town near the former camps is Paekākāriki (spelled with macrons). Here is a citation: [7]. Marshelec (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec. *Oppose. Create a new category for Camp Russell, if needed. The spelling of the nearby town is a separate issue. If the town name is incorrect, a rename can be done. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
imo the title should be "by language pair" (singular) as per convention.
but, in addition, what's the analogous category title for cat:trilingual text or even more? it's surely not "pair". "by language group"? should we then use a single word/phrase for all bilingual, trilingual... cat titles? RZuo (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with language pair, but I don't think we need language group: there are only 6 dictionaries with more than two languages and none of them have the same combination of languages. There is really no need to categorize them beyond multilingual. --rimshottalk16:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion. I think this should be a redirect, and declined speedy deletion on that basis, but the category was renominated for speedy deletion.
And:
@Joshbaumgartner I imagine this issue is solved by the redirect. The nominator has clarified the matter. It was a slightly odd nomination in that it lacked sufficient detail to allow anyone to make a decision except those who knew about it. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
categorizing independent objects (a glacier, a mountain) in a shared / combined category like this makes it difficult to find images of one of the objects, e.g. the mountain (you have to guess whether the image of the mountain will be with/out the glacier). It is not forbidden to use two separate categories on all of these images. It is not obvious for someone not knowing that combined category to use it at all, thus creating additional maintenance effort. I propose to resolve this category in favor of having two independent categories. Especially as the images for the glacier Pasterze are split by year anyway. Alternatively we could have category:Pasterze by viewpoint Kaiser-Franz-Josefs-Höhe and category:Johannisberg by viewpoint Kaiser-Franz-Josefs-Höhe. Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't fight for keeping the name of categories like this, but nevertheless I want to remark: Calling a small hill of 10 meter's height a mountain is not correct, for it's obviously different from a 2000s mountain. They are distinct from each other in the same way as a small chapel is from a cathedral. Thus, there are "chapels" categories beside "churches" categories (although it's often hard to decide whether a certain building is a chapel or a church). I admit, it doesn't make much sense creating "hills" categories, but why not keep categories like this one in question? They summarize all kinds of elevations better than only "mountains" would do. Combining churches and chapels is done by "religious buildings" categories, but is "mountains" a hypernym for both "mountains" and "hills"? Eweht (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content is a disaster. Still, disagree on a full deletion: "Heimatmuseum <town name>" implies something different than "Stadtmuseum" or "Ortsmuseum", and is a subcategory of "Heimat" which is wrong to apply to other local museums. Just an example, Fröndenberg/Ruhr has two local museums, one about the former industrial history of the town, and one Heimatmuseum about all other local history. I see plenty other local museums that are not "Heimat".
Counter-proposal 1: Make it a definition that only museums that are explicitly named Heimatmuseum/Heimatstube/Heimathaus/etc may be included, and that they are required to additionally be categorized under "Local museums of Germany/Austria/Switzerland". In that turn, move "Heimatmuseums in Bavaria" towards "Local museums in Germany". Then start recategorizing as per the new definitions.
Counter-proposal 2: Categorize them all under the local museums as per the original idea. "Heimatmuseums" (and/or "Heimatmuseum" without plural-s) are kept but as disambiguation category pointing towards "local museums of...", so that future editors are guided towards the correct category. That disambiguation would also be categorized under "Heimat", again to point users to the correct cat-tree.
Yes, linguistically problematic, maybe Keep as singular? de:Heimatmuseum shows that this is a subgroup of local museums (distinct from de:Stadtmuseum (Category:City museums, just for example). Having more experience now, I see both of my proposals last year as not the best idea: Instead Move all Germany-related content that is name-related to "Heimat" (-museum/-haus/-stube)" to Category:Heimatmuseum in Germany (same for "in Switzerland/Austria"), move all other content to local museums. --Enyavar (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make sense to combine German terms and English terms in this way? "Heimatmuseum in Germany" sounds strange. Also, I can't quite follow your reasoning that a "Heimatmuseum" is something different from what is called a "local museum" in English. Msb (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each Heimatmuseum is a local museum, but not the other way around; and we have enough items here to make "Heimatmuseum" a reasonably large sub-category. Local museum is a much broader term, it comprises of anything local: a museum only about the local factory (Zigarrenfabrikmuseum, Industriemuseum) or even a local prison, like this castle/former prison: These are not about Heimat. Neither are Eulenspiegelmuseum (local legend) or Alamannenmuseum (local ancient tribe). The Heimatmuseum is usually located in smaller towns or villages, has displays of ordinary/folksy items collected from the region (instead of highly valuable objects), and has a tiny budget and no real theme/focus. Category:City museums are larger and usally also have more non-Heimat-related stuff. To distinguish one type of museum from the other, I really suggest just going by the names of the museum: Stadtmuseum, Heimatmuseum, Dorfmuseum; and anything else would be "local".
Your examples of language mixes are not striking since they reuse nomina propria of subjects. Hence "Heimatmuseum" is of different value here. All in all, I support to retransfer them to the "Local museum"-category branch. Your hybrid solutions with some variations of the german word "heimatmuseum" is not a good solution in my opinion. It has great potential to create confusion and inconsistencies in the category system. Alternatively, could you create an article on Commons that addresses this? Msb (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, maybe we should wait for another opinion, since I don't exactly get why you object to my proposal here. "Article" on Commons? You mean, a better category description text? Or do you mean, post the question on the Village pump? --Enyavar (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I upload a lot of photos, but I am unaware of the standard ~riley implies exists.
~riley then deleted the redirect. I am going to admonish him or her for doing so. That was disruptive.
Some flickr contributors are prolific, and lots of WMF contributors have uploaded those free flickr images here. That is terrific!
Now, some of those flickr contributors have also made available their image on other sites, or have personally uploaded some of them here. For others, most I would guess, their flickr account is the only source of free images.
I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know whether a photographers photos came to us via flickr. I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know when a photographers photos came to us from both flickr and other sites, how many of them came from flickr.
No offense ~riley, but I wondered whether your assertion that you were following a standard isn't an instance of a phenomenon I have noticed. Us experienced contributors can entrench ourselves in strong opinions as to what does and does not make sense. It can be very tempting to jump from one's strong opinion as to what does or doesn't make sense, to thinking that one's opinion is so obviously correct there is no point asking fro other's opinions, to jumping to thinking that it is a "standard".
What we often find here is not one universally agreed upon standard, but rather contributors who focus on one particular topic will locally agree one a convention, and mistakenly THINK it is a unversally agreed upon standard, unaware that other good faith contributors, who focus on other topics, have adopted an incompatible standard over there.
Categories are a messy way to organize photos. I wish I had something better to suggeset. But I don't. What the crappiness of categories means is that we have to keep in mind they are a mess, and not blithely act like our own notions are a universally agreed upon standard. Geo Swan (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Geo Swam: for bringing this up. I share most of the concerns you share here. Personally I keep mind that categories are both a tool to organize the documentation, and a tool to supply those documents to the users and to inform them is the most effective and efficient way possible. The most effective way is to keep it as simple as possible. I my experience people generally don't know what Flickr is, so using that phrase complicates things.
