Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/12
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 |
Archive December 2010
the right category is: Stained glass windows of St. Anna (Morbach) Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, can be re-created if images of stained glass windows of buildings other than the church appear. --rimshottalk 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I created this category (and all the rest from A-Z) today. It was something I had been meaning to do for a while, but someone beat me to it in November with Category:Initials A, etc., which I didn't see until too late. I moved the things I was going to put in "Illuminated letters - A" over to "Initials A" instead. The "Illuminated letters" ones are all empty. Sorry for the hassle --Inductiveload (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Support --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted A - Z and the parent category. --rimshottalk 14:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Cat should be deleted: 1. Wrong name; 2. emptied; 3. replaced ba new Category:Admirals of the Marine (Bundeswehr) KuK (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- D'accord--TUBS
19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 
Delete D´accord --El. (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bad name. --rimshottalk 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Request deletion: 1. replaced by new Category:Generals and Admirals of the Federal Republic of Germany; 2. emptied, only remaining subcat also proposed for deletion KuK (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Has been replaced by new Category:Generals and Admirals of the Federal Republic of Germany, emptied, only remaining subcat also nominated for deletion KuK (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete D´accord --El. (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirected, as someone could conceivably try to use it. --rimshottalk 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Police motorcycles in Costa Rica to be consistent with other categories for police motorcycle by country Biker Biker (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Badzil (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, has not been in use very long, new name fits better into the parent's naming scheme. --rimshottalk 18:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
is there an answer to your question? 98.172.62.190 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- What did you want to discuss about this category? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Closed, no reply after a month. --rimshottalk 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
value 174.253.101.207 06:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- What did you want to discuss about this category? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Closed, no reply after a month. --rimshottalk 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This just looks wrong to me, but I don't know enough yet to fix it. All the other subcategories of Plantae are at the divisional level or are administrative in some form: this is an individual species Ciao, KK. (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I have adapted the page to the usual style for the other species. --rimshottalk 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Empty category of an imaginar type number ŠJů (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
192.118.11.118 15:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- What did you want to discuss about this category? It seems like a perfectly legitimate category to me. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Closed, no reply. --rimshottalk 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
empty cat, expressely created to lodge all files that were deleted here Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Pdr77777 as outdated, unused and out of scope; no foreseeable use for this cat. Santosga (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (we now have Category:Linden-Süd (Hannover) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete - Adolphstraße never existed in Hanover (but we have a wright Category:Adolfstraße (Hannover) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete; we now have a Category:Pferdeturm (Hannover) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"After School" is a bit vague. This category name must be specified. Especially for non-korean speakers: a category description is missing and valid categories. I hope I help with this message 80.187.106.109 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:After School (band). --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad name - typo "43nd" for "43rd" Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 13:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete this category. Category Stained glass windows of Descent from the Cross does already exist. GFreihalter (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you meant to delete Category:Stained glass windows of the Descent from the Cross, which you just had created. I deleted it, since it indeed already exists. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Done by AndreasPraefcke. --rimshottalk 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete. Category Stained glass windows of Descent from the Cross does exist. GFreihalter (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (I have forgotten (Hannover)) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
please delete - the right category is: Stained glass windows of sibyls GFreihalter (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (Category had been wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (Category was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong written? What exactly are you talking about? Of course you could write "Flußwasserkunst" or whatever, but outside Germany that's almost impossible to type, so writing it with 2 "s" is fully legitimated. Prost, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa, new name is Category:Flusswasserkunst (Hannover). In the future, at least state what the correct name is, to avoid confusion and speed up the process. --rimshottalk 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (category was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was wrong)...:) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete, name was wrong Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was unclear) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was