Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/03
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 March 2012
Empty category. 84.61.139.62 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I created this category, but later moved the entries to Category:Pub signs in Greater London depicting trains. I have no objection to deleting this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Created in error as a variant of Category:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway - please delete Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
to delete, new: Category:Romanesque cloister of Santo Estevo de Ribas de Sil GFreihalter (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Created with the wrong name - replaced by the correctly named Tsurushi Station category DAJF (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Contains only copyright violations. 84.61.139.62 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. 84.61.139.62 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? The name of the category just seems to be a stringing together of three related but separate topics for which other categories already exist. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- No clear idea. Often I see popping up weird categories and when I am not sure about the intention (or have no time), I try to link them within the right context in the hope that people will correct. Amazing that this one has not be reviewed yet. --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you created it just because it was redlinked from some image? In that case, I'm guessing it's just a product of some uploader not understanding how categories are meant to work and mistaking them for Flickr tags. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Happens all the time; we should have a tool that helps to compress the useless tags. When I am sure about the intention and have time, I move them to the right category. --Foroa (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. Thanks for the cleanup. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Happens all the time; we should have a tool that helps to compress the useless tags. When I am sure about the intention and have time, I move them to the right category. --Foroa (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you created it just because it was redlinked from some image? In that case, I'm guessing it's just a product of some uploader not understanding how categories are meant to work and mistaking them for Flickr tags. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted and content moved to Category:Qur'an. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There is already a category Category:2009 in Liverpool which is in the same format as other years Sweetie candykim (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it. I think I just got the form wrong when creating it.--JIrate (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is already a Category - Category:2011 in Liverpool Sweetie candykim (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- These are more candidtes for Quick Delete than anything else just put "delete|redundant" in them in a set of {{}} in them.--JIrate (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The category should be renamed to "Lute guitar" instead of the Swedish "Gitarrluta". Neitram (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
sorry, my (stupid) sintax error in ordinal numer (21th...) Threecharlie (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. 84.61.139.62 20:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The files are deleted!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Category:Raw food is the proper name, so this can be deleted. If i am wrong, then delete "raw food" and keep this one. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggest change of capitalisation to Category:MediaWiki screenshots to mirror similar other categories. Jarry1250 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest to be bold if it serves for more consistency. No strong feelings in category spelling ;-) --Elya (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably too vague a category, but if kept, Experimental needs to be in lower case Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I created the "Movie posters of xxx films" categories to exactly mirror the respective subcategories of Category:Films by genre which I think makes sense and provides a clear structure. This allowed me to file the poster of "Narcissus and Psyche" under exactly the same three subcategories (for posters) as the still images (under the respective subcategories for film genres). That this film appears in three categories is because it is a specific characteristic of this film to cross genres. – Feel free to adjust the spelling as necessary. --Uli (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, i had not seen that set of categories, which includes Category:Experimental films. I wish you had tried to find more films to fit the category, but thats not a requirement for keeping it. i just need the capitalization fixed.76.232.8.110 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to fix it (you'll probably know better than me how to do that without breaking anything). --Uli (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, i had not seen that set of categories, which includes Category:Experimental films. I wish you had tried to find more films to fit the category, but thats not a requirement for keeping it. i just need the capitalization fixed.76.232.8.110 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name (capitalization). --rimshottalk 07:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
too broad a category to go under "genre", but even if kept, Drama needs to be lower case Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I created the "Movie posters of xxx films" categories to exactly mirror the respective subcategories of Category:Films by genre which I think makes sense and provides a clear structure. This allowed me to file the poster of "Narcissus and Psyche" under exactly the same three subcategories (for posters) as the still images (under the respective subcategories for film genres). That this film appears in three categories is because it is a specific characteristic of this film to cross genres. – Feel free to adjust the spelling as necessary. --Uli (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see, you mean Category:Films by genre which includes Category:Drama films. Good point. I wish you had gone ahead and categorized a few more films, but thats not required. I just want the capitalization changed now.
