Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2007/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Archive August 2007

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.

Categories: Subdivisions of COUNTRY

[edit]

I created this set of categories in order to classify any current subdivisions of countries. These subdivisions can have various names, so it is more convenient to find them in a special category than directly in the COUNTRY category.

Very recently, I have created Category:Subdivisions of South Korea, with a map which helps to understand the complexity of the administrative divisions of South Korea. The special city and metropolitan cities are categorized here, because they are subdivisions of South Korea.

Since many “cities” are in fact municipalities (subdivisions), and not only settlements, I envisage to regroup any settlements categories (cities, towns, villages...) with other subdivisions of a country.

So, give your opinion about these points:

  1. Grouping together different subdivisions of a country in “subdivisions” categories.
  2. Categorizing settlements in “subdivisions” categories.
  3. Positioning of Subdivisions of COUNTRY directly in the COUNTRY category, or in a subcategory (specify).

--Juiced lemon 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great the way it is now. I'll close this thread soon, as this hasn't raised any objections. --rimshottalk 13:16, 26 October 2007 (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.

Category:Oriel College

[edit]

Would be better if it was renamed Category:Oriel College, Oxford for consistency with the other colleges in Category:University of Oxford. Bencherlite 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, for consistency. --rimshottalk 10:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lead article Oriel College is was the odd one out of all the Oxford colleges on Wikipedia in not including "Oxford" in the article title - see all the other articles and categories (including Category:Oriel College, Oxford) included in Category:Colleges of the University of Oxford, even for colleges such as Wadham College, Oxford where there are no other Wadham Colleges that require disambiguation. Bencherlite 11:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to rename Category:Wadham College, Oxford to Category:Wadham College, because these useless long names are a pain when you categorize files: 22 characters are 57% longer than 14 characters. --Juiced lemon 11:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gosh, eight extra characters... :-) Can't say I minded that much when I moved a lot of the files from Category:Oxford and Category:University of Oxford to college sub-categories the other day, but then I did use copy/paste a lot. Surely it helps to be consistent. Having ", Oxford" after each college within the parent category saves having to worry about / check whether there is another college with a similar name. The similar name might not just be at Cambridge University: e.g. Wolfson College (yes, in Cambridge), Exeter College (yes, a college in Exeter UK as well), Hertford College (no), Green College (yes, Canada), Lincoln College (yes, in Lincoln UK, as well as in US and NZ), Mansfield College (no), Jesus College (yes, in Cambridge)... etc. So either someone needs to nominate for renaming all colleges in Category:University of Oxford and Category:University of Cambridge that have unique names and don't need the extra word after their name, or we have one college (Oriel) as the odd one out for no reason, or we rename Oriel for consistency as suggested. Bencherlite 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you call “consistency” is only an unconventional association. I completly reject exceptions to general rules, unless serious reasons. --Juiced lemon 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects in about five days, I will close this as no consensus with a leaning towards the shorter name. Accordingly, the category name will not be changed. --rimshottalk 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wondered when somebody would do something! Please note, however, that neither opposer has commented since the main article was renamed Oriel College, Oxford - the matching of the main article name to the category was a reason relied on by one opposer, and so is now a reason in favour of the change. I still think a rename is warranted for the reasons given above (and supported by you, I note: how scrupulous of you to close "no consensus leaning against my personal view"!) However, I fully understand that where contribution to discussion is thin, gauging consensus is a unenviable task. Bencherlite 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can't see a consensus, and either alternatives seem workable to me, I'll tend to keep the status quo. Anyway, I wasn't aware that the original article's name was changed, and there was until I put it there no notification on the Oriel College category page. Therefore, I'll wait a bit longer. I have added a notification to Category:University of Oxford as well. It's not like we're in a hurry. --rimshottalk 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name kept, as there really wasn't any consensus in either direction. --rimshottalk 18:23, 27 December 2007 (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.

Category:Rail transport

[edit]

I developped the “Rail transport” structure in Commons because:

  • Railway and Railroad redirect to Rail transport in the English Wikipedia
  • I suspected some dispute between English “Railway” and American English “Railroad”
  • I was not sure that Railways had exactly the same meaning than Rail transport for Commons users.

