Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/07
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 July 2011
disused gravel pit 81.151.73.37 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Uhm...no? It's a category for a town, no reason this should be deleted. Speedy keep please. MacMed (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed as speedy keep as a clearly bad faith nomination. There are many photos with educational purposes in that category, and it seems to be necessary for organizing said images. Logan Talk Contributions 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
There already exists a category Pisac for the same purpose. ErickAgain 09:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Category redirect now. --rimshottalk 17:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Appears to duplicate Category:Videos of reenactments, so they should be merged one way or the other. cmadler (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- good idea --HelgeRieder (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Can be deleted; incorrect name - which has been corrected now Willemnabuurs (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Needs renaming to Kenley Airfield due to spelling mistake Oddbodz (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
empty; created by mistake (a convenient category exists: Churches in Muro (Haute-Corse). Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Please delete as the description is in French and the category is empty. Simisa (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Misspelled, it should have been 1978-79 South Pacific cyclone season Supportstorm (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This category has been superceded after reorganization. Fæ (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This category has been superceded after reorganization. Fæ (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This category has been superceded after reorganization. Fæ (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This category has been superceded after reorganization. Fæ (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Superseded after reorganization of batch upload. Fæ (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Superseded after batch upload reorganization. Fæ (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Superseded after batch upload reorganization. Fæ (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Please delete; correct spelling is Zambezi Airlines Simisa (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've begun this category (Antenna Radiation patterns) but the existing "Antenna diagrams" is in fact good enough. Sorry for the trouble Elgewen (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Tabriz. See http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2 → "تبریز" = Tabriz Saibo (Δ) 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, category names should be English. --rimshottalk 13:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
'Category:CB antennes is misspelled , please correct it as it should be: 'Category:CB antennas' Elgewen (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
"Please delate this category. In the village of Brenna is ONLY ONE aphitheatre" Trijnstel (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominate for deletion André Kritzinger (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Redundant after batch reorganization. Fæ (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Redundant after batch upload reorganization. Fæ (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please insert simply {{Speedy|Author request}} or {{Bad name|Good name}}. --Foroa (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
the correct name and category is: Category:St. Maria Magdalena (Niederadenau) Reinhardhauke (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect category: there is no truck manufucturer that is calles "Truck Makers". The category name was chosen because there wasa wiki article on de:wiki with this lemma. Now, the article has been moved on German Wikipedia because such manufucturer is not existent. Thus, please remove this category and keep the two subcats, that are correct 91.57.90.5 08:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Incorrect category name. Such truck producer does not exist. --High Contrast (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete; it is the same as Category:Exxxotica New York 2009 Handcuffed (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. It took place in New Jersey, but was called Exxxotica NY, according to enWP. --rimshottalk 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Move to "Sage"; this is now the preferred spelling InverseHypercube (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Category redirect kept, as this once was a valid name. --rimshottalk 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This Category is obsolet, the Name:Gemäldegalerie Dresden is inexact. The picture are now in Category:Paintings by Watteau in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Dresden) A. Wagner (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This Category is obsolet, the Name:Gemäldegalerie Dresden is inexact. The picture are now in Category:Paintings by Nicolas Poussin in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Dresden) A. Wagner (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
incorrect name and duplicat. category is now: Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Dresden) A. Wagner (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
incorrect name, category is now: Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Dresden). Thanks A. Wagner (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
delete for wrong name (it should be "historical flags of Cambodia") Xiengyod (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
alew 82.33.181.116 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 18:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
typo in the title, requesting renaming to Category:Portraits of children in military uniforms of Russia Santosga (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Rename - quite obvious. NVO (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- For mistakes in the cat name, it's not necessary to make a discussion in CFD. Ask the rename directly to Delinker ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know how to do that. Could you please do it yourself or tell me how to do it? Cheers --Santosga (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just do it. Delinker is here. Cheers, --DenghiùComm
- Thank you, DenghiùComm. Santosga (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just do it. Delinker is here. Cheers, --DenghiùComm
Deleted, typo. --rimshottalk 12:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
All files in this category are views of roads in Scotland, not in Corsica. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes probably, but these are errors in the file description pages, created when these images were imported, not of the category itself.