If it was up to me, we would also not make this a hidden category but instead ad some general data about this guy. He has put on line 10 to 15 years ago his live time of amateur-photography of over 135.000 images, embracing the Creative Commons thought and offering them under the more open CC license.
I have been down this road before, being quite selective and upload small selective portions. And I guess I would have continued if not for the discussion you started here. You are quite right in this particular case it isn't the standard, yet. But it could be. A short introduction could stipulate the origin of the works. I hope this helps to make up your mind. Best regards. -- Mdd (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld" is perfectly fine. The purpose of categories isn't to store minor facts about a file or where it came from. And I don't think it's useful to know what specific website the images came from in this case. At least not in the name of the category. I assume that information is already included in the source and description though. At the end of the day we should have as many "Photographs by person X" categories as possible if for no reason then it helps us track copyright terms and basic biographical information about the photographer. That can't really be done in any sane way if photographs are being organized based on a Flickr user name. Although we could, and should, add a link to the photographers Flickr account to a Wikidata entry for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Good evening, I do not understand why this is not clear : 1 is for drinking, 2 is for cooking, 3 is for presenting and serving food. None for washing hands or feet... sincerely, --Bohème (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2, 3, and 4: table because they are decorated. The rest can be used anywhere. Perhaps it is better to have subcategories by appearance, like color and material. How do you think about that? JopkeB (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: What are the differences between three subcategories of Category:Bowls (vessel) by function and how can you see on a photo which one it is? Answers:
Arms by family name - not specific enough. Does it include French, German, Spanish heraldry? Duplicate of and better to use Category:Coats of arms of families of (... country), all well-established specific cats. There are 169 subcats in this category, whilst there are over 2,800 subcats in Category:Coats of arms of families of England and over 2,000 in Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, all listed alphabetically by family name.
It appears that Category:Arms by family name is designed for English/Scottish/Irish arms (i.e. broadly speaking British arms). We already have 3 categories covering this area, namely Category:Coats of arms of families of England, Category:Coats of arms of families of Scotland, Category:Coats of arms of families of Ireland.
The rules of heraldry are set by each nation, all with different styles and traditions, there is no such thing as "British heraldry". English heraldry is regulated by the College of Arms in London (under the English heralds) and Scottish heraldry is regulated by the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Edinburgh.
What about English families with French names? Are French families to be included too? The category would be too large if every family in the world is able to be included, regardless of the nation concerned. These two over-lapping cats are confusing.
It is not difficult to determine what nationality a coat of arms relates to (generally the nation in which the family came to prominence historically), and then to add it to the relevant nation's cat. There exist Category:Coats of arms of families of France, Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, etc, for all of Europe. Arms can appear in two cats, for example Bentinck, a family which achieved prominence in three countries, Netherlands, England and Germany Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OVERCAT Delete and upmerge to Category:Condensing steam locomotives. Not everything needs to be split by country and this is such a small group overall that it's merely adding layers of navigation to no purpose.
Question@Geo Swan: Is the building, location, or company in question actually named "Stone Distillery", or is the term merely descriptive? If it is the proper name, then the category should be kept as is so long as we do not have media of another place with the same proper name. If not, then it should be renamed to reflect the actual building name (or street address). Josh (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joshbaumgartner - Well, I have lived half a kilometre away, for over thirty years, and I have never heard it called, simply, "Stone Distillery". No, this is not a definitive test.
Category:Stone building in Toronto's Distillery District remains my preferred name. That district has street names, now. But I don't believe they are the original street names, or street numbering, because the whole campus was private property, for a long time, including the streets and alleys.
I'm fine with using the descriptive rename you propose, as it doesn't sound like "Stone Distillery" is a proper name...there isn't exactly a sign on/by the building with "Stone Distillery" as far as I am aware. Since no opposition has been posted in almost a year, you should be good closing this and moving forward with the rename. Josh (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical" is nonsensical in this context. This category has been created simply to avoid having scans of "Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" in the main category about the species. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The item is from 1779, that's historical by any sense of the word. The category could also be used for historical (out-of-copyright) photos and suchlike that are eligible for Commons but of low demand among using wikipedias; it's a useful subcategory type used in many other taxon categories - MPF (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When does historical end? 100 years ago? 50? Will you be moving all the images of the species of that age to his category? Since when do we categorise images or anything else according to "demand among using Wikipedias"? The only other category named "[taxon name] (historical files)" is Category:Medicago sativa (historical files), which is your own recent creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of other subcategories have ill-defined or undefinable start- or end-points. Two options for defining 'historical' here, (a) historical is for files that are copyright-expired (with only a few exceptions [e.g. US-gov PD] a long gap to non-historical files starting with the creation of GNU and Creative Commons licensing), and (b) historical being for scanned material predating digital technology (less well defined by date, but actually gives a better break between generally low quality scans of printed material, and generally higher quality digital photos). There are lots of other categories named "[taxon name] (historical images)" and also "[place name] (historical images)". Currently Commons has very few historical non-image texts categorised by taxa, but that may change as more old scientific publications become available. - MPF (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation is by whatever is most useful, so that similar items are grouped together. If someone wants to look specifically for a historical image, it is useful if they can all be gathered together in one subcategory, rather than interspersed among less similar files. - MPF (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: I agree with sorting material by age, but it is more useful if people actually know what age of material we are talking about. This is why categorization by century/decade/year (as appropriate for the topic) is far superior to subjective terms such 'old', 'historical', etc., as then users can instantly know exactly what age of material is covered by a category. Josh (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just about every file is historical, which makes it automatically subjective as to exactly how historical it has to be to count as historical. This is why we temporally categorize by year, which is not subjective. This cat should be deleted, and if sorting out material this old makes sense, place it in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos in the 18th century instead which would be much more clear about what age we are talking about. Josh (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: - that would make sense, if we had hundreds, or even dozens, of such files; at the moment, we don't. It makes better sense to gather all such files in one category while there are still very few of them, rather than have numerous tiny subcategories cluttering up the taxon main category. Can you think of category name that would cover all such, and would be as compact as 'historical'? Further subcategories can always be created in the future should the number of files to go in them increase substantially. Not that my thoughts matter anyway, given that I've been labelled as a disruptive editor and don't have much wish to continue editing as a result. - MPF (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you "labelled as a disruptive editor", and by whom? I told you "your removal of such files [including PDFs & audio] to inappropriate categories [ending in " (illustrations)"], apparently because you want to keep parent categories for images in 'demand among using wikipedias', is not 'correct', it is disruptive.". It is; and "disruptive" is an adjective you yourself have used to describe others' edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. And to which named individual are you claiming that was aimed at?? How to p*ss off a long-established editor in one easy lesson. The antithesis of being kind. What is your reason for wanting to bully me off Commons? - MPF (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" is an article, which goes under "literature", which goes under ".. in art".
so if it's really necessary to create an extra layer for this single subcat, it should be "Luscinia megarhynchos in art" or "nightingales in art" first. this will go under Category:Birds in art by taxon. since nightingale is quite a popular theme in art, i think this subcat is ok and will fill up soon, even though its current contents might not be plenty.