unclear) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (Wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (we now have a new category] Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, name harmonizing. --rimshottalk 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (we now have a new category) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, name harmonizing. --rimshottalk 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This category has been made as a gallery and identical to page Lake Titicaca and has a non existing name. Suggest to delete. Wouter (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Oddly the descriptions on the page aren't even available in the language of the category name. -- Docu at 11:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- And there are no category members. (The name is probably Romanian.) --Ikar.us (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just an experiment I guess from an Romanian contributor who took a copy of Lake Titicaca. --Foroa (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, accidentally created copy of a gallery in the category namespace. --rimshottalk 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to split this category in "Alison Smithson" and "Peter Smithson"? The fact that the this category is embedded in the category "architects from the UK" that would fit better. 80.187.106.237 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi 80.187.106.237, in short my answer is no, if you read w:en:Alison and Peter Smithson you'll see that they worked in a partnership and their buildings are known as being created by "Alison and Peter Smithson" i.e. they are notable as partners not as individuals, hence the English wiki article is named like that as are the Catalan, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish, Slovak and Swedish. Perhaps it would be more accurate to make it a subcategory of Category:Architecture firms of the United Kingdom. --Elekhh (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If, eventually, we got images of one of them, the current category could have a subcategory. -- Docu at 21:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept, when separate categories are needed, they can still be created. --rimshottalk 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Empty category. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Currently it is ok. But this Category may be filled in the future. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I assume first day covers from Deutsche Post AG are covered by Commons:Stamps#Germany? Otherwise, it will probably take a long time before this category can be populated, since Deutsche Post was not founded until 1995. However, is there a legitimate reason for the category name being in German? Category names should generally be in English. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. Can be re-created (in English) once it is needed. --rimshottalk 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Also subcategories
- Category:Replicas of Samochód pancerny wzór 34 armored cars
- Category:Replica of the Samochód pancerny wzór 34 armored car made by Leszek Kusiak
- Category:Replica of the Samochód pancerny wzór 34 armored car made by Robert Tirczakowski and Tomisław Kalembka
The category name is unreasonably bilingual. Armored car = samochód pancerny. Wzór = type. Not a proper name but a generic type labelling. ŠJů (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The reason for why this category is called what is, is because Samochód pancerny wzór 34 is the FULL NAME of the vehicle. That was the Polish military designation system at the time. As I already said there does not seem to be a problem with categories like Panzerkampfwagen III so why is this one a problem.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:Panzerkampfwagen III has the original German labelling but not such unreasonable bilingual one like Category:Panzerkampfwagen III armored fighter car III armored cars. --ŠJů (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Would it help to move this category to Category:Samochód pancerny wzór 34? --High Contrast (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- In my view, it would be analogous to Category:Panzerkampfwagen III. The second variant would be fully English name (if the name will be perceived as generic, not as a proper name). --ŠJů (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Samochód pancerny wzór 34 would be reasonable, but Category:Polish Armored Car type 34 would be more in line with conventions on naming. Leaving the Panzerkampfwagen in German makes sense, as the German name is familiar to users across the world. Having separate pages (with an interim category with no photos in it) for replicas based on who built them is entirely unnecessary. The filenames and image descriptions are currently enough to explain the differences. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted; the "armored cars" appendix is superfluous and not needed. Category tree has been moved to Category:Samochód pancerny wzór 34. --High Contrast (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Empty category. Category abandoned. Eduardo P (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No links, empty WlaKom (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
empty. WlaKom (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This category does mainly show the works of User:Toilet, there are just two exception. We could delete it as makes no real sense. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think Constipation is a true medical problem and thus the category makes sense. We could create a subcategory for the drawings like Category:Illustrations of constipation or so which might be appreciated for gastroenterologists who have to lecture about it... Grüße! :-)--Hellerhoff (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is Liberaler Humanist suggesting that constipation doesn't exist? This is an encyclopedic project so of course the category does make "real sense". Whether individual files within that category are appropriate or not is utterly irrelevant here. Opening this discussion was a waste of time and resources. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a well-categorized category of a condition that is the subject of Wikipedia articles in many languages. There are images relevant to the topic. Therefore: Keep. --rimshottalk 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. And close this discussion, since there is consensus and more than 2 weeks have passed.