- I understand that immediately filling a category with entries provides some justification for it. Also, I could have tried and completely mirrored the structure of Category:Films by genre, adding all its subcategories to Movie posters. However, this all occurred at the end of almost one year of work on the German article about "Narcissus and Psyche" and especially on getting the copyright for all the still images of the movie, so there was simply no time left for doing anything but the absolutely necessary work. – Again, no problems with correcting the capitalization (I'm no native English speaker, so mistakes do happen …] --Uli (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hard work on the article. i myself often leave some obvious chores undone. Please dont take my comments as a critique. after all, this is a volunteer project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- No offense taken
--Uli (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- No offense taken
- Thanks for the hard work on the article. i myself often leave some obvious chores undone. Please dont take my comments as a critique. after all, this is a volunteer project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that immediately filling a category with entries provides some justification for it. Also, I could have tried and completely mirrored the structure of Category:Films by genre, adding all its subcategories to Movie posters. However, this all occurred at the end of almost one year of work on the German article about "Narcissus and Psyche" and especially on getting the copyright for all the still images of the movie, so there was simply no time left for doing anything but the absolutely necessary work. – Again, no problems with correcting the capitalization (I'm no native English speaker, so mistakes do happen …] --Uli (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see, you mean Category:Films by genre which includes Category:Drama films. Good point. I wish you had gone ahead and categorized a few more films, but thats not required. I just want the capitalization changed now.
Deleted, bad name (capitalization). --rimshottalk 07:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Fantasy needs to be lower case. (overly categorized poster, with no work done to include other films) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I created the "Movie posters of xxx films" categories to exactly mirror the respective subcategories of Category:Films by genre which I think makes sense and provides a clear structure. This allowed me to file the poster of "Narcissus and Psyche" under exactly the same three subcategories (for posters) as the still images (under the respective subcategories for film genres). That this film appears in three categories is because it is a specific characteristic of this film to cross genres. – Feel free to adjust the spelling as necessary. --Uli (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, since we have Category:Fantasy films, why not sub cat for posters? good point. i wish you had bothered to categorize a few more films than this one, but thats not required to justify the category. I now just want the capitalization fixed.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.8.110 07:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to fix it (you'll probably know better than me how to do that without breaking anything). --Uli (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, since we have Category:Fantasy films, why not sub cat for posters? good point. i wish you had bothered to categorize a few more films than this one, but thats not required to justify the category. I now just want the capitalization fixed.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.8.110 07:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name (capitalization). --rimshottalk 07:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Rename to Loyola University Maryland to reflect the school's name change. Fuzzy510 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Loyola University Maryland. --rimshottalk 07:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Rename to Towson Center, the actual name of the arena, because I'm a fool and created the category with the wrong name. Fuzzy510 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just realized I did this wrong, too. Oy. Sorry. --Fuzzy510 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This category is categorized as a content category under Category:Cities in Taiwan, but there doesn't seem to be a city by that name in Taiwan. The photos in the category appear to come from various places in Taiwan including Nantou City. I'm guessing the category was intended as a user category for User:Shxpeng rather than as a content category, so it should probably be renamed and placed into Category:User categories with {{User category}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, Category:Files by User:Shxpeng did already exist. Redirected. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Category has a typo (letter I is in upper case) and needs deletion. It has already been fully replaced with a correctly named category. B. Jankuloski (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Wikimedia Macedonia. --rimshottalk 19:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a duplicate of Category:Cordillera del Paine and is named incorrectly. The equivalent name should be Paine massif. Jespinos (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Redirected, move will follow shortly. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cordillera del Paine. --rimshottalk 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Violates UK copyright law. 84.61.139.62 12:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- How so? --rimshottalk 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done, no follow-up. --rimshottalk 21:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. Any future entries that might fit here should go under the current counties of East Sussex or West Sussex. Auntof6 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Empty, and any future entries that might fit here should go under the current counties of East Sussex or West Sussex Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