In the Gujarati article gu:ઝૂલતો પુલ, મોરબી, the bridge is titled as the "Julto Pul Morbi" (Morbi suspension bridge). Preferably, the category name should be translated and changed to English as the "Category:Morbi suspension bridge". The current category name as it stands, makes no sense. Multituberculata (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Wait, you state above that the term for both is "tea houses" (this matches the predominant naming as well), but yet suggest renaming to "teahouses" (no space). Is this your intent, or would "tea houses in X" be the right name format? Josh (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think applies to Commons but the logic there is similar to the logic here when it comes to miscellaneous/other categorization. We should avoid such categories as they are a hurdle to finding information. They may seem a convenient way to 'clean up' a parent category, but in reality, things should only be sorted into meaningful sub-categories. If there are so many contents that they are cluttering the parent, then we should come up with meaningful categories to sort them into, not just dump them in junk drawer. Josh (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In der BfN Datenbank und dadurch auch in der EU und allen anderen internationalen Datenbanken ist das Gebiet unter dem Namen "Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen". Hast du einen Link zu der Verordnung? --GPSLeo (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Das Gebiet muss irgendwann umbenannt worden sein, es heißt aktuell ziemlich sicher offiziell "Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen". Ein entsprechendes Dokument zu der Umbenennung konnte ich jetzt aber auch nicht finden. GPSLeo (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wieso "ziemlich sicher"? Maßgebend ist der Name aus der Verordnung, diese wurde seit der Ausweisung 1961 nicht geändert. Der Name bei der LUBW ist ziemlich sicher falsch (aus meiner Erfahrung nichts ungewöhnliches) - zumal Tübingen und Plochingen recht weit auseinander liegen und für die Ausweisung von Landschaftsschutzgebieten die Landkreise zuständig sind. Das LSG Mittleres Neckartal wurde mit zwei Verordnungen von den Landkreisen Tübingen und Reutlingen ausgewiesen. Der Landkreis Esslingen hat keine entsprechende Verordnung - die weiteren Landschaftsschutzgebiete bis Plochingen heißen „Neckar-, Erms- und Autmuttal im Verwaltungsraum Neckartenzlingen“, „Gebiete um Nürtingen, Neckarhausen und Raidwangen“, „Gebiete bei Unterensingen und Zizishausen“, „Landschaftsbestandteile und Landschaftsteile entlang der Reichsautobahn Stuttgart München in den Landkreisen Esslingen, Nürtingen, Göppingen und Ulm“ und „Wernau (Neckar)“. Möglichweise gab es ein LSG dieses Namens aus der Nazi-Zeit, als Schutzgebiete noch vom Kultminister ausgewiesen wurden. Dieses wäre aber spätestens mit der Neu-Ausweisung 1961 aufgehoben worden. In keiner der entsprechenden Verordnungen der LSGs zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen steht aber ein entsprechender Aufhebungsvermerk.--Tragopogon (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn, wie du schreibst, die Landkreise für die Ausweisung zuständig sind müsst in den beiden Landkreisen Tübingen und Reutlingen genau der gleiche Fehler passiert sein. Daher denke ich, dass es eine Verordnung gab, die vermutlich Landesweit Namen von Schutzgebieten geändert hat, aber in der Gebietsdatenbank nicht korrekt verlink wurde. Das ganze muss in jedem Fall vor Ende 2012 passiert sein, da in der Natura 2000 Datenmeldung an die EU für 2012 der Name Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen steht. [10]GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Für die Meldung wurden die Schutzgebiete aus der LUBW-Datenbank automatisiert mit den FFH-Gebieten verschnitten. Eine Verordnung, die landesweit Namen von Landschaftsschutzgebieten ändert, kann es zuständigkeitshalber eigentlich nicht geben. Insbesondere ergibt der Name keinen Sinn, da das Schutzgebiet schon vor Neckartenzlingen endet und vor Plochingen noch Städte wie Nürtingen und Wendlingen am Neckar liegen. Am besten wird sein, ich frage mal direkt beim Landratsamt nach.--Tragopogon (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that many (if not all) pictures here are added by automated processes as the result of "Vincent" tags on Flickr images, referring to the old British motorcycle brand. mr.choppers (talk)-en-03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a disambiguation category. You'd have the given name, surname, the Don McClean song, the motorcycle brand, some populated places, and probably other stuff. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting versus lumping? It's a time old question when creating categories.
Category:Sledding tracks has the following text, which offers some guidance on how that editor saw this situation.
English: Constructed tracks and slides for downhill winter sledding/tobogganing. For natural slopes used for sledding/tobogganing, see Category:Sledging hills.
It also adds the question of regarding #Category:Toboggan slides #Category:Snow slides #Category:Sledding tracks #Category:Sledging hills. I'd say that Sledging hills is the overall category. Then sub-categories of Sledding tracks, Snow slides and Toboggan slides. It would appear that Sledding tracks and Toboggan slides may be the same, i.e., developed tracks. Toboggan slides in the U.S. are chutes built to fix the width of a toboggan. A Sledding track, assuming it's a constructed track (see above), could be a cleared hill (often in designed sledding areas) or it could be more specific in that it's contoured to create chutes or it's actually framed by wood or masonry to create chutes. I don't know the attempt, but would think that it may be layered, 1) Sledding hills with 2a) Sledding tracks and 2b) Snow slides. Then placing 3) Toboggan slides under Sledding tracks. Too layered, I'd just have three sub-categories. Chris Light (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not eliminate Toboggan slides in favor of the more generic sledding tracks. Mostly because in my 40+ years of sledding, I went to sledding hills or toboggan runs (slides). Snow slides and Sledding tracks were no terms used in the numerous communities in the US where I've lived. I'll accept that they are terms used in other parts of the US or the world. Therefore: I would suggest either redirects to which ever terms are generally preferred or just using all references in some form of linkage. The splitting may be redundant, but this is not an area of academic study to have fixed definitions. How are the users going to search? We can (I won't) check Wikipedia to see what articles are titled for this topic. Chris Light (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created the above two categories Rievaulx Terrace, images from Flickr, and Images of Armley House from Flickr. I am happy for them to be re-categorised as Rievaulx Terrace and Armley House. Is there any objection if I just do that, and remove them from this listing? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem? Why are these categories redundant? What is exactly incorrect in this category tree? Why should sources and subjects not be mixed? Why may images of for instance Germany not also be categorized by source? JopkeB (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that source and topic categories are intersected. Source categories should be flat and not split out. These categories are hidden making it harder for images to find.