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --rimshottalk 19:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wie ist der korrekte Name? --rimshottalk 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Was ist der korrekte Name? --rimshottalk 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I asked already several times to tag such categories with {{Bad name|Good name}}. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (name was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Was ist der korrekte Name? --rimshottalk 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Was ist der korrekte Name? --rimshottalk 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name, should be Tögs-Ochiryn Namnansüren. Will move images to category:Tögs-Ochiryn Namnansüren, please delete Chinneeb (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Although I was the one who created the category, I am definitely no expert on Mongolian names. Rightly or wrongly, however, the name Shirindambyn Namnansüren does seem to be in use (see Google search), so perhaps a category redirect might be more appropriate? In any case, please go ahead with the correction according to what you judge is best. Regards, Mu (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirected, as the name does appear to be in use and refer to the same person. --rimshottalk 12:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
please delete - the right category is: Saint Isabelle of France Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The spelling "Isabel of France" seems to be in use in some places, so make this a category redirect. --rimshottalk 07:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete, a standard case to use a category redirect. Resolved. --ŠJů (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirected. --rimshottalk 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Rename the various "Members of ..." subcategories of Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives (including to the subcategories of Category:Delegates to the House of Representatives as well as the "buried" category of Category:Members of the House of Representatives from the District of Maine) to clarify which House of Representatives they are members of. Example: Change Category:Delegates to the House of Representatives --> Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives. This both matches the English Wikipedia's parallel cats (e.g. w:Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives) and reflects that there are many "Houses of Representatives" that exist and have existed, not just one. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Standard naming on Commons would be: "Delegates to the House of Representatives of the United States" as there are "House of Representatives" in several countries. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I think renaming the state-level categories is unnecessary, because "Category:Members of the House of Representatives from Wyoming" implicitly refers to the USA ("Members of the [other country] House of Representatives from Wyoming" would be a very sparsely populated category indeed). Furthermore, it's not difficult to figure out which country it belongs to simply by looking at the parent category. Georgia is the only one where there is any possibility of ambiguity, and that's only if Georgia (the country) has a legislative body that is called the House of Representatives. So I would support renaming "Category:Delegates to the House of Representatives", but oppose the state-level ones, with the possible exception of Georgia (→ "Members of the House of Representatives from Georgia (U.S. state)"). howcheng {chat} 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Concerning Georgia, better keep the naming consistent with parent category naming. --Foroa (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Members of the House of Representatives from Iowa" would be confusing as there is also an w:Iowa House of Representatives. (Reflected in Category:Members of the Iowa House of Representatives. This probably wouldn't be confusing for people familiar with both categories, but if you haven't run across the latter, it could be quite confusing. "Members of the United States House of Representatives from Iowa" or "Members of the House of Representatives of the United States from Iowa" eliminates this ambiguity. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, you have a point. I have no objection, then. We might want to abbreviate to "Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" then, just because the category titles are agetting kind of long. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Members of the House of Representatives from Iowa" would be confusing as there is also an w:Iowa House of Representatives. (Reflected in Category:Members of the Iowa House of Representatives. This probably wouldn't be confusing for people familiar with both categories, but if you haven't run across the latter, it could be quite confusing. "Members of the United States House of Representatives from Iowa" or "Members of the House of Representatives of the United States from Iowa" eliminates this ambiguity. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Concerning Georgia, better keep the naming consistent with parent category naming. --Foroa (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support for delegates and representatives, but from the versions given by Philosopher "Members of the United States House of Representatives from [State]" is preverable. Hekerui (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support this change; similar to how the English Wikipedia formats these categories. --Tom (talk - email) 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be no disagreement (and the discussion died a long while ago) so I will go ahead and rename the categories. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