However, Category:Railways by country remains with many subcategories. So, we should have to decide what to do with this structure, assuming it duplicates the Rail transport structure.

So, I propose to move:

Since “Railways” categories are used to categorize Railway/railroad lines, I suggest to create Category:Railway lines (or another name - see Category:Railway lines). So, Category:Railroad schedules would be moved to Category:Railway line schedules. --Juiced lemon 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very fit in English. So: what is "rail transport" precisely? Does it assume only heavy railways or does it stand for light rail transit forms like metros, LRTs and tramways too? And on the other side: What is the intention for the new categories? In my mind, the old categories "railways in COUNTRY" are for heavy railway systems only. --Chumwa 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the link to the English Wikipedia under the section title. Rail transport regards “rail guided transport”. That includes Maglev train and other techniques without physical contact with the rail, but excludes cableways, conveyor belts, toboggans, pipelines, automated guided vehicles, amongst others.
As said above, “railway” is a redirection to “rail transport” in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia term for “metro” is rapid transit, and this concept includes ligh and heavy railways. What are Category:Railways in Commons is unclear. In my opinion, either we are able to clarify the concept, either we must dismantle the matching structure. --Juiced lemon 08:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the rail transport category system currently is a mess. I also agree with renaming Railways in COUNTRY to Rail transport in COUNTRY - existing categories can be merged into. Category:Railroad can be upmerged to Category:Rail transport. I think before we start any other moves, we should get together the list of renames necessary for this. When that is through we can get back to discussing the remaining mess. --rimshottalk 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging categories that use railway and railroad in their name, to equivalent categories that use rail transport in their name instead. That includes the "in COUNTRY" ones as well. Probably soft redirects should be left behind and a periodic cleaning done too. But I also agree that developing a larger list of what all would be affected might be helpful as then AWB might be effectively brought to bear. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommonDelinker should work quite nicely, I'd think. I'll prepare a temporary subpage to collect the necessary moves. --rimshottalk 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some category moves/merges. --rimshottalk 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:Railcar as well. Note that w:Railcar and w:Railroad car is not the same. Category:Rail car, I think, is about railroad cars. --rimshottalk 10:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff on the temp page looks good to me. I see no objections.... Can you queue it up for the Delinker bot? ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have added the heading Batch 1 to all existing proposals. If you add anything new, please make a new heading or a new temp page, as the existing moves have all been double-checked by me. --rimshottalk 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move requested. --rimshottalk 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the moves have been performed. Now these categories need to be cleaned up. --rimshottalk 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 1 is done and I'm in the process of cleaning up the results. As you can see on the temp page (Batch 2), I have added Category:Railways by state and the subcategories. There's no question about the renaming of Category:Railways by state, I think, as it doesn't even mention which country it is about. Renaming the railways to railway companies is in line with the other renames performed. --rimshottalk 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Now that railcars are cleared, we can go on to rail cars, or railroad cars. I have added a request to move Category:Rail car to Category:Railroad cars. --rimshottalk 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to use railroad cars as a universal term for unpowered rail vehicles. As was said at the beginning of this discussion, railroad is American use, not universal english. We should build up a structure starting with rolling stock. Next level would be motive power and something like pulled stock. I guess there are better propositions. I will put a proposition on Batch 2 page. Gürbetaler 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind using railway wagon instead or railroad car. We could put a redirect at Category:Railroad cars, to be safe. I've changed that part accordingly. I'm not so sure about motor coaches - to choose the name railcars, I went by the wikipedia article. Isn't a motor coach just a bus? --rimshottalk 12:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Motor coach” is ambiguous. If we have “railway coaches” to transport passengers, motorized ones in a multiple unit would be named “railway motor coaches”. However, maybe this category is not useful (see Category:Diesel multiple units and Category:Electric multiple units). --Juiced lemon 14:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. w:Multiple unit says that railcars are sometimes referred to as multiple units, when they can be coupled. We could add something to that effect in the description of railcar and multiple unit. As for the translation: the German Schienenbus is very much the same as a railcar. There is a word Triebwagenzug, which describes a train made up of motorized units, so that's about the same as a multiple unit. One part of this train is called Triebwagen. French is a bit more complicated: fr:autorail is used for each of these. There is, however, a word unité multiple, which can be used for multiple units. I think that railcars are special enough to deserve categories of their own - we shouldn't let shortcomings of languages hinder us. --rimshottalk 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that railcars are not elements of multiple units, hence are specific rolling stock. My concern was possible subdivisions of “Multiple units” categories, with a particular substructure for motorized elements of multiple units. --Juiced lemon 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life is complicated but language is sometimes even more complicated. Triebwagenzug is a word for a certain type of train, saying it is not pulled by a locomotive. But a Triebwagenzug can be a single railcar, a rake of coaches pulled by a motor coach or a multiple unit. The word Schienenbus is always a diesel powered railcar in Germany (but the Swedish rälsbus can also be electric). Newer series could be MUed and thus became DMUs. In Switzerland, the word was never used, except for the German vehicles, but in Germany the word is now also gone - except for the few preserved ones. This is just to say, language is living and there isn't always an exact match for one word in every language. Railcar or Multiple units are "wrong" categories for motor coaches that pull trains like locomotives do. Triebwagen stands for more than just multiple units, it is also motor coach and railcar. Gürbetaler 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We specify categories according to selected subjects, that is subjects which can be easily defined and understood. Language issues have minor importance. If you need a particular category, define its subject, then we'll find the name if the subject is relevant. --Juiced lemon 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's what I'm trying to say. I need a category for the photos of Swiss "Triebwagen", which have conceptual elements of multiple units, railcars and motor coaches. Concept and use of these vehicles is different from British or American designs. This is why neither multiple units nor railcars does really fit. Gürbetaler 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that “multiple unit” is a shortage for “multiple-unit train” (see multiple unit). So, the components of a “multiple-unit train” are units like trailer units or special units (various types, according to combinations of “power-delivery”, “motor” and “cab”).