This is basic established practice here on Commons to not split source categories out. Didn't you notice that we have millions of Flickr images, but only a handful are in these incorrect categories? As for Geograph, that categories experiment is up for deletion next. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realise that as a result of deleting categories which have been functioning for years, by replacing those disliked categories with a higher-tier category, you are now filling those higher-tier category pages with hundreds of random images so that it is hard to find what you are looking for, among the mass of them. How exactly is that improving Wikipedia? I like to separate out Geograph imaages from the rest, because most of them are small-size pictures, making them less useful than most of the WP-editor contributions and the Flickr pictures, which are mostly a great deal larger, better quality, and more detailed. In general, I only use Geograph pictures as a last resort, and when there are a lot of them it really helps to categorise them away from the other, better pictures. Storye book (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of your explanation, I still don't understand the reason why this is an incorrect category tree. There are many other hidden categories that have subcategories by country, subject and/or date. See for instance Category:Images from Anefo, which is a source and hidden category, and then one of its subcategories, for instance Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll and its many sub-subcategories by location, subject and/or date; this category Images from Anefo also has a flat list, so files are categorized in the main category as well as in a subcategory. Would this be a solution for the problem: to categorize files in the source category Category:Flickr as well as in one of its subcategories? --JopkeB (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Now that the delete Geograph images by place categories has taken place, in my opion it has left us with a completely useless category of Geograph Britain and Ireland which now has a massive 4,128,666 images in it. This is making it completely unworkable to find images for a particular location in the UK. I think we have made a big mistake by deleting place categories.Kolforn (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you felt the need to also leave this message on my talk page. You really don't get it. Don't mix the source and the topic. Source categories are flat and in the case quite huge to just indicate where an image came from. For what's in it we have the regular category tree. By creating these intersection categories you're just hiding the images in a hidden category outside the main category reducing the chance of any user ever finding it. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: The problem with that is that an awful lot of Geograph images have been transferred by a bot, which lazily loads the images without a more specific category, thus making impossible to use a regular category tree to make a refined search for any location you are looking for. By narrowing it down to a county or city had made searches a little easy, but not now as they are in the huge category of Geograph Britain and Ireland. Kolforn (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove from the TOPIC category tree. The problem is not the categories themselves. There is no issue with having source categories subcategorized by topic in and of itself. That said, there is a big issue when files are removed from true topical categories and moved into a source category just because the source category is broken down by topic. For example, Category:Flickr images of Germany is fine, but there are images under it that appear nowhere in the topical Category:Germany category tree (except by the flawed inclusion of Category:Flickr images of Germany there. This means that someone looking for images of Germany will never find these images unless they narrow down by source, which most users do not care about. This is why, per COM:CAT, TOPIC and SOURCE category trees are two different things. They should remain separate, and images should be separately categorized and sorted in each tree independently. Instead of nesting TOPIC and SOURCE categories into eachother, {{Cat see also}} can provide a handy quick navigation without encouraging a break of the system. I know we have gotten very lazy about this but mixing the core trees is a significant problem for usability. Josh (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That just encourages bad behavior. If it would just be a redundant category next to the normal one I really wouldn't care. The problem is that users keep mixing it with the main category tree and moving images outside of the main category tree. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Multichill
OK got your message, Not a big fan of these Geograph bots, especially the main uploader one as it dumps many images in the wrong place. For example Category:Norwich. Here the bot has placed images from villages and places from all over Norfolk and has just made a huge amount of work moving them to correct category’s, I have been working on just this category for weeks. As for adding the Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland, I have been doing this so as to add |Norfolk to the end of it to try to place all the Geograph images of Norfolk in one group together within the category which now has over 4,304,655 images in it, making it usless if you wanted to find images specific to Norfolk. There was a category tree within that was county specific but these have all been deleted now by a Dutch editor who decided that this was in his words just encourages bad behavior what ever that meant! Kolforn (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think these are, sorry to say, categorisation freak. "taken with xx" and topical cats should not intersect. they are hard to manage and they also needlessly separate files of the same topic into subcats just because the equipment used is different.
my suggestion is to move all these files back to the respective "taken with xx" and "photographs/aerial photographs/... of xx" and delete these cats.--RZuo (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove from TOPIC tree. @RZuo: These are 'Media type' categories under the split listed in COM:CAT, as opposed to normal 'Topics' categories. There is nothing inherently wrong with subcategorizing them by topic (including location) if it makes sense and is useful to those using these categories. The problem is when they get sewn into the 'Topics' category tree by adding them to topical categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Ricoh THETA in Hong Kong placed somewhere under Category:Hong Kong). When that happens it encourages people to sort out images from Category:Hong Kong (a topic category) into a media type category, making it impossible for a normal user to find the image without narrowing down to a specific 'media type', which in most cases is not a parameter most users care about--certainly not to the degree of caring which type of drone the image was taken from. Each file should be separately categorized within the topic tree and the media type tree. How far down it is sub-categorized is not an issue, so long as it isn't removed from the tree. Josh (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i fail to see why it should be allowed to create say "taken with canon 6d in chile", to diffuse files that should be in "taken with canon 6d" to various kinds of subsets of it. if this is ok, then what about "photographs of obama taken with nikon cameras"? "taken with iphone 4 in aleppo"? all these kinds of granular intersections? RZuo (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general, categorization as a tool to make claims (such as the linguistic root of a subject's name) is not a great idea, as citations cannot be cleanly provided. This is especially true when the information is not cut and dry. For example, the origins of the name "Oregon" is not clear--Spanish seems to be the most likely, but French and even Portuguese origins have been postulated and no origin has been widely accepted as reliable. Claiming it is Spanish (or French, or even all three) by putting it in a Spanish category doesn't convey that nuance. Josh (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a useless category structure to divide 50 major categories based on someone's linguistic hypothesis. The assignments for each state can be randomly picked apart: Pennsylvania was named after the Englishman "Penn" while "Silva" is a Latin word. Yet it is sorted only into "Old Dutch" (is "Penn" derived from Old Dutch??), not into Latin and English. New Hampshire was named after the region in England which has "Hamtun" as a Saxon/Germanic root word, English is a derived form. New Mexico certainly doesn't have a Spanish root word, but was put together from English and Nahuatl. And English is again rooted in various older languages, in the case of "New..." the root is both Germanic and Latin, rooted in Proto-Indo-European (*néwos)... Ugh.