- In other words, you should correct each of these image pages (after checking their actual content and description). Do not move the subcategory listed there, which is still accurate. It seems that the images were classified there due to the presence of the word "Corse" in some of their description. "Corse" is the French name from "Corsica" in English. (Note that the Corsican name for this island and regions is also "Corsica", not "Corse"). Whever the region itself should be named in French (the only official language) or in Corsican (regional language only, supported only at a cultural level in education, but not in administrations), is something that could be debated, given that the parent category has an existing unified naming for lots of subcategories reusing the same word "Corsica" (in both English and Corsican). verdy_p (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I dropped the incorrect categorizing of those images, using speedy HotCat (clicking on the [-] link). The category is clean now. You could have done this yourself instead of posting something about the category that had absolutely no problem at all. In fact, there are a lot of images in Commons that are listed in incorrect categories or that need better sorting. When there are so few files to recategorize, the simplest way to handle the problem is to recategorize those files. This does not require any discussion, as these files were already categorized in another correct category (Roads in Aberdeenshire, that may eventually need its own separate maintenance). verdy_p (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: as the problem is fixed, I will remove the tag added to the category. It should have never been there... verdy_p (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's five more today. It just seems futile: there are nearly 2 million files from geograph.co.uk, they flood everything. Someone (who? not me) should police category:Roads in Corsica at least weekly to keep it clean. NVO (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed, the images are sorted now, if more of them appear, no discussion is needed - just correct their categorization. --rimshottalk 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Spanish name used, policy is to use English names for categories. better Category:Chavín de Huántar (Archaeological site). ErickAgain 10:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hello! It is true, I promise to make the change tomorrow. Regards, --Dtarazona (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you did it! Thanks! --Dtarazona (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, it was only used for a day, little chance of anyone opening it accidentally. It is now at Category:Chavín de Huántar (archaeological site)--rimshottalk 15:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:Cong = Category:Cong, County Mayo Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Its a disambiguation page now. That should be the best solution. --rimshottalk 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept as a disambiguation page, no opposition. --rimshottalk 16:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Plain redundancy with Category:Stettin (ship, 1933). I want to suggest the deletion of the Dampfeisbrecher cat. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- No need for discussion. Can be deleted. Not in line with new naming policy. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- +1 --Klugschnacker (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- ok for me. In the meantime, I redirected it. -- Docu at 14:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- +1 --Klugschnacker (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept the redirect, as this might be a likely search term. --rimshottalk 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete category (empty); has been replaced by "Waldau (Bern)" Krol:k (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguated, there are several Waldaus. Feel free to add more as you find them. --rimshottalk 16:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
if anything, Category:Chinoiserie should get extended ZH2010 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- There must be Japanese restaurants in Belgium, their interiors should qualify. But they cannot be hosted there thanks to "no FOP in Belgium" party. So the category cannot be realistically used - no objections to delete. NVO (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a deletion request. I'm listing it to the todays DR page. --JuTa 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Park has a new name, Sahlen's Stadium, and the category should be changed to match. --Powers (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Closed as move. This has gone on long enough. Powers (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
the correct name of the chapel is:St. Quirinus (Rodder) Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is German Wikipedia wrong, then? --rimshottalk 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Leider widersprüchliche Angaben, die ich bisher nicht klären konnte.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Die deutsche Wikipedia verwendet auch gerne innerhalb eines Artikels beide Namen. Vielleicht ist es das Beste, beide in den Beschreibungstext für die Kategorie zu schreiben, und den Kategorienamen so zu lassen. Dann findet man die Kategorie wenigstens mit der Suche unter St. Rochus und St. Quirinus. --rimshottalk 19:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed, added a description to allow searching for both names. --rimshottalk 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Monanchora barbadensis is a synonym of Monanchora arbuscula (per WoRMS and World Porifera Database), so this category has been replaced by Category:Monanchora arbuscula--Koumz (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted long ago. --rimshottalk 23:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Redundant category. Only had one file. Category not needed. LordVetinari (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete. --Foroa (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept, in use. --rimshottalk 23:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary category; creator believed it rotated images. Previous discussion from Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rotate270
Delete {{Rotate}} marks a file for rotation by a bot. I am not aware that placing an image in this category has any automated action. Finavon (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This category works, I just used it . please dont delete . I dont want to delete this. Mdupont (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which file(s) did you use it to rotate? Finavon (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- see my history:
10:15, 2 July 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Rotate270 (←Created page with '{ { Rotate|270 } }') 10:15, 2 July 2011 (diff | hist) File:OffenbachDSC00314.jpg (Cat-a-lot: Copying from Category:Offenbach am Main to Category:Rotate270) Mdupont (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those batches of files were rotated by Rotatebot after I added {{rotate|270}} - see Page History. This Category does not have a function. If you need to rotate images, add {{Rotate}} with the appropriate amount (90, 180, 270}. Better still, rotate images before uploading! Finavon (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
--Finavon (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe we could ask Luxo to tweak his bot to work with that. It's actually easier to cat-a-lot a series of images in there than to tag each with a template.