Literally, Triebwagen means “motor coach”, or “motor unit”. However, we can have steam, diesel or electric motors. Do you need categories for these types? Railcars are not “motor units”, because they cannot be coupled, except with trailers. And an only “motor unit” don't transform in a railcar. --Juiced lemon 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a discussion on SwissRail group, neither multiple unit nor railcar is correct for many Swiss Triebwagen. They are used like locomotives, even for freight trains. They are now in the following categories:

Should we build categories like this:

Sure, this would also include locomotives, but they could be included as subcategroies. Gürbetaler 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term “motive power” is not specific to vehicles. For consistency with “multiple unit”, I suggest:
However, we need some manifest criteria to discern between motive units and railcars. --Juiced lemon 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are buckets full of Ian Allen Books that were called "British Rail Motive Power" and contained all locomotives and multiple units. So, motive power is specific to vehicles. And for the rest, why should we discern betwen motive power and railcars? No Swiss vehicle was ever called "Schienenbus". Simply assume, this category doesn't exist in Switzerland! --Gürbetaler 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no need to discern between motive power and railcars, the current scheme for Switzerland is satisfactory, since it's the same one for any country in the world. --Juiced lemon 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not satisfactory, since many powerful, heavy motor coaches are listed either as Railcars or multiple units.--Gürbetaler 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Railcars can be powerful [1]. --Juiced lemon 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This motor coach wasn't too paowerfull but nobody ever called it a railcar Gürbetaler 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Triebwagen=railcar. A motor coach is a road vehicle (see this redirection Motor coach). --Juiced lemon 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site you indicate is from a group of French speaking Swiss railway photographers. They may be a reference for railway photography or for Swiss-French railway terms but sure not for English railway terms. In a long discussion [2] between people from different parts of this world we could establish, that motor coach is a good translation for Triebwagen. However, only British English uses this term, while American English would rather tend to the word motor car. To avoid a mix-up with the American use of the term, which is for long-distance buses, it was proposed to put "rail motor coach". Now it is impossible to find a term that is equally used everywhere. It remains a fact that Americans call coaches passenger cars, points switches and railways railroads. Here are some references for the British use of motor coach for Triebwagen:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

And, by the way, this is the word I find in my dictionnary as translation for "Triebwagen". There is no reason NOT to use the term "motor coach". -- Gürbetaler 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia article locomotive lists the different types of railway vehicles which provide the motive power for a train:
I think we should confine with these terms. We should also define criteria in order to easily classify the railway vehicles between these four main types. --Juiced lemon 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia article is now more complete. --Gürbetaler 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is your rail motor coach a fifth kind of motive vehicles? In that case, I think it would not be easy to sort the motive vehicles. --Juiced lemon 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by discussion in COM:CFD#Category:Railways
--Foroa (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (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.