I don't question the category itself but whether the items in this category necessitate "Westminster Abbey" disambiguation when often the only monument is at this location. If multiple monuments exist of course disambiguation is warranted. However here it's as a default and I question whether that is appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is appropriate. It is plain commonsense, and good practice, when uploading a photograph or creating a category to provide as concise and precise a description of both the subject and location as possible. Disambiguation is not the criteria. Judging by the files listed under Category: Church monuments in England by cathedral including the location in the category title would appear to be common practice. You might also want to consider looking at the category Graves in the Père-Lachaise Cemetery for a few more examples.14GTR (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata gives a description of "iron filings" as "fine iron powder". So why does this indicate that they are two different materials, to the extent that Commons needs two distinct categories for them? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If, as the talk page suggests, a goal could be to identify images with only a Malayalam language description, then the better approach is to make a suggestion for hidden categories from the description template or have bot maybe troll through various 'unidentified categories' checking for the ML template. Pinging @Sreejithk2000 and Dvellakat: and User:Vssun already knows. This seems like asking for trouble if we really expanded upon this with all languages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I believe the original intension was that this will be a tracking category for images which does not have any meaningful description/categorization. In an ideal case, this category will be empty. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previously declined speedy twice, so nominating for fuller discussion. Per User:Place Clichy, this is a "Bad name (alphabetical order): this category breaks templates used for the automatic population of categories". Perhaps fixing the templates would be a better solution? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: Let me explain. The template in question is {{Aircraft of in category}}. It is used to automatically set the content of categories such as Category:Aircraft of Iceland in Finland (code: {{Aircraft of in category|Iceland|Finland}}). This template will automatically look if Category:Relations of Iceland and Finland exists (pay attention to the order), and only if it doesn't exist it will look for the correct Category:Relations of Finland and Iceland. A category redirect is unfortunately understood as an extant category and breaks the pattern. I asked at mediawikiwiki:Help talk:Extension:ParserFunctions and the answer was that there is no way in wikimedia code to test the alphabetical order of two text strings so "fixing" the template is not an option.
I guess the reason why the speedy was declined twice is that the contributors that looked into it had the wrong impression that the category was not empty, as the automatically-populated category appears present. This has lead to unfortunate attempts to solve the problem, such as inverting the order of the countries, which of course does not work as the category then ends up as Aircraft of Finland in Iceland instead of the opposite. However, this will automatically fix itself once only the correct target category exists. To make this more obvious, I temporarily disabled the automatic template (this can be reverted afterwards).
That's why I propose that the best solution is to delete the useless empty category redirect.
Comment It appears that the fix should be to the template, not removing this redirect. What is needed is either 1) to build in a sorting of parameters 1 and 2 alphabetically or 2) add a function to the template to test if a category is a redirect and if so to treat it as if it does not exist. Unfortunately both of these are beyond my experience to implement, so perhaps the redirect deletion is more expedient, but I hope that someone can implement one of the 2 template fixes above at some point. Josh (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the template most likely could be fixed by writing a Lua module, but actually doing so is beyond my abilities. In the meantime, the category redirect is functionally useless and is messing up correct categorization of the Aircraft category, so it should be deleted. --R'n'B (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1894 version has different image(s) as seen here:
Since you removed the images from the 1905 category, which they are clearly in that version, I'll have to duplicate / reupload the images for the 1905 category. No problem. Have a nice day. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All required categories for a move were already in place; and the target category tree was more detailed and fitting our usual conventions much better. So, this was a fully redundant category tree, probably created when someone couldn't find the correct one (and it is more complicated). Per the proposal, I just moved the photos now and redirected all categories to the ones in Category:Photographs of flags of Ukraine by country. I think this CfD may be closed. --Enyavar (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about creating a "Category:Static maps" for maps which portray a certain state of affairs in the past (a historical situation, if you will) and thus should not be updated to reflect new information per Commons:Overwriting existing files "Changes that reflect different data (e.g. updating a map), where the file has not been marked as updateable". Then I ran into this existing Category:Outdated maps. This category may have a legitimate historic purpose if it has a properly defined scope. At the moment it does not have any sort of description, and I'm not sure if this is the best title for this category and its subcategories either. 'Outdated' may imply that the file should be updated and thus placed in the 'Category:Files that need updating', but 'outdated' could also simply mean 'no longer current' without any sort of call to action to update it. Perhaps 'static maps' is a better title? This name says more clearly the maps should stay as they are and not be updated. Perhaps more explicitly would be 'Non-updateable maps'? This would closely follow the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. Curious to hear what others think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, never saw this one before. My first problem was to tell the difference to "Category:Superseded maps", as none of the two categories is properly defined. But I infer from usage that these two cats are different: "Outdated" are (probably??) those that are simply not up to date with current knowledge of a subject. "Superseded" are those that have definitely been replaced with better material, but are kept around for documentation.
(now about the proposal by Leeuw: Anything that is not an animated map, is a static map, nevermind how up-to-date it is. We'd need a different name if we went that way.)
My counter-proposal: Generally all maps on commons should fall into one of the following four: "Current map" (as the standard which is implied for all maps unless stated otherwise), "Old map" (by definition outdated, but that's made obvious from the publication date), "History map" (modern map displaying a historical situation but still "current" to our knowledge and understanding of history) and finally the comparatively rare "Old history map" (about a historical situation, but using outdated knowledge).
The only problem with the above arises when a "current" map is no longer up to date because reality changes. As I understand it, our desired flowchart is then to recategorize them: "Current" (i.e. no special category) --> "Outdated" (but not replaced) --> "Superseded" (i.e. has a replacement now). If an "outdated" map gets overwritten, the "outdated" category needs to be removed, because the new file is "current" again. If the "outdated" map gets "superseded" by a new upload, the two files need to link to each other and "outdated" has to be replaced with "superseded". Afterwards, the "superseded" maps may be treated in different ways. If they had always been wrong in the first place, they can just be deleted. It happens. Other "superseded" maps just result from a change of .png to .svg format, then the superseded file can be kept around n that category for documentation purposes. Or there is a sub-category that holds historical maps (like Category:Maps of the history of the European Union), where the "previously current" files can be moved into. Or in some cases, all you need to do is some renaming and changing map description, adding the "until 2019" or "as of 2012". Then when it is clear that the map describes a historical situation now, it is again a "current map of history", and no longer a "superseded current map".
Soooo... Support just for changing the descriptions, if we can all agree on that. I fear that most maps will completely eschew the "ideal" updating/superseding workflow I described above, but wouldn't it be nice to have a defined process. --Enyavar (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five rays is not a heraldic term. The correct term is "mullet", or "mullet of 5 rays", to be more specific. We should be wary of coining a new heraldic term. Not used in blazons. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reason is there doesnt seem to be a concept "Patrol and town meeting". the soldiers patrol and hold "town meeting", doing two things instead of a single thing with this name.
