Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/05
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 May 2012
Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory. Leyo 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory. Leyo 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory (too narrow). Leyo 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Misspelling. Leyo 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory (too narrow). Leyo 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to create unlabeled categories. Leyo 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Female genitalia. --rimshottalk 20:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Category to be deleted because of incorrect name Paulbe (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Correct name for this category is "Instant messaging icons". Sorry, my mistake. --Paulbe (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 08:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalisation, sorry, my fault. Paulbe (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Stone bridges in Austria. --rimshottalk 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Category was created by a bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Category created by a bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Category created by bot it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Category created by bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was creating this category-redirect a little blindfolded ;)
It was thought as a redirect to the category:
- Stained glass windows
But I found out immediately the problem with listing as new sub-category of "Stained glass windows" ...
So the category "Stained glass window" is definitely a candidate for deleting!
Jaybear (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are only two type of Canadair water bombers (CL-215 and CL-415) and parent Category:Firefighting aircraft is not especially crowded. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the consensus arrived at during the previous discussion was clear. There are multiple kinds of firefighting aircraft:
- "bird-dog" aircraft guide waterbombers to the best part of the fire to drop their load;
- waterbombers;
- helicopters that dip a bucket into bodies of water
- What possible value would there be in collapsing the hierarchy agreed to in the earlier discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- In an effort to keep the discussion centralized I have copied your message, and replied, over at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Air tanker. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see no justification for the existence of category Canadair water bombers. Water bombers is ambiguous, since CL-215 and CL-415 have capability to mix and drop slurries (mixtures of water with other materials), as used by most other fluid-carrying firefighting aircraft. There are not equivalent categories such as Canadair trainers, Canadair fighters or Canadair anything else. The CL-415 is a variant of the CL-215, so should be a sub-cat of that. There's also an intermediate problematic variant, CL-215 converted with turbine engines, visually like CL-415 but not to full CL-415 standard.PeterWD (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- In an effort to keep the discussion centralized I have copied your message, and replied, over at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Air tanker. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The CL-415 was derived from the CL-215 but is distinct enough to not be a sub-category. The same applies to B747-100, -200, -400 etc, and in that mindset, B737 could be a derivative of B707 and so on.
- As for the rest of the debate (including this very category), I do not mind. As long as the path to finding a photo is obvious for the average Wikipedia editor, I am fine with whatever nomenclature choices are made. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion: This category fits within the scheme described at the CfD for "Firefighting aircraft". Kept as such. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This category, created 06MAR12, covers the same subject as Category:Luxembourg American Cemetery and War Memorial which is used sin 2008 Jwh (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Category:Luxembourg American Cemetery and War Memorial. --rimshottalk 17:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Ambulance used during the protests by ambulance workers in the Czech Republic (2010-2011)
[edit]The category with this name does not go in compliance with Commons. The name is too descriptive 178.10.106.64 14:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The original category was Category:Náš exodus, váš exitus? (logs). There was some edit war about the parent category but I can see no previous discussion. I think, something like Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus?" would be better. --ŠJů (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. What does "Náš exodus, váš exitus" mean? Is it possible to find a good English equivalent? --High Contrast (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think, the two Latin words need not be translated :-) This means "Our exodus – your exitus". Hospital physicians warned that their salaries are very low and that most of them go rather to foreign countries. This trade union action consisted in mass leaving notice given by many doctors together. The cotroversial slogan was very discussed ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and used not only at this allegorical ambulance car but more widely. I think, such slogans should be used in original, some translations would be not so specific and authentic. Such slogans are explainable but not translatable. --ŠJů (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks ŠJů. But my latin and my software skills are good enough to translate "Náš exodus, váš exitus". I just wanted to know why a category for a single vehicle could be encyclopedically useful (this is a not so obvious issue). But anyway I still agree with your proposal that we rename this cat to "Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus"". --High Contrast (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- When we have 6 photos of some specific vehicle with very specific function, it is a sufficient reason to group them as a specific category (indepentently of its encyclopedic importance), rather than mix them with something different. Categorization is a tool to organize media, not to affirm importance of their subjects. We have also cateories Category:Tram 6102 (Prague) or Category:Tram 5521 (Prague) and they are also useful. IMHO, photos of this ambulance are clearly in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your last comment points out that you obviously did not understand what I was saying. Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus" is the new proposed name for this cat. --High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- When we have 6 photos of some specific vehicle with very specific function, it is a sufficient reason to group them as a specific category (indepentently of its encyclopedic importance), rather than mix them with something different. Categorization is a tool to organize media, not to affirm importance of their subjects. We have also cateories Category:Tram 6102 (Prague) or Category:Tram 5521 (Prague) and they are also useful. IMHO, photos of this ambulance are clearly in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus" - per consensus. Thank you, ŠJů. --High Contrast (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Category is empty and over-specific. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I created said category to hold several images, which are now better categorised elsewhere; this category will now be empty in perpetuity. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Changed my mind again, it now does house images once more :) If any admin could close this as mistaken, that'd be great. Thanks and apologies for the bother, Jarry1250 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed, per author request. --rimshottalk 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The category is a container name for independent objects or dependent objects in much larger scale (Category:II. Wiener Hochquellenwasserleitung). I emptied the category (only single image). It could be speeded as well. Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
please delete category, is identical to Category:Pier glasses Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Pier glasses. --rimshottalk 17:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
error, see Category:Stuccos of Mariä Himmelfahrt (Hochaltingen) GFreihalter (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 17:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Too narrow category intersection as there is only one building by Libeskind in Trafford. --ELEKHHT 13:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Same applies to:
- Category:Buildings by Daniel Libeskind in Greater Manchester - only one building
- Category:Buildings by Daniel Libeskind in England - only two buildings (per Wikipedia list)
Daniel Libeskind is internationally active with studios in NY, Zürich and Milan, most of his completed buildings being in the US and Germany. Currently the Wiki list of his projects mentions two projects in England only. --ELEKHHT 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, not needed. --rimshottalk 17:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Other federal states of Austria also do not categorize granaries by city. So why should this be done in Salzburg, where it is difficult to differ between state and city of Salzburg. I would propose to delete any granary by city category as there is usually not more than one or two. Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Granaries in Salzburg (state). --rimshottalk 17:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
GFreihalter (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC) see Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria GFreihalter (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria. --rimshottalk 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
GFreihalter (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)see Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria GFreihalter (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria. --rimshottalk 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
GFreihalter (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)see Category:Frescos of Martin of Tours GFreihalter (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Frescos of Martin of Tours. --rimshottalk 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Empty. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 17:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There has never been a U.S. Route 144. – TMF (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused. No en:U.S. Route 144 page has ever existed, but we have File:US 144 (1961).svg. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- That file was created as part of a mass request that made no distinction between numbers that existed at one point or another and numbers that haven't. As a result, many images were created for numbers that have never been assigned, such as US 144. The same thing was done a bit later on with the 1948 set, located two sections below the 1961 set on the page I linked to in my first sentence. – TMF (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Jwh (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Luxemburg to be spelled as Luxembourg: Censuses in Luxembourg Jwh (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Category:Censuses in Luxembourg. --rimshottalk 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
GFreihalter (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)to delete, see Category:Saint Dominic GFreihalter (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Categories on Commons is not to sort photos of animals by behaviour. There is no need and no encyclopedic value for such categories. 188.104.109.32 11:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's difficult to find pictures for animal behaviour articles. For example, in this category, contributors can find Eurasian lynx licking snow for water intake.