Category:Bruges and subcategories

[edit]

Reason: Trench warfare concerning the naming of Bruges subcategories.

On August, 8th, Category:Brugge was moved to Category:Bruges, due to implementation of the Commons policy:

Categories are in English.

According to the modularity principle in Commons:Naming categories#Principles), which widely applied in Commons, the subcategories “compound” names have to be made up from the basic (English) name of the parent category: Bruges. This was clearly announced in Category talk:Brugge.

Now, some users (in particular Flemish ones) are leading a trench warfare in order to prevent the set up of subcategories with “Bruges” in their name:

  • removing move requests [9]
  • removing categorization of used category pages [10]
  • adding move requests to correct subcategories [11]

These actions are a waste of time and are detrimental to the access to media files related to Bruges. Therefore, I request the administrators to enforce the current language policy. --Juiced lemon 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) --Juiced lemon 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not an action of Flemish users, it is my personal action to try to decrease the level of hostility and conflict generating procedures that lead to edit wars. I would take exactly the same action if I was speaking another language. Personally, I don't care less if the subcats are using Bruges or Brugge: I care about a consistent approach that is acceptable for local people that are non-english speakers and that have to "live and work" daily in "their" categories. This action is in the first place inspired by the fact that there is probably no single substantial non-english speaking city that follows the proposed commons language rules (which are not a formal policy, nor a formally accepted set of rules).
As I explained several days before I started my action in User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Please_STOP (which now has been removed by Juiced lemon, so I made a copy available in Category_talk:Bruges#Please_STOP), Category:Bruges is the demo case based on which I want to make a global commons user assessment, definition of user needs and a number of suggestions for improvements in naming conventions, multi-language solutions, easier access, categorisation, procedures etc ...
Independently from this action, I think that I will be able to formulate interestings suggestions for actual and future multi-language tools and wiki's.
So my only request is to allow me to continue to prepare a documented and demonstrated case, which might be completed by the end of september. --Foroa 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topics structure is not intended for testing. You can build any categories structure for testing with your user's subpages. --Juiced lemon 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely known that demonstrations of improvements, standards and other concepts are only realistic if they are done and exercised with representative data sets, conditions and environment. It is a bit strange that this is the first argument against my democase since I communicated it to Juiced lemon.
This category is equally a demonstration of the inherently conflicting movecat procedure, which is to the best of my knowledge, not a procedure which is documented or allowed in the commons procedures, but very much appreciated and applied by Juiced lemon, and a major cause of edit wars, frustrated people and a significant part of the disputes. --Foroa 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Test cases can only be tested if accessible to a wide audience. And please stop removing the reasons for moves as you did here: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Lycaon 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you understand this:
In any case, NEVER link my talk page in a move request.
I have cleaned the linked section. I'll restore it later, when subcategories of Bruges will comply with our language policy. --Juiced lemon 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa, it doesn't belong to you to decide if your demonstration grants to be exercised in the topics structure. You have not explained what you want to demonstrate, and you have not persuaded us that your demonstration will be useful to something neither. --Juiced lemon 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Juiced lemon: Com'on Juiced lemon, almost all non-english speaking and several english speaking cities are demonstrators of the non-respect of the non-written and non-agreed commons categoriastaion and language rules.
To avoid misunderstandings and for clarity, the removed discussion from Juiced lemon's talk page is available now on Category_talk:Bruges#Please_STOP. --Foroa 13:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Bruges

[edit]

This discussion seems still in progress, according to the notice on the Category:Bruges-page. At present we have a cat with the English name (which seems reasonable, cf. Antwerp, Cologne (also very French!), Vienna, Warsaw), some subcats with the same name, but some subcats with a Dutch name. Some subcats should also undergo a name change (the ones with Brugge, I would say). The only exception I could find to support "Brugge" (local instead of English) is Category:Kraków, which to me is as hard to understand as "Brugge". Fransvannes 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruges. This has stayed open way too long and its unresolved mess is what brought me here. Half the images are in English named categories and the other half are in local named categories. More now then when this CfD started, categories are suppose to use English names, so that is what I'm going with. Consistency is good. We can't change it up every city just for the hell of it. That would make it very challenging to find anything. Rocket000 06:16, 3 June 2008 (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.