- Personally, I had move images in a temporary category in the past and then tagged them by bot with {{Rotate}} -- Docu at 08:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Did anything come out of this maybe? --rimshottalk 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted after DR. --rimshottalk 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Category:Weilburger Schifffahrtstunnel due to movement of article in german wikipedia. SteMicha (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Support Correct name should be used in Commons, too. --Emha (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)- Support I'm of the same opinion. --Sir James (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Question: is there any reason for a German category name? Category names are usually English: "Canal tunnel in Weilburg", or similar. --rimshottalk 07:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No; I think, it could be also named in english language. Greets --Sir James (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Weilburger Schifffahrtstunnel --GeorgHH • talk 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No images. 84.62.199.166 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Category name should be in English, per Commons:Language policy cmadler (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Google translate gives the category name as "The staging of the Polish-Swedish battle for Warsaw in 1656". cmadler (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I propose to call "Events in Skaryszewski Park" - Ala z talk 15:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- What about "Battle of Warsaw (1656) reenactments"? This follows the name of the English Wikipedia article, w:Battle of Warsaw (1656), and the naming convention that appears to be in use for historical reenactments. cmadler (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I propose to call "Events in Skaryszewski Park" - Ala z talk 15:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- The category has been renamed as suggested by cmadler, into Battle of Warsaw (1656) reenactments, and all the files have been moved there. odder (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Serves no purpose; decade categories do the job Jim.henderson (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, artifact of early days of Commons before general adoption of decade & year categories for states & major cities. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think all of the "by period" category should be deleted, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/03/New York City by period. --rimshottalk 17:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. Other categories still pending. --rimshottalk 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Contested rights issue by user:Calliopejen1, affecting all files from this State photo collection source.#
See original deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection
- (I would suggest centralising all discussion there) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept after DR. --rimshottalk 22:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Images only show challenger match, not den WCC 2010. So title is wrong. 89.247.173.68 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll move it to Category:World Chess Championship 2010 to match Wikipedia. ghouston (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of the images in this category here appear to claim public domain status, but fail to link to the correct image policy. Caltech's image policy changed between 2004 December when [1] appeared to forbif commercial use without obtaining a release form, and 2005 July (here) which became more relaxed as long as the credit line contained no organisations " other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA". I have already nominated two Spitzer images that originated before 2004 December, or that had an extra copyright holder in the credit line. This category needs a clear notice to clarify the change and the importance of checking the original image, the image use policy then in effect and the correct credit line. 84user (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Links to nominations I mentioned above: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perseus' Stellar Neighbors.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:SIRTF ir 1.jpg. -84user (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy. -84user (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin closure. This request is from 2011 and generated no discussion. However, all linked cases resulted in a Keep, with one garnering a comment from someone who works in the Spitzer program, explaining the situation. I believe it is safe to close this request as no action taken. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Redundant with existing Category:Women of Russia. Only had one subcat, Category:Photographs of women from Russia in military uniform, which I recatted to the parent category. Contains no files. - dcljr (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- normal cat. for woman by medium. Exist category:Painted portraits of women from Russia, so will be and photo.