- Category:Licking animals already exists. Where is the problem with Licking Lynx lynx ? --Abujoy (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as per User:Abujoy. --rimshottalk 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
All images here are copyvios, since there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in France. FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not even sure Museums would be a FOP cases. I've closed an old DR with all the files of the category today. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The category is so deleted, per the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris porte de Versailles - Exposition le temps des dinosaures - Allosaure - 001.jpg DR. --Dereckson (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
carsten krüger (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Bitte löschen, die richtige Kategorie heißt HSB 187 201 to 187 203 carsten krüger (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 17:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
carsten krüger (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Bitte diese Seite löschen, die richtige ist SJ Class E10 carsten krüger (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Done Please insert simply {{Bad name|Correct name}} in the category. --Foroa (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs a rename, probably to Category:Persian kittens. Jarry1250 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Kittens of persian cat. --rimshottalk 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently created category which is not part of any category tree and serves no obvious purpose on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. As per en:User talk:Guerillero I am working with Guerillero to reduce the list. We attempted to do this via English Wikipedia, but because the images are on the bad list there, we are unable to view them. After pasting in my userspace, it is not feasible for me to work on this via that avenue. Placing images in that category allows myself, and other editors, to peruse the images that are on the list, and look for copyvios, and images with other issues, and act accordingly. This is essentially a maintenance category. russavia (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly does this category add to the list at en:MediaWiki:Bad_image_list? I'd understand if the list didn't have clickable links (not all MediaWiki lists like this do), but it does. And you can perfectly well view images after clicking on the links - they're not blocked in that way, you just can't link them from other pages. Rd232 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Very simply put, it gives the ability to view all images with 2 clicks (1st page and then 2nd pages), instead of having to open approximately 400 tabs with individual links. russavia (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not an explanation, because you haven't made clear how visual inspection of a gallery of these files helps you maintain it in terms of looking for copyvios and such. Rd232 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Very simply put, it gives the ability to view all images with 2 clicks (1st page and then 2nd pages), instead of having to open approximately 400 tabs with individual links. russavia (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly does this category add to the list at en:MediaWiki:Bad_image_list? I'd understand if the list didn't have clickable links (not all MediaWiki lists like this do), but it does. And you can perfectly well view images after clicking on the links - they're not blocked in that way, you just can't link them from other pages. Rd232 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is pretty clear to anyone who goes thru such images. For example, File:Woman in small cage.jpg is not obvious as a problem for Commons. It would be lost in amongst the 400 other links. However, from the thumbnail it is clear there is a problem. Additionally, the thumbnails also supplies the image size, and this often an indication of poor quality images, which are prone for deletion. This is just one example. russavia (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- For example, File:Woman in small cage.jpg is not obvious as a problem for Commons. ... However, from the thumbnail it is clear there is a problem. - And what problem is that? I don't know what you mean. On the other hand, the gallery view of the category supplies the image size - yes, OK, that's the first concrete point of relevance I've seen, and may help identify deletable images, which is one way to prevent future abuse. However, by virtue of being on the list the image is already prevented from being abused, so I don't see the point of treating this collection of images as special, and giving them particular attention for possible deletion. Rd232 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- If one actually reads what I have written Rd232, they can plainly see how your question is clearly answered. And if one actually follows the thumbnail, to the image page, they will clearly see the deletion notice, where the reason for the nomination is clearly spelled out in pretty plain English. And this would never have been found way of one blue link in amongst 400 other blue links; because frankly speaking there is no way that I would be arsed to look at 400+ images as blue links. 