Thanks for your explanation. You have a point. It is perhaps an idea to add "Category:Patrolling" before deleting "Category:Patrol and town meeting". 84.29.170.6216:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this category as an analogue of Category:Toys related deletion requests, to make it easier to track deletion requests related to AI-generated images. Since AI generation is still within the "wild west" of copyright, it'd probably be beneficial to have a centralised record of such DRs, in case there is any present or future need to refer to past DRs. The parent categories are there because I can't think of any other categories to put them into (I used the same two categories used by Category:Toys related deletion requests); feel free to adjust them as you see fit. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs10:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare I think we should definitely have a category for DRs related to the copyright status of AI-generated works, but that’s not what the current category name says. Should it say something like Copyright status of AI work-related deletion requests? Or AI-generation related deletion requests/Copyright (which would also allow AI-generation related deletion requests/Scope, which could become an important category too)? Brianjd (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally in favor of splitting the category. My only reservation is that a discussion might contain both aspects of scope and copyright. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 冷床系 would be a such discussion. Should the page then remain the parent category, or be categorized into both subcategories? whym (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I supported splitting the category above, but it also seems fine to uncategorize Category:AI-generation related deletion requests from the DW category and the TOO category, and add the DW and TOO categories to individual deletion requests when appropriate. In fact, doing so might be more precise because DW and TOO issues do not automatically come with AI works (although they might often do). whym (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposal by Whym ("uncategorize Category:AI-generation related deletion requests from the DW category and the TOO category, and add the DW and TOO categories to individual deletion requests") makes the most sense. Not every AI-generation related deletion request necessarily is DW or TOO related (it might also be scope related, there might be other issues). But a category for AI-generation related deletion requests is useful, I think we will have a lot of AI generated image uploads in the future... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a maintenance category and should have a hat note to indicate it as such.
Rename Category:Media with estimated locations to Category:Media with imprecise location The description and name do not seem to match. The name 'estimated' speaks to the method of specifying the location, while the description speaks more about the precision of the location. While it is logical to correlate estimation with imprecision, they are not necessarily the same thing. If I accurately pin an image as being in the United States, that may be completely accurate and definitely not an estimate, but yet also incredibly imprecise because that country is very large. On the other hand if I guess that it is the eastern end of N Richards St in Portland, Oregon, that is pretty precise but just an estimate and thus may not be accurate. It appears that this category is primarily concerned with increasing the precision of the location (e.g. Location is identified as the United States, but not which state yet) versus being concerned with the accuracy of the location (e.g. Location is identified as the United States but is possibly a different country). Thus I suggest the rename to better reflect the actual purpose of the category. Josh (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole system of categorization of photographs by country, sub-division, and date taken is well developed. It is inevitable in any such system at any given point in time that one can identify particular nodes that are under-utilized (even down to 1 image), but nit-picking those particular nodes for deletion seems deleterious to the system as a whole. We already have a standard line at which a category such as this should be deleted, and that is if it is empty. 1 image is not empty, so I see no harm in keeping this as is, and to the contrary, I see the harm in seeking to snip the small buds on the bush just on the idea that they are not big enough yet. Josh (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: Yes, but the system continues to grow. Why should we spend time trying to pick off specific categories just because they aren't very big? I see the discussion you reference, which is still open, but someone has violated CfD process by making the changes before the CfD was properly closed, making the discussion rather moot at this point. Josh (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner You don't see the purpose of the discussion? If I didn't start it, why wouldn't we have hundreds of little Cheyenne, Wyoming by individual date categories? Would those have been useful? I agree about not killing off buds that could be necessary which is why I don't like more of the tiny Wyoming ones but I'm not listing the entire structure (I do a lot of that myself) but again, this is a single date in 1973 with no other images for the entire United States so I don't see what is gained by layers and layers of subcategories that likely won't ever grow for decades. It is especially headache inducing because they often don't connect up the tree correctly and entire categories of images go missing. Again, this is a sole image from 1973, the only category in Category:June 1973 United States photographs broken down further, and the sole image in Category:June 1973 in Wyoming broken down to the individual date. It's a mess of branches for one image that easily can go back to the single US category for the specific date and the month category for the state. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: The purpose of the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming photographs taken on 2007-08-07 was whether or not to delete a specific category. And yes, that becomes rather moot if that category has already been deleted. If you really want to discuss a more system-wide matter of what the reasonable boundaries are for how specific to sub-categorize and how much content warrants how much categorization, that is an entire different level and would need to involve a bit more before we could consider a consensus to be reached. As it stands, picking off the single Cheyenne category does nothing to preclude hundreds or more small city- and date-specific categories being created--that's just not how CfDs work. Likewise, this discussion is specific to whether to delete Category:Wyoming photographs taken on 1973-06-01, and does not, as of yet, preclude a thousand similar categories from being created, deleted, or retained independent of this discussion.Josh (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category shouldn't have been created if there was no images to go in it. Also, it's way to granular anyway. The only justification for having a category like this is for the navigational template, which is just a ridiculously stupid reason to create categories. People shouldn't be creating categories just to make navigation templates have blue links, period. Otherwise it just massively degrades the ability of users to find the images they are looking for. Really, most of these super granular and mostly empty "photographs taken on" categories and their corresponding navigation templates should be deleted as useless cruft. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Agree Yes, Ferry landings should be the parent category, with Ferry ports, Ferry shelters and Ferry piers as subcategories. I think Ferry terminals should stay as a subcategory of Ferry ports because they (nearly?) always are at a ferry port.
@JopkeB: Normally a landing would be something within a port: a particular dock or quay in a "port" in the broad sense (e.g. a harbor). But "ferry port" doesn't usually mean "a port where ferries are among the ships that dock there". I suppose it could sometimes mean a group of landings or docks, dedicated to ferries, within a port, but usually it means pretty much exactly the same thing as a "ferry landing". At least in my experience, "ferry terminal" implies a facility, and I suppose it emphasizes the building rather than the dock, though at least around the Puget Sound/Salish Sea area we consider the dock itself part of the terminal. I suppose that if you have (for example) a river ferry that on one side or both has a dock that has no building, you'd call that a "landing" but not a "terminal". I also suppose that on a ferry that goes more or less straight across a relatively narrow river, you'd never call either end a "port". - Jmabel ! talk04:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what is required is more than just a minor adjustment of categories. Some more substantial modification would seem appropriate. The expression "ferry port" is a little confusing. However, I would regard it as having the meaning assigned to it in the applicable Wikidata item, ie a "port with facilities for the loading and unloading of ferries". It could therefore include, eg, Category:Port of Dover, Kent, Category:Trelleborg harbour and Category:Überseehafen Rostock. "Ferry terminal" would be a structure, probably including a building of some description, at which ferries terminate and are loaded and unloaded. It would not necessarily be within a "ferry port" and would therefore not be a child category of "ferry port". It would include, eg, Category:Isle of Man ferry terminal, Liverpool and Category:Fährcenter Rostock. "Ferry pier" would be a pier or wharf at which ferries berth, probably ordinarily on a voyage from somewhere else to somewhere else. An example would be Category:Ferry wharves in Sydney. "Ferry landing" would be a facility falling short of a structure, at which ferries land; it would include sloped places at the side of rivers, etc. Again, it would not necessarily be within a "ferry port". Bahnfrend (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Question What exactly was the proposal (in short), what is the consensus about? Can you please point out what changes should be made following the discussion? --JopkeB (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added Commons:Deletion requests/File:宣材写真.jpg to this category (more specifically, to a newly-created subcategory for DRs closed as ‘deleted’). After all, the closing statement says: dubious licensing. It must be about licensing, right?