In general, US categories get US names, even when the parent categories follow non-US naming conventions: for that reason, we have categories such as "Parking lots in the United States" and "Gas stations in the United States". This category is an aberration: neither the spelling "storey" nor the term "car park" are used in the USA, and the term "parking garage" is used instead. A simple rename is needed to Category:Parking garages in the United States. Note that this was moved away from that title just a few months ago for no good reason and entirely without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Parking garages in the United States. --rimshottalk 08:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted. This is a category for what a file is not, rather than what a file is, which is a bad way to categorize files. It is also unnecessary because if a file with a swastika is not in Category:Nazi Swastikas, one can assume it is not a Nazi swastika, and if it is, it should be placed in Category:Nazi Swastikas. --Homo lupus (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree - the contents of this category can all be promoted up to Category:Swastikas. Definition by exclusion is not necessary here and so should be avoided. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with nominator. FieldMarine (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support – makes about as much sense as "non-Hindu swastikas" or "non-British automobiles." Not to mention that —LX (talk, contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted and moved all contents to Category:Swastikas. There is no need to distinguish swastika's any further -- Nazi swastikas should be placed in the relevant category. Other than that it is not necessary to categorise anything based on something that it is not. russavia (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Category empty and abandoned. Eduardo P (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the content in Category:Laranjeiras (Rio de Janeiro) could go in there. Maybe it should be renamed to Category:Rua_das_Laranjeiras (Rio de Janeiro). -- Docu at 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's better have a category with many images, than to use a subcategory that not pass 10 images. Eduardo P (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. --Azar66 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- See also comments in discussion for deletion: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#Category:Historical nations in Poland -- Azar66 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Redundant and unneeded category - Delete. --Azar66 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- See also comments in discussion for deletion: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#Category:Historical nations of Poland -- Azar66 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Please delete (category was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You moved it to Category:Asternstraße (Hannover), but you might want to move it back as the parent category is called Category:Streets in Hanover. -- Docu at 07:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, other naming is consistent with the other street name categories. --rimshottalk 21:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Škoda_120_L_(1987_-_1988)/120_LS_(1986_-_1987)/120_GLS_(1986_-_1987)/120_GL_(1986_-_1988)/120_LX_(1986_-_1987)/130_(1986_-_1988)/135_(1987_-_1988)/136_(1987_-_1988)
[edit]Empty category with impractical name ŠJů (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is empty because it was EMPTIED WITHOUT REASON.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really think that this is a suitable category name? --ŠJů (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I will agree that is not a best name but it is the best one that I could come with given what I wanted this category to store.
- You (as well as anyone else for that matter) are free to suggest a better name that will still give the same information.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be better something like Category:Škoda 742 (1986 - 1988)? Naturally, a better explanation of categorization criterium should be included in the category entry as a category description. --ŠJů (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you used that name that would mean that this category would be ~for ALL Škoda 742 models produced between 1986 and 1988 (including Škoda 105 L for example), another reason why it would be wrong is because Škoda 125 L was produced between 1988 and 1990. Also the timeframes differ depending on the model in question (as you can see by the current name).
- Regards. - ~~
- You give no category description to explain why 8 types from certain period should be grouped together and other types from the same period or identic types from different period shouldn't. --ŠJů (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regards. - ~~
- I know that and I apologize for not giving a description. Anyway this category was for pictures of examples of Škoda 742 that we can not "properly" recognize and that have the pre-1988 grill, mirrors on both sides and headrests on the front seats.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I already said this category was created to hold pictures of Škoda 742 cars which can't be "properly" identified and of which we know only that they have the post-1983 grill, post-1985 headrests, headrests on the front seats and rear-view mirrors on both sides. Calling this category Category:Unrecognized Škoda 742 (1986 - 1988) would be misleading for two reasons:
- 1. Škoda 742 name can apply to all vehicles within that family of vehicles so it can mean just as well a Škoda 105 S or a Škoda 136 GL.
- 2. The 1986 - 1988 timeframe would incorrect because it differs for each vehicle, for example Škoda 120 L produced between 1987 and 1988 looks exactly the same from the outside (except the name on back of course) as a Škoda 130 produced between 1986 and 1988, however a Škoda 120 L produced between 1986 and 1987 looks different as it lack the headrests.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Polski Fiat 125p MR'75/MR'76/MR'77/MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82 for a related discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Daewoo Honker 2000/Honker 2000/Intrall Honker/DZT Honker 4x4. --ŠJů (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This category needs to be removed, and SuperTank17 needs to be restrained. Finding images of eastern European built vehicles is becoming very complicated because of excessive and confusing categorizing by this user. Can somebody please help? Mr.choppers (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is so nice to be talked about in third person in a discussion in which I TAKE ACTIVE PART. I already put forward my arguments and asked if you had any better suggestions. Since you do not appear to have come up with anything better I can support removing this category and putting all pictures in it in Category:Škoda 742. I had my doubts about this category from the start but as I already said, this is the best name that I could come up with given the subject.