unused does not automticaly mean not useful or to be considered in many relavent disscussions! Jochkdee63 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please clarify. The images are in a category named as about 15.000 other ships by name. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done, no follow-up to a request for (much-needed) clarification. --rimshottalk 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Name is misspelled (see original paper here). A new category with the correct spelling Chrysocoris stollii has been created to replace this one and all files moved. Koumz (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted on 10. Mär. 2012 by Foroa "Category:Chrysocoris stolli (Moved to Category:Chrysocoris stollii.)" --GeorgHH • talk 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Contains only subcategories which are nominated for deletion. 84.61.139.62 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted on 15. Mär. 2012 by Túrelio "Category:Commemorative euro coins (Malta) (Empty category.)" --GeorgHH • talk 22:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
1) It's empty and it's wrongly named: the 7th Earl of Hertford was the 8th Earl of Gloucester, not the 3rd. Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Useless subcat: upmerge to parent Category:Dioxolanes. Only other kind of en:Dioxolane (which is the commonname of the 1,3) would be 1,2 and I don't see any examples of it in the parent cat (and if we did, it would be a special case and more properly segregated into its own subcat) DMacks (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, I have no objections to the proposed move. Go ahead. --Ben (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Derivatives of 1,2-dioxolane do exist. However, it seems that we do not have any article on such a compound to far. --Leyo 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, and merged into Category:Dioxolanes Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Unpräzise; besser: Mainova AG Mainova (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted on 29. Mär. 2012 by Foroa "Category:Mainova (Moved to Category:Mainova AG.)" --GeorgHH • talk 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused category, not clear what it means. Perhelion (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Category should be named Category:Altendorf (Landkreis Schwandorf). There are more muncipalities named "Altendorf", see de:Altendorf, especially de:Altendorf (Landkreis Bamberg), what is also a "gemeinde" in bavaria... 89.244.170.171 15:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Support a move to Category:Altendorf (Landkreis Schwandorf). Keep this category as a disambiguation page. --rimshottalk 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category was meanwhile moved to Category:Altendorf, Landkreis Schwandorf by another user. Is that acceptable? 79.192.96.93 10:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that solution is not a lot worse. Also, a disambiguation page was created in the meantime. This discussion can probably be closed. --rimshottalk 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Category was meanwhile moved to Category:Altendorf, Landkreis Schwandorf by another user. Is that acceptable? 79.192.96.93 10:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguated, content moved to Category:Altendorf, Landkreis Schwandorf. --rimshottalk 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This category name should be translated into English 88.64.117.189 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done1 Category:Protestant Church (Giengen an der Brenz) --NeverDoING (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. NeverDoING (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Moved to Category:Protestant Church (Giengen an der Brenz) . --rimshottalk 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - name error - see talk SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Surrey is a landlocked county, it does not have a coast Andre Engels (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Other Nonconformist is not a useful split of the category tree; its meaningless and arbitrary. All content should be moved - either to the generic Category:Churches in Devon or into categories for the specific denomination. Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. "other" is rarely a good way to categorize. -- Docu at 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Scillystuff (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- no objection.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty. I have moved many files to categories for the specific denomination (some of which I created for that purpose). Churches with no particular denomination have been put in the most specific church category possible. --rimshottalk 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Lobivia famatimensis 89.160.76.145 04:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Echinopsis densispina, which is apparently a synonym. --rimshottalk 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Category should be named Category:Kastl (bei Kemnath) according to de:Kastl (bei Kemnath) because there are two other muncipalities named "Kastl" (see Category:Kastl (Lauterachtal) and Category:Kastl (Upper Bavaria). 79.217.178.153 08:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguated for the different municipalities. --rimshottalk 20:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the license on these files? They don't have free licenses attached. InverseHypercube 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Two photos have licenses and the other stuff is (c) by WMF. I see no problem hosting them here because reusing them in other WMF wikis is possible. -- RE rillke questions? 19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Media hosted on Commons must be reusable anywhere, not just on WMF wikis. Besides, I don't see anything that suggests that they are even usable on WMF wikis. InverseHypercube 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most of these were changed on the 22nd to cc-by-sa with the Wikimedia Trademark note. I actually did that for my own beliefs after talking to legal and didn't notice this discussion (it would have been great if someone had poked Jay or I but neither here nor there). There are still a couple that are basically just close ups of the Wikipedia Globe that I left but I think that's ok within commons policies about WMF logos. I'm happy to have a conversation specifically about those closeups but would want to chat with Legal (most of which are in Berlin this week) to make sure they were comfortable. Jalexander (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. It's great that they released it under BY-SA, but could you get it confirmed through COM:OTRS? Otherwise it's not really valid. InverseHypercube 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because his username does not include the (WMF) that has been bestowed on those of us hired later, it may not be obvious that James Alexander is acting in his capacity as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. In this matter, he is an "appointed representative" as per Commons:Email templates/Consent and could send the OTRS letter himself. I'm contributing to this discussion in my staff account, but will add my personal observation that we don't generally require OTRS verification when there is no doubt of identity. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. InverseHypercube 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, an OTRS ticket (or a note on the shop website) saying "all images from the Wikimedia Store, unless stated otherwise, are under x license" might be better, so future images can also be added. InverseHypercube 01:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- An OTRS note won't make any difference to those who don't know it's there, and the Wikimedia Store has its own Terms of Use ([1]) which would require our attorneys to revise. James is managing the shop, so he will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it there should be no issue of images being used on the Wikimedia Store that would not also be on Commons. We use Commons to host images on WMF, generally, as well, and I bet that's the case here. :) Again, James will know and correct me if I'm wrong. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, an OTRS ticket (or a note on the shop website) saying "all images from the Wikimedia Store, unless stated otherwise, are under x license" might be better, so future images can also be added. InverseHypercube 01:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. InverseHypercube 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because his username does not include the (WMF) that has been bestowed on those of us hired later, it may not be obvious that James Alexander is acting in his capacity as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. In this matter, he is an "appointed representative" as per Commons:Email templates/Consent and could send the OTRS letter himself. I'm contributing to this discussion in my staff account, but will add my personal observation that we don't generally require OTRS verification when there is no doubt of identity. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. It's great that they released it under BY-SA, but could you get it confirmed through COM:OTRS? Otherwise it's not really valid. InverseHypercube 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed, no copyright or category issues proposed here; stagnant question from about 4 months ago. Blurpeace 20:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Contains only copyright violations. 84.61.139.62 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The category contains no images presently (sigh :-( ) Hence, we should either try finding free images from sister projects/world wide web or the category can be deleted for the time being. I tried looking for some pics on U.S. govt sites but to no avail. Indian govt works shall be in public domain much later. Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category has two files now. Discussion can be closed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! The nomination stands withdrawn from my side. Cheers, Lovy Singhal (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 06:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
"Combe Longa" is the wrong name for this category. Neither the civil parish, the Ordnance Survey nor the locals use the "Longa" affix. The category should be renamed "Combe, Oxfordshire". 87.113.186.81 18:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Combe, Oxfordshire. --rimshottalk 18:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Should be named Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kastl, Tirschenreuth according to Category:Kastl, Tirschenreuth. 79.192.96.93 10:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be "Campaigns of the American Civil War" — it's simply a matter of proper grammar. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Renamed: Next time please use User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands for uncontroversial requests. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be a separate category from "Carnivals". "Carnaval" the holiday/celebration is different from the "carnivals" that are collections of thrill rides. Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Carnaval" is not even an English word (Wiktionary, dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com), even though it is part of the name of a number of carnivals. "Carnival" means the season, the festivities and the travelling fairs. We might want to decide which one the category carnivals is about, from its contents it looks like the second one, and add a corresponding description. Separating "Carnaval" is not a solution. --rimshottalk 07:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 07:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. 84.61.139.62 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not empty anymore. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. --rimshottalk 23:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the purpose of that category? It is nonsense to create one category for two different vehicles and call it then a "this or that" category. If these two tanks are 100% the same then put it in the category of the tank type that appeared at first "on the show". 88.64.116.153 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- T-54A and Type 59 are not the same. The reason why this category exists is because the pictures in it do not provide enough detail to be able to tell the diffrence. It should also be mentioned that it is very likely these tanks have parts from both T-54A and Type 59 as such "crossbreeding" was not uncommon during wartime. Thus filing all these pictures under T-54A label would be inaccurate.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Issue solved. All of those image could be assigned to the according categories. Such categories are nonsense because as long as there is no certai proof for a 100% identification, it is better to place a certain image in an "unidentified"-category than creating "X or Y"-categories. --High Contrast (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This category (Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi) refers to the same building as the Category:Palatul Neuschotz category. I think one of them should be a category redirect, but I'm not sure which one. Another solution would be to have one category as a subcategory of the other (like Category:City Hall of Iaşi and Category:Roznovanu Palace in Iaşi), but I'm not sure if this applies here. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mă bucur că s-a pus în discuţie această problemă , eu nu aş fi îndrăznit să deranjez pe cineva pentru a cere un sfat sau o părere. Mă bucur că unul din contribuitorii la categorie a ridicat problema. Având în vedere faptul că problema interesează userii români, intervenţia este în română, deoarece oricine se simte mai în largul său folosind limba natală.