--Shakko (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Very well. I see more work has been done on these categories, so I'll just drop it. My main objection is that almost every file here (on Commons, I mean) is a photograph, so it makes sense to me to only point out the medium if it differs from that. We really don't want to go around changing 95% of the categories here from "XYZ" to "Photographs of XYZ". - dcljr (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, by default media are photographs of something and other media types are explicitly described. In almost every case the "photographs of xxx" categories are redundant and content should be in the "xxx" category or its sub-categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Very well. I see more work has been done on these categories, so I'll just drop it. My main objection is that almost every file here (on Commons, I mean) is a photograph, so it makes sense to me to only point out the medium if it differs from that. We really don't want to go around changing 95% of the categories here from "XYZ" to "Photographs of XYZ". - dcljr (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to do, complaint withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Title is unclear: these are photographs by Wilhelm von Gloeden. Propose renaming to either Category:Men photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden or (since it appears that not all subjects are actually men) perhaps Category:Males photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden. Please specify which form you'd prefer in your vote/comment. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe Category:Men and boys photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden, by analogy with next CFD below. I don't know… - dcljr (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Photographs of men by Wilhelm von Gloeden to match parent-Category:Photographs of men. --Foroa (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have the sister category Category:Women and girls by Wilhelm von Gloeden, so I think that it's more correct to change the name of this category to Category:Men and boys by Wilhelm von Gloeden. The word photographs is redundant: von Gloeden was a photograph. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Photographs of men by Wilhelm von Gloeden to match parent-Category:Photographs of men. --Foroa (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Men and boys by Wilhelm von Gloeden per DenghiùComm, but there's no suggestion as to a better naming discussion, so closing with no other action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Similar to above section. Title is unclear. Propose Category:Women and girls photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden. - dcljr (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see the difference (Gloeden was just a photographer, so what else could be "by" him?), but if you feel more at ease this way, let's change it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Closing with no action taken per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:Men by Wilhelm von Gloeden. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to duplicate parent category Category:Brotherhood of Knights - Dragon Company (Poland) cmadler (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The person who set up those categories was the photographer for all of the images, so in the absence of anyone else weighing in, I am just going to trust that the uploader had a reason for that setup. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Parent category:Grenades is actually for hand grenades (mostly them, but also some mortar-fired ordinance and some artillery rounds like File:Municia delostrelecka granat 03a.png - perhaps it does not belong there at all).
- Should category:Hand grenades be kept and filled with files from Category:Grenades, or
- Should category:Hand grenades be emptied into its parent, and then redirected or deleted ? ~ NVO (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Placing all hand grenades in the parent category, and supplementing that category with subcategories for special kinds of grenades is my least favoured choice.
- There are more kinds of grenades than those mentioned by NVO, including:
- traditional(?) explosive, anti-personnel hand grenades, intended to be thrown at, or in the vicinity of, the target -- intended to kill or disable
- flash-bang or stun grenades, intended to be thrown, but also intended to stun, temporarily blind, temporarily deafen, or temporarily stupify hostage-takers, without permanently injuring nearby hostages
- smoke grenades, also intended to be thrown, lobbed, or placed by hand, used for signaling, for instance to aircraft, or artillery spotters, informing them where it is safe for a helicopter to land, or where enemies bunkers are, to be bombarded
- gas grenades, also intended to be thrown, used as a less lethal way to clear a street of a mob, or to clear a building or bunker
- rocket propelled grenades -- fired from shoulder mounted weapons, intended to be used against armored or unarmored vehicles, or possibly structures
- 40mm shoulder fired grenades, fired from short single shot grenade launchers mounted under a soldier's rifle barrel, or from special rifles. Munitions include shaped charge and anti-personnel explosive rounds, and specialty rounds, including smoke, gas, flares, starshell, less-lethal bean-bags, and foam or rubber bullets, also paintballs, for marking vehicles
- 40mm munitions fired from automatic grenade launchers, which resemble squat heavy machine guns, which fire rounds like the shoulder mounted weapons, but with a more powerful charge
- armoured vehicles mount what are called smoke grenade launchers, which are used to generate enough smoke a vehicle is obscured from aircraft or artillery spotters, long enough that it can get away and hide.
I am not familiar with the mortar fired grenades NVO mentions.- Rifle grenades -- I overlooked these.
- I believe the best way to organize these different types is into subcategories by how they are projected -- thrown by hand, rocket propelled, with a "bang", or dropped by a vehicle. Alternate organizations include:
- by intended target, so all tear gas grenades would be in one category, without regard to whether they were intended to be thrown, fired by the shoulder mounted weapons or the machine gun style weapons. Similarly, shaped charge munitions would be in one category, without regard to whether they were rocket propelled, or fired from a barrel, with a traditional cartridge propellant that went "bang".