800 images in Category:PD-Russia with thumbnails was bad enough. russavia (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the image caption, which explains the problem with that image (and I didn't think to click the image to see whether there was a DR). Now, identifying possible IDENT issues is something that can be done visually, and because of the nature of the category I can see that being a priority for these cases. So on that basis, I finally see a real point to a visual presentation of these images as a gallery. Rd232 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- If one actually reads what I have written Rd232, they can plainly see how your question is clearly answered. And if one actually follows the thumbnail, to the image page, they will clearly see the deletion notice, where the reason for the nomination is clearly spelled out in pretty plain English. And this would never have been found way of one blue link in amongst 400 other blue links; because frankly speaking there is no way that I would be arsed to look at 400+ images as blue links. 800 images in Category:PD-Russia with thumbnails was bad enough. russavia (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- For example, File:Woman in small cage.jpg is not obvious as a problem for Commons. ... However, from the thumbnail it is clear there is a problem. - And what problem is that? I don't know what you mean. On the other hand, the gallery view of the category supplies the image size - yes, OK, that's the first concrete point of relevance I've seen, and may help identify deletable images, which is one way to prevent future abuse. However, by virtue of being on the list the image is already prevented from being abused, so I don't see the point of treating this collection of images as special, and giving them particular attention for possible deletion. Rd232 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is pretty clear to anyone who goes thru such images. For example, File:Woman in small cage.jpg is not obvious as a problem for Commons. It would be lost in amongst the 400 other links. However, from the thumbnail it is clear there is a problem. Additionally, the thumbnails also supplies the image size, and this often an indication of poor quality images, which are prone for deletion. This is just one example. russavia (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful maintenance category, good faith rationale and purpose by Russavia (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- please explain in the category what its use is. It hast to be understandable, what it is for, when someone finds it on its watchlist. --Kersti (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- thanks --Kersti (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- please explain in the category what its use is. It hast to be understandable, what it is for, when someone finds it on its watchlist. --Kersti (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added nogallery. You should still be able to do your maintenance without bothering other people. Being a maintenance category for English language Wikipedia, it might fit better over there though. -- Docu at 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the nogallery, as it defeats the entire purpose. Please use bold, revert, discuss as well. russavia (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is your purpose? Bother other people with this gallery?
"Revert" in this case would probably be to remove all images and then let us discuss it first. I suppose I should be doing that. -- Docu at 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (edited)- Please read above Docu how having 400 links is a right pain in the arse. And please stop making it nogallery, because you are making the job of going thru these photos for copyvios, COM:IDENT, etc issues a chore, even moreso than it is already. russavia (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I reverted your additions to the category for now. Please stop building this category until there is a clear consensus for it. -- Docu at 03:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime, you can use a gallery page or Commons namespace page for this. BTW even if nogallery is used on the category pages, you can still view the images. It's just a couple of clicks further. -- Docu at 03:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I reverted your additions to the category for now. Please stop building this category until there is a clear consensus for it. -- Docu at 03:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read above Docu how having 400 links is a right pain in the arse. And please stop making it nogallery, because you are making the job of going thru these photos for copyvios, COM:IDENT, etc issues a chore, even moreso than it is already. russavia (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is your purpose? Bother other people with this gallery?
- I have removed the nogallery, as it defeats the entire purpose. Please use bold, revert, discuss as well. russavia (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: there is actually a bug requesting something similar (that MediaWiki:Bad image list display a gallery): Bugzilla:24147. This doesn't help me understand why it's supposed to be helpful, but there it is. Rd232 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Commons has consistently maintained we won't bow to Wikipedia's moral nimbyism. Categorizing images as "bad" goes against our not censored policy. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This has 1000% nothing to do with censoring images. See Bugzilla: 14281 and Anomie's comment on my talk page --Guerillero 02:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep please keep this. I have been working with russavia to reduce the size of the list and to remove images that shouldn't be on commons in the first place due to a variety of issues. Think of this as an anti-censorship project. --Guerillero 03:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks very much to Russavia (talk · contribs), who should be commended for this effort. Also thanks to Guerillero (talk · contribs), for the assistance with this important endeavor. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)- Keep For the record, I also have been working with Guerillero and Russavia with dealing with this list. The main purpose to see what images are displayed on the en.wikipedia page in question since we cannot do this on en.wikipedia due to the technical limitations placed on images there. We are seeing what kind of images are being put on this list and also allow us to check for duplicates and copyright violations (of which a few of those were found). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment 1 This category will be required to be renamed in the future, as the "bad image list" is likely going to be renamed. russavia (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment 2 This category could likely require an extension of scope to include all the other projects with such a filter. This is something that is going to have to be looked at as well -- although many of the lists replicate the enwp list for some reason. russavia (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as it seems to be a meaningful, even if only temporary, maintenance category. I really don't understand the fuss over it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment well I still don't see the point of it, but enough others do that I guess it's going to stay, so I've put it in Category:Commons maintenance content, so it's no longer an orphan. Rd232 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see why this category is a big deal. We have plenty of maintenance and user categories, what's wrong with this one? I think it provides a useful insight into what en.wp considers "bad". -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a censorship ploy. Presence on the list is an immediate strike against an image. The category is explicitly being set up so that these images will be considered for deletion. They will be "bad" by being in a category called "bad". I have already seen how the "nopenis" tag, supposedly used to control surplus images, has been used to delete useful and used images (even before the Jimbo "cleanup"). It seems that the "cleanup" squad are trying to sneak round through the back door. --Simonxag (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You really have this the wrong way round. The category was set up by people who are generally against nopenis deletions. It does also help people work out why their image isn't showing up on en.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Simonxag, you have this wrong. Totally wrong. I will not, nor will ever, be in favour of censorship. I have, in fact, stated that the list is equivalent to censorship, and I believe that people should press for images to be removed. My only concern, in creating this category, is in terms of Commons administration of images which are used for vandalism, not only on English Wikipedia, but all projects. russavia (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given that there is no topical link between these images other than that English Wikipedia thinks they shouldn't be displayed to the general public individually, is there a specific maintenance reason that couldn't be accomplished with a gallery or a category with <nogallery> tags? If not, there isn't really a reason to set this category up here. -- Docu at 17:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Docu, it has been clearly stated above, and others can see the reasoning for this. Also, I will say that your removal of the category from over 270 images here on Commons and which were in this category is being seen as disruptive by some editors. If this category is kept, you are being informed that you will be required to go and re-add the category to every image from which you removed it. This discussion is here for the category, and if deleted, a bot will obviously handle the deletion of the category from the individual files. In future, don't use my suggestion of bold, revert, discuss to act in such a manner whilst the discussion is currently underway here. russavia (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Would you move your previous comment to the point above when you ask to use "bold, revert, discuss" and this implication was clearly stated?
Here, you are still expected to "discuss" the reason for displaying all these images on a category page and explain how this is needed, e.g. why it couldn't be done with one of the alternatives. If you lack arguments in your discussion, your mere vote may be ignored. -- Docu at 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Would you move your previous comment to the point above when you ask to use "bold, revert, discuss" and this implication was clearly stated?
- Docu, it has been clearly stated above, and others can see the reasoning for this. Also, I will say that your removal of the category from over 270 images here on Commons and which were in this category is being seen as disruptive by some editors. If this category is kept, you are being informed that you will be required to go and re-add the category to every image from which you removed it. This discussion is here for the category, and if deleted, a bot will obviously handle the deletion of the category from the individual files. In future, don't use my suggestion of bold, revert, discuss to act in such a manner whilst the discussion is currently underway here. russavia (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Finally I see a point to the visual presentation of these images, and therefore for the category. Identifying possible COM:IDENT issues is something that can be done visually, and because of the nature of the category ("images misused on English Wikipedia" would be more accurate) I can see that being a priority for these cases. Rd232 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, for those who worke with this list: create a workpage in your (commons) userspace, describe the maintenance task on this workpage. The category is redundant to the list, and the list is Wikipedia only and contributes nothing to Commons scope or Commons maintenance. The opposite. There is no reason to edit 100rds of file pages and force Commons to maintain a category just because two people only want to click 1 time