- Am eliminat legătura de subordonare a Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi ca subcategorie a Category:Palaces in Iaşi deoarece aceasta avea ca subcategorie şi Category:Palatul Neuschotz. Era anormal ca această categorie, "Palaces in Iaşi" să aibă ca subcategorii două ipostaze ale aceleiaşi clădiri , una ţinând de funcţia ei actuală (hotel), şi alta ţinând de istoria sa (ca palat).
- Cele 4 imagini din categoria mai sus amintită au fost introduse de mine şi în Category:Palatul Neuschotz, pentru a ilustra ambele ipostaze ale acestei clădiri, dar nu mi se pare normal ca la "Palaces in Iaşi" să avem două subcategorii pentru funcţii diferite ale aceleaşi clădiri. Dar în final, mă voi supune părerii majorităţii. --Argenna (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cred că Category:Palatul Neuschotz e mai potrivit, deoarece clădirea e notabilă prin statutul de monument istoric, nu prin acela de hotel.--Strainu (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad you discussed this issue, I would not dare to bother someone to ask for advice or an opinion. I am glad that one of the contributors to the group raised the issue. Since the problem is of interest to Romanians, the intervention is in Romanian language, because everyone feels at ease using their native language.
- I removed the subordinate link Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi as a subcategory of Category:Palaces in Iaşi because it also had the subcategory Category:Palatul Neuschotz. It was abnormal for this category ("Palaces in Iaşi") to have as subcategories two aspects of the same building, a view of its current position (hotel), and another view of history (the palace).
- The four images from the category mentioned above were introduced by me in Category:Palatul Neuschotz, to illustrate both facets of the building, but I do not find it normal for "Palaces in Iaşi" to have two subcategories for different functions of the same building. But finally, I will submit to a majority. --Argenna (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think Category:Palatul Neuschotz is more appropriate, as the building is notable as a historical monument, not as a hotel. --(talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Din categoria hai să mai pierdem vremea cu discuţii la care să nu se hotărască nimic, se pune acum întrebarea ce reprezintă acea clădire: e un palat sau un hotel. Clădirea este în mod clar un palat, dar în afară de istorici şi de cei de la patrimoniu nimeni nu-i spune aşa. Toată lumea o cunoaşte ca fiind Select, nimeni nu spune hai să ne întâlnim în faţa Palatului Neuschotz, ci la Select. În mod sigur, denumirea de hotel nu e potrivită pentru că este hotel doar de câţiva ani, ea fiind cunoscută mai ales drept cazinou şi restaurant. Aş înclina deci pentru denumirea de palat, dar cum toată lumea o cunoaşte ca Select şi nu ca Neuschotz nu văd ce soluţie s-ar putea găsi.--Cezarika1 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Am putea să-i zicem "Restaurantul Select", așa cum e în LMI și să redirectăm celelalte 2.