- Also the reason why I made several changes to categories concerning "eastern European built vehicles" is because it is one of my fields of expertize and I simply tried to correct any omissions or mistakes.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I, too, happen to enjoy Eastern European vehicles. But the thing is, perhaps your new categories are useful only to someone who really knows a lot about these cars. They certainly don't help me. And for everyone else your efforts just make the category trees impossible to navigate. If we just divide Škoda 742 into a pre- and post-facelift section (yes, 105 on the same page as 130 - not a problem) then these ridiculous category names would simply become unnecessary.
- The reason I talk about you in third person is because you are not partaking in these conversations. Sure, you talk, but notice that in no discussion has anyone offered any support for your new categorization. I held a vote over on Category talk:Škoda 742, and out of five people I got three votes of support and two people offered no vote at all. All agreed that the current situation is not logical nor useful. And still, you are moving along and doing the same stuff all over the place. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- You say that the category trees are too complicated for the average user but that is why I try to include a brief summary of different models of the vehicle in question in its main category (see Category:Škoda 742 or Category:VAZ-2101) so that an average human with knowledge of English will be able to understand how it all ties together. I already stated in Category talk:Škoda 742 that I can support separating the Škoda 742 vehicles by the facelift (and if I have not done that than I do so here).
- As for the second part of your answer: So just because no one from the whole SIX other people who actually participated in these discussions did not support my EXACT version of the Škoda 742 category tree you think you can act as though I am not not here?
- Also you seem to have missed the fact that I have tried to reach a compromise. I even support some of the propositions of how to change Škoda 742 category tree to be more accessible but thus far I did not get any responses concerning that.
- If you have problems with some of my categories please say so.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 07:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yet another POV fork. Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons are the same thing. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Police worldwide may look for these weapons under the name "Less-lethal weapons". The military worldwide may look for "Non-lethal weapons". So rather than create 2 categories, it is easier to put them under one category name. The Commons tries to make it easy for everybody around the world to find what they are looking for. Also, the Commons does not follow Wikipedia categorization. Longtime editors at the Commons know this.
- Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
- Different branches of the government (police, military, etc) emphasize "non-lethal" or "less-lethal". The media uses "less-lethal". See this article from Technology Review Online. Israel's Arsenal of "Less Lethal" Weapons is from Popular Mechanics. See also: "Less Than Lethal." International Defense Review 27:28-30+ Jul '94.
- Even the U.S. military in the past has sometimes used the phrase "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal". See:
- Lorenz, Frederick. Less-Lethal Force in Operation United Shield. Marine Corps Gazette 79:68-76 Sep '95. Also available online here.
- Nowadays, though, the U.S. military tends to use "non-lethal." Military jargon is oftentimes different from names used in the media.
- Both names are commonly used. See these overall Google search results:
- "less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results
- "non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stop cherrypicking. Use Google books when looking for reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Category names on the Commons are in English. The Commons is used by people worldwide. Many of them barely read English much less scholarly books in English. The Commons uses the most common English names. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you saying most Google books aren't in English???? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am saying that most people worldwide who come to the Commons read the mass media in English much more than books in English. Especially if they are not very fluent in English. The mass media in English tends to use "less-lethal weapons." And books use both phrases. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your view on verifiability is skewed. Read Verifiability. Your claim that the mass media uses less-lethal over non-lethal is wrong. Less-lethal 70, Non-lethal 216
- ...and all of the foreign Wikipedia articles (except possibly Hebrew and Slovenian which apparently don't translate well) translate literally to "Non-lethal weapon". Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The news media is more diverse in its phrasing than I originally thought. It also uses "less-than-lethal".
- As for Wikipedia in various languages the Commons does not follow the naming of Wikipedia. The Commons is mainly in English.
- "less-than-lethal weapons". 288,000 results.
- "less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results
- "non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results.
- See also en:WP:COMMONNAME: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."