instead of 2 times on their mouse button. --Martin H. (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's true that the same task could be done with a gallery, whether in Commons namespace or userspace. It might even be easier - a bot could pretty easily transfer the English Wikipedia list to a Commons page, adjusting for gallery format, so it would stay updated. There's no pressing need for it to be a category that I can see. Rd232 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Stefan4, this has nothing to do with English Wikipedia administration. It has everything to do with administration of Commons. We all know that some images are uploaded to Commons purely for the purposes of vandalism, and I have already deleted some images after the implementation of this category which appear to have fulfilled that. I have temporarily halted this, due to Docu's removal of the images from the category (which will be reversed by him if kept). The way this list works on English Wikipedia is that admins simply added the photo to the list, and nothing more is done. If images are being hosted on Commons, and have only been used for vandalism, in the sense of copyvios), then it is OUR responsibility on Commons to get rid of the images from our project. russavia (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Should copyvio images used for vandalism be treated differently than other copyvio images? Any copyvio image should be deleted, not because it has been used for vandalism, but because it is a copyvio. You have done some good work in getting rid of some long-standing copyvios, but I'm still not seeing the reason for this category if the same result can be accomplished in other ways. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that image uploaded by vandal and used for vandalism is almost always copyvio and images used only for vandalism are more likely to be copyvios/out of scope/with IDENT problem than normal ones. Bulwersator (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, fine. If an image only is used for vandalism, it is likely that it is a copyvio as vandals probably rarely care about getting a free image for their vandalism. Even if an image isn't a copyvio, I suppose that the images should be removed because keeping them could show support for vandalism. I was a bit confused since I saw a lot of perfectly legitimate images in the list too. A question: are you adding images to the category manually? From a Linux terminal, you could easily do something like
wget 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list?action=raw'; grep '^\*' MediaWiki\:Bad_image_list\?action\=raw | sed 's/except on.*$//g' | sed 's/\* //g' | sed 's/\[//g' | sed 's/\]//g' | sed 's/^://g'and then immediately get something to which you would just have to add <gallery></gallery> tags which might be faster. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, fine. If an image only is used for vandalism, it is likely that it is a copyvio as vandals probably rarely care about getting a free image for their vandalism. Even if an image isn't a copyvio, I suppose that the images should be removed because keeping them could show support for vandalism. I was a bit confused since I saw a lot of perfectly legitimate images in the list too. A question: are you adding images to the category manually? From a Linux terminal, you could easily do something like
- My guess is that image uploaded by vandal and used for vandalism is almost always copyvio and images used only for vandalism are more likely to be copyvios/out of scope/with IDENT problem than normal ones. Bulwersator (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Should copyvio images used for vandalism be treated differently than other copyvio images? Any copyvio image should be deleted, not because it has been used for vandalism, but because it is a copyvio. You have done some good work in getting rid of some long-standing copyvios, but I'm still not seeing the reason for this category if the same result can be accomplished in other ways. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Stefan4, this has nothing to do with English Wikipedia administration. It has everything to do with administration of Commons. We all know that some images are uploaded to Commons purely for the purposes of vandalism, and I have already deleted some images after the implementation of this category which appear to have fulfilled that. I have temporarily halted this, due to Docu's removal of the images from the category (which will be reversed by him if kept). The way this list works on English Wikipedia is that admins simply added the photo to the list, and nothing more is done. If images are being hosted on Commons, and have only been used for vandalism, in the sense of copyvios), then it is OUR responsibility on Commons to get rid of the images from our project. russavia (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe it will be better to generate report on User:Russavia/Images on English Wikipedia's bad image list? Anyway, I see no good reason for deletion of this category Bulwersator (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- It initially was in my userspace. But 1) I don't want it in my userspace 2) putting in project space takes it away from being my responsibility to making it a community responsibility. russavia (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Userspace isn't ideal. But why not a subpage of Commons:Counter Vandalism Unit? (Cleanup of Commons images used for vandalism on other projects seems potentially within its remit.) Rd232 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- It initially was in my userspace. But 1) I don't want it in my userspace 2) putting in project space takes it away from being my responsibility to making it a community responsibility. russavia (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with mattbuck´s statement. --Dezidor (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As