- by intended use, so all bean-bag, foam or rubber munitions fired from grenade launchers would be in one category, all smoke grenades would be in another category.
- I am going to repeat, putting all hand grenades in the parent category, with special grenades in subcategories is my least favoured choice. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- "mortar fired" - I meant automatic grenade launchers and similar. NVO (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are seven categories like Category:Hand grenades of the United States, which however do not have the parent category Category:Hand grenades by country, but instead the much less useful Category:Grenades by country, even though those seven subcategories are all Category:Grenades by country contains. Most of the hand grenades seem to have been in these categories. Categories like Category:Hand grenades by country of manufacture and Category:Rocket propelled grenades by country of manufacture would probably be more useful. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Classification by type is fine, but I suspect classification by country of origin is stillborn: there won't be enough properly attributed photos. Even if it's WW2 photo from Bundesarchive we cannot presume it's "made in Germany" simply because it's photographed on German side. Today it's even worse: generic products made all around the world. NVO (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify -- are you agreeing to categorize by method of projection? If so, then Category:Hand grenades could stay at that name. Category:Rifle grenades could stay at that name or be renamed Category:Rifle propelled grenades. Category:Rocket propelled grenades could stay at that name. So, for the vehicle mounted smoke grenades, what would you agree to something like Category:Vehicle mounted smoke grenades? But what would we call the category or categories for the grenades fired from specialty grenade launchers that fire with a "bang"? Category:Automatic grenade launcher munitions might work if we agree to separate categories. But what should we call the other category for the munitions propelled from shoulder fired specialty weapons? I am stumped coming up with a simple short name that doesn`t include rifle propelled grenades and rocket propelled grenades.
- Perhaps, by type, you meant there should be separate categories for explosive antipersonnel grenades, smoke grenades, gas grenades, beanbag rounds, rubber bullets, foam bullets, flares and starshell rounds. Complicating matters are that shotguns can also fire beanbags, rubber bullets, and foam bullets. They may be able to fire all the other kinds of rounds. Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also complicating is that while one can see how smoke grenades, gas grenades and starshell are similar to traditional grenades that explode in the vicinity of the target -- we wouldn`t call the beanbag rounds, or similar rounds, grenades, except we are firing them from specialty weapons called grenade launchers. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Classification by type is fine, but I suspect classification by country of origin is stillborn: there won't be enough properly attributed photos. Even if it's WW2 photo from Bundesarchive we cannot presume it's "made in Germany" simply because it's photographed on German side. Today it's even worse: generic products made all around the world. NVO (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
No consensus for upmerging, no traction for anything else, really. As with most categories, there's room for better sorting, but that's not what CfD is for. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to find a common denotation for district administration buildings in the Category:Buildings by function/Category:Government buildings tree. Currently, the subtree starts as Category:Administrative district office buildings on the upper level, then forks into Category:County halls (containing 7 subcategories) and Category:Administrative district office buildings in Germany, which then continues as Category:Landkreis administration buildings. I have no preference about the actual name of this tree - for me, County hall sounds as good as District administration building - but I think it should be the same through all levels. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- As there were no protests, all district administration buildings" in Germany have now been recategorized as such. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like most of the concerns were addressed in the past three years, but I did add this to Category:Buildings by function. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Unecessary category split up. A sunset in 2010 looks the same as a sunset in 2009 or in 50 BC. A categorization like sunset over ocean/lake/city etc. - by landscape - possibly makes sense. A categorization of sunsets by location possibly makes sense because people tend to upload their holiday photos here, albeit we got enough sunsets already a categorization by location allows us to give those holiday photos at least some little educational categorization. A categorization by date does not make any sense. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am agree on your comment. When I edit some categories about sunsets by year, it was only to follow other year subcategorizations. It seems to be other categorization more appropriate and even useful. I think that such categories must be deleted in ordrer to allow "good" categories. --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar year categories have been nominated for discussion too and discussion centralied here. Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/07/Category:2010_sunsets. --Martin H. (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, won't say, that it's unnecessary. So you could e.g. compare sunsets for special dates, lets say, when a volcano eruption took place. You won't be able to get that comparison, if you don't sort them by time. So i'll propose a keep. --Pflastertreter (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- If the category adds substantial information about a singular event could be useful but for generic images (not associated with singular events) I do not see any added value on recording the date. --Bestiasonica (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, won't say, that it's unnecessary. So you could e.g. compare sunsets for special dates, lets say, when a volcano eruption took place. You won't be able to get that comparison, if you don't sort them by time. So i'll propose a keep. --Pflastertreter (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ob etwas notwendig ist oder eben nicht ist eine durchaus philosophische und persönliche Frage. Es gibt sehr wohl Argumente dafür, dass es interessant ist, Ereignisse und Landschaften zu besonderen Zeitpunkten zu vergleichen. Wird ein Sonnenuntergang beispielsweise am selben Strand zur selben Jahreszeit in verschiedenen Jahren aufgenommen, so kann die Veränderung der Landschaft durchaus von grossem Interesse sein. Es ist daher ziemlich voreingenommen, nur weil man selber den Nutzen einer Kategorie aufgrund seiner eigenen subjektiven und somit immer eingeschränkten Denkweise nicht erkennen kann, also die Kategorie für einen selbst keinen Nutzen hat, zu bestimmen, dass diese subjektive Denkweise objektiv sei und die besagte Kategorie somit auch für andere Menschen keinen Nutzen haben kann und darf. Wen diese Kateogrien nicht interessieren, der ist frei, sie zu ignorieren. Was aber für den einen nutzlos erscheint, mag für den anderen durchaus von grosser Wichtigkeit sein. Die Wikipedia ist für alle Menschen da, daher plädiere ich hier auch für eine sehr grosse Vielfalt von Denkansätzen und für eine grosse Toleranz. So gibt es beispielsweise Menschen, die eben Sonnenuntergänge zu bestimmten Zeitpunkten/Jahren sammeln. Für diese sind diese Kategorien durchaus wertvoll. Soweit die Kategorien nicht objektiv falsch sind oder es sich nicht um Doppelspurigkeiten handelt, plädiere ich daher für die Beibehaltung! DidiWeidmann (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Es sei dann die Frage erlaubt, wo ich dieses Datum implementiere. Sortiere ich einen Ort nach Datum oder sortiere ich ein Phänomen nach Datum? Nehemen wir an es gibt 'Sonnenuntergang Strand A' und 'Sonnenuntergang Strand B' dann setzt dein Argument an, den Strand nach Datum zu sortieren. Aber das Ereignis Sonnenuntergang nach Datum zu sortieren macht keinen Sinn. Deinem Ansatz stimme ich übrigens durchaus zu und habe ihn Eingangs sogar erwähnt. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ich möchte vorschlagen, diese Diskussion nun zu einem Ende zu bringen und im Ergebnis die Jahreskategorien zu löschen. Die Sonnenuntergänge können nach Orten sortiert werden (dort können dann auch Sonnenuntergänge aus verschiedenen Jahren am selben Ort zusammenfinden) oder nach Landschaft (zum Beispiel Sonnenuntergänge an Seen, Sonnenuntergänge über Schnee). -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
And the Sunset by year categories are gone. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Kategorie nur angelegt, da es auch schon andere nach Jahren kategorisierte Sonnenuntergänge gab. Wenn alle sonnenuntergänge in der Category:Sunsets ständen, wäre die zudem mit über 300 Bildern auch recht groß.. --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Chocolate_sauce and Category:Chocolate_syrup seem to describe the same. In enwp c. sauce was redired to c. syrup after there were two articles [2]. However, the article en:Chocolate syrup features navigation boxes mentioning "sauces"... If they do not describe the same then could please someone add a header what the difference is? Saibo (Δ) 02:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I knew of Category:Chocolate_sauce when I created Category:Chocolate_syrup. I was possibly thinking along the lines of chocolate sauce being something you pour on a dessert, and chocolate syrup being more of an ingredient. I'm not really an expert though. I have no objection to the two categories being merged.--Belovedfreak (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a syrup is not a sauce; the en:wiki describes a syrup, the de:wiki a sauce. I would say; commercial items tend to be syrups. --Foroa (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Syrup is a sauce, in this context. The syrup category is now a subcat of the sauce category. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it ok to move all macro photographs from here to daughter category:Macro photographs, leaving only the stuff relevant to macro technique? But then, what's the point in having category:Macro photographs - there's just too many of them! (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Close-ups of insects). If it's intended as a showcase of the best photos, it's better be a gallery. ~ NVO (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you want to create a subcategory Category:Macro photography technique and add that to Category:Macro_photography. This will make it easier to sort between that and Category:Macro_photographs