But this category is poorly defined. It has the subcategory Copyright deletion requests. How can copyright be a subset of licensing? It should be the other way around. Copyright is a more general subject that covers questions about whether works are copyrighted at all (ToO, notice, renewal, government exemption, URAA, etc), as well as things like FoP and derivative works. Licensing is just one small part of copyright.
Brianjd, what specifically is your concern? I don't think dubious licensing fits as it sounds more like the question was whether the uploader actually took the picture and thus the license is dubious. This doesn't fit into say Category:Licensing laundering-related deletion requests so it's not clear what would be the issue and I don't think we need to categorize "we don't trust the uploader" deletion discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As probably the majority - or at least a very large part - of deletion requests on Commons are related to copyright, I question the usefulness of this category, created in 2017. The currently 43 DR pages directly in this category, out of potentially many tens of thousands, or 38 in Category:Copyright deletion requests/deleted, and the nine(!) in Category:Copyright deletion requests/kept, seem arbitrary. As the more specific subcategories, particularly Category:Copyright deletion requests by artist, seem more useful, I think a solution could be to make this a {{CatCat}} and remove it from all DR pages that don't pertain to a more specific subcategory; also remove the generic "deleted" and "kept" categories there. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi It is interesting that every DR page in the ‘/kept’ subcategory and most DR pages in the ‘/deleted’ subcategory has been visited by me (as shown by the way my browser formats the links). It is likely that most, if not all, of those DR pages were added to those categories by me too. I know that I have been adding many DR pages to Copyright deletion requests, then moving them to the appropriate subcategory when they are closed. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the copyright category is basically a catch-all for the vast majority of discussions but that doesn't make it useless. It's probably better to organize things into child categories but CatCat doesn't make sense because there will probably be some discussion that hasn't been resolved (not every country needs a subcategory at the moment and burying things into one the first time it comes up with make it harder not easier for others to find). As of now, I see keeping things are they are. For the licensing-related ones, if the child categories are related then the kept/deleted children here need to be filled up the same way. This is all just a system to hopefully get more eyes and/or more experienced users on various topics, not a categorization onto itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary and convenient to know past deletion/kept judgements. If possible, It's preferable standardize and automate (Categorized by bot) the processes for efficiency. But at present, Relying on human power is unavoidable. --Benzoyl (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every subcategory’s name indicates that it is about a country’s laws. This has two problems:
A deletion request relating to a particular country might be about something other than that country’s laws. For example, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip, Infrogmation wrote (links and emphasis added): ‘I don’t know what’s considered proper or improper at the Boryeong Mud Festival, but do note that the “Oops” is not the not in the original Flickr photographer’s description, but rather is editorializing retitling by the Commons uploader. As to the young girl in Uganda, is there any reason to think that her appearance is in any way considered improper or remarkable in her place and culture? If not, I see no reason to delete.’
Keep This may be true, but why would it relate to the existence of these categories? Also do you mean to delete all subcategories? If yes, you need a wider argument. If no, this being not empty, there is no reason to delete it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann This is categories for discussion, not categories for deletion, and I never expressed a desire to delete any categories here. I thought it was obvious that I wanted the categories renamed and/or moved to a different part of the category tree. Brianjd (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A parent for country-related deletion requests that covers all relationships should exist if there are issues related to the country that are not a matter of law. For example:
The exact naming of categories is not the point here and they probably are their own discussion to sort out, but fixing the structure is probably more pressing. Josh (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the structure and names are fine. The consent requires do seem related to the laws of a country (maybe cultural a bit) and there could be a consent structure separate from country ones for that purpose if people care enough. This is more internal structure than for readers/viewers so some flexibility is fine. I think adding a header for Algeria deletion requests that aren't Algerian law-related adds little. What non-law issue would there be? It would just be "this person took an image from the internet that is in Algeria but the license is wrong"? The first question would be "could this PD in Algeria because (a) old; (b) government; (c) whatever" so it would just fall back into the law related issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@JopkeB: All photographs which would belong under Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands should be sorted into Category:Photographs of Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, as well as any other relevant sub-cats of Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Traditionally, we would not have this intersection category, as per COM:CAT, topical and media categories are separate trees. However, I have seen more and more cross-over, and while most topics do not yet have a 'photographs of x' sub-category (especially those where nearly all we have is photographs of the subject, if we are going to have 'videos of x', 'paintings of x', etc., then I guess we should be okay with 'photographs of'. Josh (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support elimination of all images and make it categories only, which is what I think the discussion above supports. I agree that photographs would basically duplicate the main category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Josh, Iamthecheese44 and Ricky81682, for your thoughts. Unless someone can point out which photographs in this category have been made with "a photographic style or technique, or which contain samples of professional or artistic photographs", my proposal is:
Otherwise I think that we get a lot of Category:Photographs of X with only one subcategory Category:Portrait photographs of X, which I think is only one click more to get to where you want to be (I do not like these redundant extra clicks and I learned that most users do not like this as well) while they have no added value. --JopkeB (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably so. I agree that if the "photographs of person" category only has the subcat "portrait photographs of person" under it, the first should be done away with as an unnecessary extra step. Josh (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless a good bit of the confusion came through this edit by User:Look2See1 (now indef-blocked for category edits against consensus), where he added Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis as a parent cat; other similarly-named categories then followed this pattern (some might have been already extant, and similarly edited by Look2See1, I haven't looked through all the histories).