Category:Flying

[edit]

Content appears to duplicate Category:Flight, I suggest moving content and deleting or redirecting this category. --Tony Wills 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support moving the content. I think a category redirect is needed, as many people will try Flying. --rimshottalk 12:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move requested here, shouldn't take long now. --rimshottalk 08:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, the move request was closed but nothing was moved. I moved the images manually now. --rimshottalk 17:47, 29 September 2007 (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.

Statues of ...

[edit]

I have prepared a batch rename for Statues of ... to Statues in ... at User:Siebrand/test#Next. Please double check the categories to be renamed, feeling free to correct or remove entries. Please le me know here you have reviewed. Cheers! Siebrand 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues of Victoria of the United Kingdom should remain unchanged. It is about statues that show Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, regardless of where they stand. --rimshottalk 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ fixed Siebrand 13:29, 15 August 2007 (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.

Category:American football venues in the United States

[edit]

I completely understand and agree with the move from the use of "soccer" in the categories for non-U.S. countries. However, this usage is similarly incorrect. Nobody in the United States refers to our football as "American football". There isn't a standard to use "football" to unilaterally refer to the game Americans know as soccer - if there was, Category:Soccer venues in the United States, a preference towards using the American name for the sport for the category referring to the United States, wouldn't exist. It only makes sense to use that same standard instead of imposing a Euro-centric naming approach.

I am also nominating the subcategories in this category, namely the divisions by individual states, and the category "College American football venues", which is similarly redundant - if "college football" can be used without any separate distinction on the English Wikipedia, I see no reason why we need further "clarification" here. --Fuzzy510 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is part of Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/07/Category:Soccer in England & Category:Soccer in Scotland. /Lokal_Profil 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked there and found the discussion impossibly complicated. I agree with Fuzzy510. - Jmabel | talk 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category names should be predictable. Is it intuitive that "Football venues in the United States" and "Football venues in England" have very different content? Even though you might confuse many people who don't speak English as their mothertongue, you could argue that it actually is intuitive. But what would you call the supercategories of these two? They can't both be "Football venues by country". Samulili 07:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No clear request. This category name is a compound name, built from American football. As long as the expression American football is used in Commons, there is no reason to change this expression in any American football-related category. --Juiced lemon 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)--Juiced lemon 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, nothing changed --rimshottalk 14:48, 14 February 2008 (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.

Category:Orlando Bloom

[edit]

It's a category for two images which are already in the mainspace. A category isn't needed in this case. --Wizardman 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it isn't needed, at the moment galleries and categories do not take the place of one another. Yonatan talk 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Both having the same two images just seems kinda odd and pointless though. Maybe that's just me. Wizardman 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experiences images are more likely to be added to the correct category than added to the image page. I've created a number of galleries, which, upon creation, suddenly had a number of images in them. Some people use categories to search and not image pages - it's all about helping people to find the images they are looking for. Anrie 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we regard this discussion as closed, now that the category has three images? --rimshottalk 12:05, 1 October 2007 (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.

Category:Berg, Sweden

[edit]

There is no need for the , Sweden ending since Category:Berg isn't used. Suggest renmaing to Category:Berg /Lokal_Profil 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no complaints I've tagged the category with Category redirect. /Lokal_Profil 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, see nl:Berg. Will be a problem later on. Create a disambiguation page on Category:Berg. Siebrand 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created disambig linking to 5 categories. /Lokal_Profil 12:11, 26 September 2007 (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.

Category:Flora canaria

[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Flora of the Canary Islands --Kpjas 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a speedy deletion request as the category is now empty. --rimshottalk 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, the category was deleted. --rimshottalk 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2007/08&oldid=128913889"