- The number of images in Category:Macro_photographs isn't a problem as long as all images in there are actually macro photographs. -- Docu at 09:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I copied a few images of camera setups to Category:Macro photography technique as suggested. Ideally I would agree with properly separating the technique from the results of the technique, but balk at the over one thousand images that would need moving. If the category had just started I would agree with NVO. -84user (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- After copying several images to the techniques category, my opinion has moved more to NVO's first suggestion of moving the actual photographs to the correct category instead. The reason: I came to the category looking for actual diagrams of the setup, including any on how the depth of field changes and is affected by the setup. Instead I found hundreds of photographs, only by clicking the next 200 am I finding relevant and useful diagrams and images. Commons should treat the user better I feel. Well written notices at the tops of such categories should help persuade people to place images in better categories. 84user (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can have my bot move the remaining ones to Category:Macro_photographs. -- Docu at 15:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this was converted into a directory/parent cat. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
To be blunt, I've always hated this category name (no offense to the original creator). It is very awkward when compared to most other nudity-related categories. (BTW, same can be said about Category:Female breasts of humans in art and Category:Male breasts of humans, created by the same user.) I'm guessing this was created as a more "anatomical" alternative to Category:Breasts, based on the original parent categories chosen, but that doesn't seem to be how it's currently being used. In fact, the subcats of Category:Breasts are more "anatomical" or "medical" than those of the category under discussion! I propose either chosing a new name than can be used for "anatomical" or "medical" types of images of breasts (not sure what that would be), or simply merging/redirecting the contents to Category:Breasts. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Surely the correct title would be "Breasts of Female Humans" , ditto "Breasts of Male Humans" - breast don't have a sex independent of owner (grammar) Imgaril (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Imgaril. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. While I agree with Imgaril's grammatical analysis, the suggested renaming doesn't really fix the problem that there's no clear conceptual separation of Category:Breasts and the other category, regardless of what it's called. The more I try to come up with a solution that preserves (/clarifies) the distinction, the more I'm convinced that it can't be preserved. In other words, I recommend that we:
- merge Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts (after which other changes to subcats of the latter category can be considered, as necessary)
- rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art to Category:Human breasts in art
- rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts (male)
- (BTW, note that Category:Female breasts of humans in art is a subcat of Category:Breasts in art, which itself contains "abstract" or "non-realistic" depictions of "breasts"; this is why #2 is a rename and not simply a merge into Category:Breasts in art.)
- Does anyone object to this course of action? - dcljr (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I do object. Breasts are not anatomic parts that are exclusive to women (even if we instinctively think of women first when we see this world). And Commons (+ Wikipedia) have that mission to stand by the correct truth/information. Moreover your argument of the wrong categorization is not valid : it just means the categorization is uncorrect ! Therefore there's no reason to reproduce this common mistake that lead to think only women have breasts. The best category tree should be :
- rename Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts of female humans (or Category:Human female breasts ? or Category:Female human breasts ? We just have to chose the best one)
- rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts of male humans
- rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art into Category:Breasts of female humans in art and move it into Category:Breasts of female humans (and maybe in Category:Breasts of humans in art to be created)
- We have to be correct and logical. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But does your argument extend to nipples and areolas, along with all the similarly named (sub)cats (e.g., Category:Inverted nipple, Category:Breast cancer, etc.)? And what about the huge number of other anatomical categories that could apply to humans and non-humans (especially other mammals)? Would you recommend creating a "human" category (when it doesn't already exist) for every single such category (Category:Vulva, Category:Penis, Category:Clitoris, Category:Testicles, Category:Buttocks, Category:Legs, Category:Feet, Category:Toes, Category:Hands, Category:Fingers, Category:Nails, etc.)? If yes, that's fine: I just want to be clear what your position is. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I do object. Breasts are not anatomic parts that are exclusive to women (even if we instinctively think of women first when we see this world). And Commons (+ Wikipedia) have that mission to stand by the correct truth/information. Moreover your argument of the wrong categorization is not valid : it just means the categorization is uncorrect ! Therefore there's no reason to reproduce this common mistake that lead to think only women have breasts. The best category tree should be :