- It is inaccurate to call many of these weapons "non-lethal." Sometimes these weapons kill. For example; rubber bullets, etc.. So there needs to be "less-lethal" in the category name. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is not possible and you know it. Google search results over 100,000 never are never precise. In fact they are never even close. See Search engine test. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Google searches don't have to be perfect to be useful. From WP:Search engine test is this: "Uses of search engine tests. A test using a search engine is intended to help with the following research questions: Popularity - Identifying how popular (or how little-known) something is (often called the Google test)." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not just imperfect but fatally flawed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- That article is about ranking, and not about number of results. See en:WP:COMMONNAME. Search engines are commonly used concerning naming. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent). Here is more info:
Rubber bullets have killed many people and continue to do so. See the examples, studies, reports, etc. listed here:
Technology Review Online article by Richard A. Muller:
- "In October 2002, Russians used a 'non-lethal' gas (identified by them as the opiate fentanyl) to subdue terrorists in a Moscow theater, but in the process they killed 117 of about 800 hostages. An expert doctor, in a hospital facility, can apply an anesthesia with fair reliability. To do it safely at a distance is impossible. What were once called 'nonlethal weapons' were renamed 'less than lethal' weapons, and now the preferred and more accurate terminology is 'less lethal.'"
Popular Mechanics article by David Hambling:
- "Over the years the IDF has experimented with different types of less-lethal ammunition for standard military rifles. These have included plastic slugs and bullets made of compressed sand that disintegrates on impact without breaking the skin. These do not appear to be in general use, and the standard crowd-control ammunition is a large rubber-coated steel bullet fired from a special launcher. This can penetrate the skull, causing lethal injuries."
And many more examples of lethality. So "non-lethal" by itself is inaccurate. We could just go back to using "less-lethal" by itself in the category name. That's accurate too. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Timeshifter, by using examples you are trying to use original research and trying to use emotions to sway people's opinions. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting a published source is not original research. --Dschwen (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting things to prove a point is synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, synthesis is the combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Citing sources that explicitly support a point is just plain old referencing. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Part of my comments have been blanked. To see the comments see this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The aforementioned clause of common name have now been removed. The clause was originally included with a different intention (disambiguation) but the meaning of it became warped over time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I support keeping the category as is or changing the category to either non-lethal or less-lethal with category redirects. I agree with Timeshifter that the military and police have different terms for basically similar category of weapons. Since both may be used during search, both should be included in the cat or as part of the redirect process. FieldMarine (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The arguments for the current naming seems sound. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Closing this dead discussion. This category was created as a duplicate of Category:Less-lethal weapons while a renaming discussion for that category was in progress. However neither discussion found consensus on what the name should be. Obviously there shouldn't be duplicate categories, so I'm going to redirect this one back to the original name. Since it's a reasonably common name for this type of weapon, and the term "non-lethal weapon" is available as a redirect, it shouldn't cause too much practical difficulty. ghouston (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Very unecessary maintenance category. Not because it is not needed to diffuse the categories added to it but because the name of the category already suggests: "This is maintenance but you will never finish it, puny earthling." Such a category is not a maintenance category but a listing of what pages use the template {{Categorise}}. A list of transclusions of {{Categorise}} is available under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Categorise. Restructure the template {{Categorise}} so that it adds a temporary maintenance category of Category:Categories requiring diffusion if there is something to diffuse and disolve this non-maintenance, listing category. --Martin H. (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. 95 % of the intermediate categories require permanent diffusion. Within a couple of years, this category will contain thousands of categories but this category will not help. (the choice of permanent or temporary diffusion is very arbitrary). --Foroa (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Martin and Foroa.
- In august 2009 I discovered that we had two templates having the purpose of including crowded categories into category:Categories requiring diffusion. My first idea was to merge both templates. They were {{CatDiffuse}} and {{Categorise}}.
- But User:W!B: had written « Use this [template:Categorise] just for tagging main categories requiring permanent control, for categories to get sorted once use {{CatDiffuse}} ». So I was afraid he or other people would disagree with merging both templates. Then I thought that if we have two templates with two intended different purposes, it would be best to have two separate categories for each purpose. This is how I created Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion and Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion.
- A) Martin, when you say Restructure the template {{Categorise}} so that it adds a temporary maintenance category of Category:Categories requiring diffusion , how do you plan to name that new "temporary maintenance category" ?