@Joshbaumgartner: I don't particularly support having the intersection category. Just remarking that seemed to be at least someone's intent here, given parent categories. But you are right about how to name it, if we were to create it. - Jmabel ! talk05:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the lengthy existing category names ("as photographed by ") may indicate an awareness that these kinds of "ethnographic" photographs are frequently rather more artistic compositions than realistic images of tribal people. In colonial India, numerous picture books were produced with illustrations purporting to demonstrate in a single composition the dress, lifestyle, and physiognomy of the various tribes and castes, but because of the "scientific" attitudes of the people involved as well as the limitations of nascent photography, the results are highly artificial "representations" of how the metropole categorized how their subjects "ought" to look. Similarly, I have seen a photographic tableau of three Kurdish tribesmen of different regions produced for a late Ottoman emperor which was entirely staged in Constantinople using "models" presumably selected for their "authentic" appearance and dressed up in "correct" costumes in a photographer's studio. It may be that the case is similar here: the photographer may have photographed people whose appearances he thought "typical of" or "traditional for" the Apaches or Sioux or whoever. I have no opinion on the categorization, but I saw the discussion on the Village Pump and thought I would mention this as something to bear in mind. GPinkerton (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Curtis's work would probably not quite stand up to our present-day standards for documentary photography, but he was pretty good by the standards of his time. He seems to have been generally careful to photograph individuals from a specific tribe in clothing traditional for that tribe, and to distinguish particular tribes, but sometimes he would photograph people in clothes that weren't their own, and which he had provided. That is, ethnographically correct, but not a accurate documentary representation of how that individual would normally dress. Similarly, there's a famous 1910 photograph “In a Piegan Lodge,” where he photographed inside a Native American residence, but his published print of the photo dodged out a clock, because he didn't want something that "modern" in the photo. There was an interesting recent exhibit at the Tacoma Art Museum in which present-day Native American photographers "responded" to Curtis's work in both text and photographs of their own. I was struck by how much they all seemed to agree that Curtis was trying to "get it right," even if his notion of "right" was not exactly what we'd do today, or what someone who was more of an insider to a tribe would do. (Conversely, the one feature film he did is a weird mix of good ethnographic observation and totally made up stuff to give him plot points.) - Jmabel ! talk01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are also just sorting image into categories. If this was an article, we can have "a source says this, another says this" and we do have some evidence of individuals within the various tribes. Still, I meant it as a broad response to GPinkerton's comment, not specifically about Curtis. It's easier with something like image of Geronimo absent some debate about whether it is actually an image of him. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Excessive granularity" is just how it happens sometimes, as a cost of having consistent date intervals. For Dublin in 1922, I have no problem at all with precision in dates, as a lot was going on then.
Are we certain that the date is correct though? We have an awful lot of images on Commons (sourced from big libraries with automated metadata processes) where "1-01-" is no more than a flag for "unknown date within the year". As this appears to be a newsworthy event, can we date it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question do we have a good tag template to use for suspicious dates? All Jan 1 dates are automatically suspicious I suppose, so do we maybe have a way to tag those that really have been verified as being actually on Jan 1? I guess the same should be asked at a lesser level for any 1st of the month date. Josh (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a familiar pattern of Allforrous: after a category created by him/her is being discussed, (s)he does not join the discussion but adds subcategories and/or files to it. How can we stop that?
I agree with merging if this category has no added value on Commons, but I am not an expert at all on this subject and on EN-WP I see a lot of life sciences besides biology. So perhaps we should be careful, look critically to the subcategories and have here only the subcategories mentioned in the EN-WP (or keep that as a guideline), and only if there are categories for on Commons now (Allforrous often creates categories just because they are on EN-WP and then we can discuss them and try to get them deleted again, so let this be a warning for him/her not to do so). JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the categories are loops, so it should be non-controversial to eliminate those loops in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle. Once that is done, there should be fewer remaining contents to work through. Josh (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413, Removing the loops leaves us with really only one category to figure out, Category:Pharmacology, which is also under Category:Pharmaceutical sciences. I didn't see a strict loop through biology, but I suspect that pharmacology is not really a life science at all. It is related to life, no doubt, as are many other sciences that are not life sciences. If it really is a life science, than it would be through a link to somewhere in the biology field. Either way, it seems once that is resolved, there is nothing left to Category:Life sciences that cannot be merged into Category:Biology. Josh (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Neither health sciences or food science is a life science in and of themselves, they are separate applied sciences. They definitely are life-related, but the 'life' connection or 'life' portion of them are applied biology. Josh (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Projects covers a lot, but it is sub-categorized as a result for the various different things that are projects. Also, not seeing any specific problem with Category:Projects by country as a natural index of projects broken down by country of relevance. Thus, not really sure what the 'fix' here is, since I don't really see being broad as a problem. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? Josh (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the initiator. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? If not, what is your initiative for? And also invite the authors of the categories for each country to the conversation. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed move this cat to "Matches of Turkey national association football team" to distinguish "Matches of Turkey national amputee football team" A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really tell the difference between this category and Category:2009 in international relations of South Korea. From what I can tell, this is the only country where there is a bilateral relations by year categorization. I can't think of any international relations that aren't bilateral or any bilateral relations that aren't international. Instead the images can be moved to the 2009 international relations category and then tagged with the international relations of the other country that year/a new category for their intersection. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose @Bald Ollie: it is not allowed, but this double naming is massively used in parent Category:Buildings in Happy Valley and its parent categories. So it is much wider question. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Time Magazine. 
Support per Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree 
Wait:
, Fergus O'Connor was a publisher. He wasn't the photographer of all of those images. (And probably didn't take more than a handful of those images himself. If any at all.) Hence I'm not sure if {{PD-old-70}} ("author's life plus 75 years") is the most appropriate licence/timeline to be discussing. As O'Connor wasn't author. He was publisher. If his "rights" to the images didn't expire with his death, or when the images/collection were handed over to the National Library of Ireland, they likely expired when the National Library of Ireland released the images under the Flickr Commons ("no known restrictions" licence type. Otherwise I'm not sure that an "author plus 70" applies here. Because he was publisher. Rather than author. Personally, I would advocate keeping the contents of that category. But, if we delete them, it should be because we have identified the photographers (and found them to have died after 1947). Or because we otherwise have clarity that no other Commons-compatible licence applies. Otherwise I think those images (like this one taken and published before 1910) are correctly labelled. And "safe" for Commons. Guliolopez (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Request: Move Category:Fergus O’Connor to Category:Photographs by Fergus O’Connor per comments above. I intend to do boldly this at some point after 
(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep enwiki en:Apache NetBeans is redirected to "NetBeans" Estopedist1 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral leaning toward 
Merge the license plate categories of England, Scotland, Wales to Category:License plates of Great Britain. Please avoid "vehicle registration plates" since almost all countries are using "license plates". The UK category is an outlier and is under discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion it would be better to choose one name for modern religion(s) and use it as standard – now we have few categories which have used Slavic neopaganism, few with Rodnovery and few with Slavic Native Faith. Personally I suggest Slavic neopaganism as the most neutral of them – no one would be shocked by seeing Ynglism, Slavic Wicca, Slavic Esoteric Nazism and so on with Slavic polytheist reconstructionism together under this name, as long as we haven't accurate classification in reliable sources. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Question @Themightyquill: Is this answer satisfactory to close this CfD? Josh (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Done in light of above. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
On hold pending resolution of the discussion on this matter going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Streets named after Kyiv. Josh (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-- Triple C 85 | User talk | 10:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Rename to either Category:Erroneous swastikas (per Category:Erroneous geometry and Category:Erroneous royal English heraldry), Category:Inaccurate swastikas (per Category:Inaccurate paleoart) or Category:Incorrect swastikas (per Category:Incorrect maps and Category:Incorrect flags). I believe it is useful to separate incorrectly drawn swastikas into their own category, so that people browsing the main swastika category won't get a wrong idea of what a swastika is supposed to look like. However, I agree that the current name is too subjective. Chiolite (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_Athy,_Co._Kildare_(16293997882).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}