- Rsocol, nu cred că e nevoie să traduci tu toată discuția, sunt sigur că dacă e altcineva interesat să participe poate să folosească Google Translate--Strainu (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Le-as pastra pe amandoua cu "soft redirect". Vedeti Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?. La Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi as pune {{category redirect|Palatul Neuschotz}}. Insa oricat mi-ar place limba materna si ideea de globalizare, la categorii s-a discutat de multe ori si sugestia generala este sa folosim engleza, altfel e haos. Deci Category:Palatul Neuschotz -> Category:Neuschotz Palace. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Am să merg pe "Restaurant Select", ca în LMI. Celelalte vor fi redirectate.--Strainu (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request - See the definition in en:Churchyard
NB problem seems to affect all subcateories
This category contains predominately church graveyards - suggest renaming and all subcategories to "Category:Church graveyards ..." or block moving contents to similar titles. 99% of the content is plain wrong - it should be in "Churches of .. " "Graves in .." or "Church graveyards .." -- challenge is to find a single image of a churchyard amongst the 'spam'. There needs to be some cleanup on this whatever the solution.-Mddkpp (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- To me (and many others I noticed), a church graveyard is a specialisation (=subcat) of a generic churchyard. I doubt that it is worth making everywhere "church graveyards" categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not really convinced that we need a separate category for Church graveyards, especially as Churchyards is a subcategory of Burial grounds. What is the point? There may, however, be a case for getting rid of the category completely, as it appears to be simply causing confusion. Most files of Churchyards are actually categorised under Cemeteries (often for good reason: it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether an image is a Churchyard or a Cemetery). Are there that many Churchyards that are not also Cemeteries? Suggest we get rid, and move everything to Category:Cemeteries, but am open to counterarguments. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As for Estonia roughly half of the churchyards (especially those in Livonian part) have never been used as cemeteries. Also I wouldn't call such churchyard that includes only a couple of very old stone crosses a cemeterey. In case a churchyard is also clearly a cemetery I'd add "Cemeteries in Estonia" to specific churchyard in addition to "Churchyards in Estonia". I've used subcats for specific churchyards to gather images by location (images that depict elements surrounding the church and are additionally categorized as e.g graves, crosses, monuments, chapels, trees, walls), which makes sense to me.
As for rest of the countries I see lots of images that mainly depict the church itself, which are in addition categorized as churches and as church having its yard is somewhat obvious, a churcyard category in addition to church category seems redundant indeed. Phrase "church graveyard" doesn't seem common, even if a churchyard is used as a cemetery, it's still a churchyard. I'd find the categorizing schema OK if only specific churchyards or churchyards in specific countries were considered as cemeteries in addition. 90.190.114.172 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly there are many churchyards that are also cemeteries, and I've no doubt there are some miscategorised images. But a rename is not necessarily going to help the miscategorised stuff, and at least as far as England goes not all churchyards are or ever have been cemeteries (especially for new churches). So I'd say we should leave the structure as is. If anyone is minded to try and merge those churchyards that are also cemeteries into cemeteries are they going to volunteer to go through the existing ones and do some research and recatogorise as a cemetery or merely garden of the relevant church? It would be a huge amount of work just to do that for England, and there is no point discussing such an exercise unless there are volunteers to do that work. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done, as per discussion, not all churchyards are graveyards. --rimshottalk 22:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Paul Saintenoy (the architect) dies in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept and {{NoUploads}} added. --rimshottalk 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
New York City by period
[edit]The following categories do not fit the current by century / by decade categorization system. Moreover, there is no recognizable system to the seletion of time periods. I suggest moving images that are still present to the corresponding categories and deleting these "by period" categories:
- Category:New York City before 1700
- Category:New York City before 1900
- Category:New York City from 1900 to 1939
- Category:New York City from 1940 to 1979 (older cfd)
- Category:New York City from 1980 to 1999 (older cfd)
- Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004 (older cfd)
- Category:New York City from 2005 to 2009
Discussions are still pending for three of the categories. In all cases, the result tends towards deletion. For consistency, I think they should be deleted. --rimshottalk 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the mean time all other discussion have been closed as delete and the 2005-2009 category has been deleted as empty. --rimshottalk 19:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the remaining ones should be deleted as well. Hamblin (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted the remaining categories, after merging into the corresponding by-century categories. --rimshottalk 14:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Simple capitalisation error: when it's part of the name of a specific church, we capitalise "Church". Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Holy Cross Catholic Church, Santa Cruz, California. --Achim (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Category name should be translated into English 91.57.84.173 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, if that's Commons policy. Apdency (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