- B) Do you plan to change the instructions for use of {{Categorise}} or will you keep the present wording (Use this just for tagging main categories requiring permanent control.) ? I mean that, if you dislike the name of Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion, you might dislike this wording too.
- C) Why not merge both templates ? (I don't really see the point of having a not-categorizing-merely-tagging template saying "this category used to be crowded but now it is OK because somebody did the diffusing job, but be careful for the future"). If a category is OK at present, then let's remove all tags and let's not worry for the future. Teofilo (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the main question is already the purpose to tag categories requiring permanent control. The purpose of maintenance categories must be, that the maintenance will be done at some point of time. Having a category Category:Austria placed in a maintenance category permanently isnt very motivating to do the maintenance. My suggestion is to restructure the template that the text will show up permanently - as an instruction - but that a category is only added if there is something to do at the moment. So that e.g. Category:Austria at the moment will not have the category because it only contains 7 files and there is no urgent requirement to add the category to the backlog of Category:Categories requiring diffusion or Maintenance data structures at all, and that categories like Category:Australia, which has 114 files of them, most of them not properly categorized, has a maintenenace category because that category realy is in need of maintenance at the moment. Collecting categories that from time to time need diffusion into a permanent maintenance category servers no purpose but is only frustrating and overcrowding the maintenance content. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with everything. I think it is good to have Category:Austria and Category:Australia treated differently. Teofilo (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could just redirect {{Categorise}} to {{CatDiffuse}}. As the later kept appearing on nearly empty categories, I changed it to display only if includes more than 150 items. -- Docu at 08:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. In some upper level categories, even one picture is too many. On the other hand if you feel that the category is fine without further detailed categorization, you should remove that template. I reverted your edit in Template:Catdiffuse. Teofilo (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that the category and template are unnecessary. {{Categorise}} and Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion have several purposes. First, Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion, unlike Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Categorise, provides an alphabetic list showing the number of items that each tagged category contains. This is very useful for quickly identifying categories to target. Secondly, the template is a reminder not to put files directly into that category. (Given that people even put files into meta categories, the second point is less important than the first, but hopefully it causes someone to think twice.) That said, there are things we could do to improve things. The template could change appearance when a tagged category starts to fill up. Wordings could probably be less demoralising. The templates could have more sensible names that actually indicate their differences (one is a project; the other is a process). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are people that add the template to every fucking category independent of it being necessary. People actually tag categories because they want to say: Look my category is really important! And then there are people like LX who honestly believe that the template would actually prevent people from directly catgorizing into a tagged category. It is like in RL an idea that could have a small benefit is distroyed because people lack a basic understanding of reality. And of course the category could be replaced by a bot generated list like Special:MostLinkedCategories if you only include the regular categories. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to comment in a civil tone any day now. This is hardly a topic worth getting rude about. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand that you want to avoid the discussion. You claim that the template prevents people from using the category directly. It is you who needs to deliver the evidence. I don't know of a single user whos categorizing habits were changed by this template. And of course you also conveniently dodged the rest of what I said. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to comment in a civil tone any day now. This is hardly a topic worth getting rude about. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- If I wanted to avoid the discussion, I wouldn't get involved in the first place. I'm happy to discuss as long as you can do it without getting unpleasant about it. It seems you may have missed the parenthesised part of my earlier post, and I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" you expect to see anyway. Most of our help pages and templates have no evidentiary support for their effectiveness. I'm not opposed to replacing the category with a bot-generated list. That option was not suggested before, but it would be useful as it enables sorting by the number of files in each category. That suggestion would of course have to be implemented before it is used as a reason to delete the category. I also think the existence of the template is still an orthogonal issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is it possible to make this template appear if and only if there is more than n files in tagged category and merge Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion and Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion to Category:Categories requiring diffusion? Bulwersator (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that's possible, perhaps {{MetaCat}} could also be merged into it, as that's basically the same thing where n=0. cmadler (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Just sharing the same namesake does not make it a family of vehicles. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Category for images who some thik it is somehow associated with a science fiction genre. Avron (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC) This also includes Category:Steampunk and sci-fi warfare, Category:Steampunk drawings--Avron (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do we usually use "imagery" sub-categories? If not, it seems redundant with Category:Steampunk, but the topic itself seems like a legitimate topic. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Steampunk" is a hugely derivative genre, recycling and mis-appropriating bits of the Victorian age. It seems reasonable to categorize both for "Steampunk" (i.e. today's Steampunks, doing their thing) and also separately for "Steampunk imagery", a distinctive and generally recognisable trope of old images, likely to be of interest to the modern Steampunk questing for new inspirations. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. Avron, what particularly was the issue you wanted to discuss? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Steampunk" is a hugely derivative genre, recycling and mis-appropriating bits of the Victorian age. It seems reasonable to categorize both for "Steampunk" (i.e. today's Steampunks, doing their thing) and also separately for "Steampunk imagery", a distinctive and generally recognisable trope of old images, likely to be of interest to the modern Steampunk questing for new inspirations. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It is reasonable to have the category "Steampunk" for artwork in this genre. But Category:Steampunk_imagery is highly subjective. For examample File:Electrical_Machinery_1917_-_Westinghouse_motor.jpg is an image of an electric motor. Should now every image in Category:Early electric motors should be inserted into Steampunk_imagery because someone might be inspired be them? It is not purpose of Commons to have subjective galleries to be of interest to the modern Steampunk questing for new inspirations.--Avron (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here, I would agree with you - "likely to" should not be included. But wouldn't it be reasonable to have a category for such images that have already been inspirational to (presumably notable) steampunk authors/artists? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, in theory this might work but I really doubt it. Normally categories base on facts but in this case how can you prove what is a fact and not? Additionally Steampunk is a small genre compared to other arts e.g. contemporary art. But we don't have this concept of have already been inspirational for other arts. I suppose it is either not usefull or not possible to define such category.--Avron (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Confusing category name Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this and similarly named categories are very confusingly named. Normally, when we have a category "1330s whatever" it means that it was created in the 1330s (decade). In this case, "1330s" refers to the number of meters. I know of no precedent (in Commons or elsewhere) for using an expression like this in the English language to refer to height. I believe this should be renamed as Category:Mountains between 1330 and 1340 meters; similarly for all other similarly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are there any other height-based (or weight-based, etc.) categories to use as an example in naming this? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, someone created a bunch of these, Category:1340s mountains, etc. But note that one level up is the more normal Category:Mountains between 1000 and 1499 meters. A parallel example would be Category:High-rises between 100 and 149 meters in Seattle, Washington or Category:Skyscrapers between 100 and 149 meters in New York City. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is an overview at List of mountains by elevation categories. There was some discussion about the naming at Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_5#Mountains. -- Docu at 11:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support renaming according to Jmabel's proposal (for the stated reasons). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
While the moves probably would be an improvement, there aren't enough participants here for me to feel comfortable moving that many categories. Feel free to renominate, where it's likely to get seen by more than three people. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Poland doesn't have County. Voivodeship is divided by Powiat, then Gmina. All counties should be rename to Powiat. WlaKom (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved this matter ot "Work for bot".--WlaKom (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this done now? --rimshottalk 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No action needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Very subjective category, not usefull Avron (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with nom - recommend deletion. FieldMarine (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I had created this category, with the name analog to neighbour categories, and placed some images in it.
Soon I noticed that there is already Category:Cycling in winter, and that there is a significant overlap of these two categories.
And that there is a significant disctinction in topic between bicycles being driven on ice, and bicycles parked for longer time and covered under snow.
This also means that the nominal analogy to the neighbour categories doesn't have a matching analogy in content, because other types of Category:Vehicles in snow are most often shown being operated in deep snow, which is hardly possible for bikes.
So I created the new Category:Bicycles covered by snow, which is clearly disctint from Category:Cycling in winter, but rather a subcategory of Category:Parked bicycles
Now someone has moved all files back, with the claim to align it with neighbour categories. But has left the category redirect saying that there shuld be no files in the category. And didn't insert the additional files which would belong in this category.
I ask for opinions about which name is preferred.
--Ikar.us (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a valid category, no comments in several years. Closed with no action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)