- Hmm. While I agree with Imgaril's grammatical analysis, the suggested renaming doesn't really fix the problem that there's no clear conceptual separation of Category:Breasts and the other category, regardless of what it's called. The more I try to come up with a solution that preserves (/clarifies) the distinction, the more I'm convinced that it can't be preserved. In other words, I recommend that we:
- I agree with Imgaril. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the first option in each case does have the nice property that each builds on the parent category's name in a "logical" way that would help with searching and when using tools like HotCat, I actually don't like the first options (in all cases) because (1) they're slightly more wordy, and (2) I prefer using "female" as an adjective rather than a noun (as an aside, see the comments at Category talk:Females). The second options in each of the last two cases were suggested above; does everyone (commenting here) still agree with those? And what about the second case (2nd bullet point)? I say the second option. What say others? And should any of the other options be redirects (which help when using HotCat)? - dcljr (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the debate was about the gender. I agree that we could drop the "human" and only keep "Male breasts" and "Female breasts". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I note that an anonymous IP user has removed the CFD tag from this category. I haven't been following, but that seems rather unorthodox. On the other hand, this has gone over 10 months without comment, so I leave it to someone who was working on this to decide what best to do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Both the female and male versions of this category have been moved to the "[gender] human [body part]" formula, which seems to be the formula in wide use. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Spanish used, policy is to use english for category names. Better: category:Ministry of the Environment (Peru). ErickAgain 10:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Spanish used for category name, policy is to use English for category names. Better: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Peru). ErickAgain 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Move to "St. Andrews crosses (BDSM)" Handcuffed (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- As can be seen in Category:Saint Andrew, Commons avoids abbreviations, so better use Saint Andrew's crosses (BDSM). --Foroa (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This was done years ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This Category should be renamed to Category:Grube Fortuna (Solms) because the mine is situated near the city of Solms. --~ Emha (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. When I created the category, the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia was just called "Grube Wetzlar", and the introduction of the article said that the mine was close to Wetzlar, which was rather rough. Recently the introduction has been corrected and the the article has been renamed in the same way as suggested for the category here. The names should match. --Tetris L (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly redundant, see Category:Borough of North Lincolnshire - it's not clear to me what this category is intended to cover? Also seems to have been used without using subcats. I think this category should be deleted, and the parent populated with geographically relevent categories Imgaril (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Agreed, but before it can be deleted there's an awful lot of files need moving. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support but this may have been created as part of the geograph.org.uk upload, so do they all move to Borough of North Lincolnshire, or subcategories such as Towns and villages in Lincolnshire? There are many other examples of this, such as the unitary authorities that make up West Youkshire, where they have been uploaded as Kirlees, Calderdale, Leeds, Bradford or Wakefield, but not as West Yorkshire.
- Comment Ah, the problems created by the Geograph uploads! Bless them! At least we now have the images on Commons (and still more to come, I think), giving us probably the best coverage of any country, so it's not all bad. I'm afraid I think we'll probably have to just grin and bear it for a while. The images under North Lincolnshire need sorting through. Some of them won't even be in "North Lincolnshire" at all. It's a massive task, and is likely to take months, if not years (the "Humber Estuary" subcategory is a massive problem in itself). They really need moving to the appropriate civil parish (or unparished area, urban town, whatever you want to call Scunthorpe!), and that then needs linking to "Borough of North Lincolnshire". I pop in every so often and do a few, but most of my time is taken up with helping sort Greater Manchester. I shouldn't worry too much about it, as at least one is a subcategory of the other, so even though it's not very tidy at the moment, they're all in one place for anyone prepared to wade through. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment They should be merged, but I'd suggest keeping Category:North_Lincolnshire instead. It's the better-used category, it matches the name in Wikipedia, and it's easier to use. There isn't any particular naming convention for other districts/boroughs in Commons: some include "district" or "borough" in their names and some don't. ghouston (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Merged Borough of North Lincolnshire into North Lincolnshire. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)