@Apdency: Does Category:Realignment of N348 Zutphen-Noord work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: : It sounds OK to me, but I noted that there isn't any category yet starting with "Realignment ..." Apdency (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Apdency: Well, it's a very specific category, I guess. There are some other images of road realignments, but they don't have their own categories. If you think it's too specific, we could move the files to Category:Construction sites in Gelderland and delete the category altogether, but it seems useful to me to group them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I totally agree with that conclusion. The reason that I have some doubt about "realignment" is that it sounds to me like a situation in which a road had too much bends, and then it was decided to make the track straighter. That wasn't the case here; the main goals were to relieve a residential area, and to give better access to a business park. It's best to find the most applicable name for such a process. If that would be "realignment", than it's very much OK with me. Apdency (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ahh, sorry, now I understand. That seems a reasonable concern. It's not something that I know anything about, but some quick google searches do seem to suggest that a planned rerouting of a road can be described as "realignment." "Rerouting" might also work? Unfortunately, english wikipedia doesn't offer any obvious solutions. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I also encountered that. Surprisingly so, while you might expect infrastructural changes of this kind aren't that rare. This dictionary gives both a temporary and a long-term meaning for 're-routing', and I think it fits. Apdency (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you think Category:Re-routing/Rerouting of N348 Zutphen-Noord is better, that's fine with me. I have no preference for hyphenated or not. They seem more-or-less equally common according to a google search. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Apdency (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ahh, sorry, now I understand. That seems a reasonable concern. It's not something that I know anything about, but some quick google searches do seem to suggest that a planned rerouting of a road can be described as "realignment." "Rerouting" might also work? Unfortunately, english wikipedia doesn't offer any obvious solutions. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Re-routing of N348 Zutphen-Noord. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
There already exists a Category:Turbofan engines. I cannot conceive of a use for a turbofan on any vehicle other than an aircraft. I propose that this Category:Turbofan aircraft engines be simply deleted so as to avoid confusion and scattering. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are probably right: I would be only standardized placing it in relation to other aircraft engines. However, let me get you noticed that even the radial engines had an almost aviation exclusive use but I think makes more sense to leave them among the aircraft, just to be reached easily from one category over categories of engines. If you want can write your opinion also in Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation, thanks for your attention (and sorry for my english...) :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input Threecharlie. Basically we have two options:
- Move everything in Category:Turbofan engines to Category:Turbofan aircraft engines. Benefits: very coherent category tree;
- Delete Category:Turbofan aircraft engines. Benefits: avoid new media regularly being added to the wrong category (especially as Category:Turbofan engines shows up in the category suggestion tool during upload).
- Personally I think option 2 has more interesting benefits. Either way, the current situation is messy. We need to decide on one option. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input Threecharlie. Basically we have two options:
Not done: stale since 2012. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
What has a vector to bitmap conversion to do using Inkscape? Completely unclear. Perhelion (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mmmh, Inkscape renders some things differently than e.g. Mediawiki or a web browser. Tending towards keeping this. --El Grafo (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- It should be explained at the top of the category. Due to my understanding graphics had been created with Inkscape, and then the .png version was uploaded instead of a vector version. sarang♥사랑 08:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Although these files are technically bitmap files and produced with something called "Inkscape to Bitmap", they are all .PNG files not .BMP files. I would therefore suggest renaming to Category:PNG created with Inkscape, and placing it in Category:PNG created with. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:PNG created with Inkscape. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest moving the contents of this category to "Category:Animals at Philadelphia Zoo", as this would be the standard format missing out "the". There are a number of other animals or birds in zoos categories that require a similar amendment; some examples include: Snowmanradio (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Animals in the Denver Zoo
- Category:Birds in the Denver Zoo
- Category:Reptiles in the Denver Zoo
- Category:Mammals in the Denver Zoo -- Snowmanradio (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The question is whether it is more grammatical to include the article in the zoo's name; I believe it is and so oppose the name change. Postdlf (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Stale since 2012. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)