explained by Stefan4 above, this can easily be maintained at Wikipedia directly. At Commons, images in these fields are regularly reviewed in their normal topical categories anyways, so no need to build a special shrine to them. -- Docu at 18:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why file-related maintenance should be moved to enwiki? Bulwersator (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia related maintenance. -- Docu at 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why checking files hosted on Commons for copyright/other problems is supposed to be Wikipedia maintenance? Source of heuristic is enwiki based but how it makes it "Wikipedia related maintenance?" Bulwersator (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is no Commons specific need to do it by presenting that particular group of images in one category here. As Russavia stated, they were trying to do it at Wikipedia, it just that they didn't know how to set it up there. In the meantime, Stefan4 explained how to do it. -- Docu at 21:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can imagine people on en.wp objecting that that solution involves unnecessary complexification of the image list, and complaining that identifying violations of Commons policies for Commons images (eg COM:IDENT) is really a Commons problem. Rd232 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no Commons specific need to do it by presenting that particular group of images in one category here. As Russavia stated, they were trying to do it at Wikipedia, it just that they didn't know how to set it up there. In the meantime, Stefan4 explained how to do it. -- Docu at 21:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why checking files hosted on Commons for copyright/other problems is supposed to be Wikipedia maintenance? Source of heuristic is enwiki based but how it makes it "Wikipedia related maintenance?" Bulwersator (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia related maintenance. -- Docu at 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why file-related maintenance should be moved to enwiki? Bulwersator (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete totally out of scope. If en.wiki is overrun by vandals, you should find more appropriate, direct means to deal with them. Alexpl (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- en:MediaWiki:Bad image list completely solves en.wiki's problem. This category has nothing to do with preventing vandalism on en.wiki. Rd232 (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read the flimsy "this is for fighting copyright violations" claim. We already have "Category:Copyright statuses" with 15 subcategories for that. Alexpl (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- en:MediaWiki:Bad image list completely solves en.wiki's problem. This category has nothing to do with preventing vandalism on en.wiki. Rd232 (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "English Wikipedia's" issues are not relevant to Commons. (Hm... on the other hand... this category would be very comfortable to search for some nice pics if filled ;-) --Amga (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or rename. We can't accept such a non-neutral name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia refers to the images as "bad images". For the Commons part, the most neutral name is something which uniquely refers to the English Wikipedia image list, and Commons already has such a name. For any renaming, try getting the English Wikipedia source moved first. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't have to validate English Wikipedia's mistakes. Actually, where does it say on Commons that categories of Commons must have the same name as English Wikipedia ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You do know that the naming comes from MediaWiki:Bad image list? This is a tool Commons has as well, but doesn't use; while it also exists on eg German and Spanish Wikipedia (de:MediaWiki:Bad image list, es:MediaWiki:Bad image list). The name was chosen by developers, apparently as a joke. Bugzilla:14281 asking for a rename has been open since 2008. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't have to validate English Wikipedia's mistakes. Actually, where does it say on Commons that categories of Commons must have the same name as English Wikipedia ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia refers to the images as "bad images". For the Commons part, the most neutral name is something which uniquely refers to the English Wikipedia image list, and Commons already has such a name. For any renaming, try getting the English Wikipedia source moved first. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the solution would be a tool wich schows a autimatically gereradet gallery with the actual bad image list?--Kersti (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 | Proposed close: Deleted Users seem to prefer this solution. Alternate ways, initially not thought to be possible, were identified to maintain this, here or at en.wikipedia, adressing the reason for the initial creation and some keep. -- Docu at 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC) ~~~~ Done Closed per proposal. |
Deleted by User:Sreejithk2000 on 25 June on the basis of this CFD. Rd232 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This category is unneeded as Category:21st-century architecture in Washington (state) already exists. Allen4names (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:21st-century architecture in Washington (state). --rimshottalk 17:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Löschantrag - da identisch mit Category:Schloss Grynau Schofför (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Empty nonsense category. Allen4names (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- thx, i meant Category:Lions Or, Or (gold) capital or not in heraldry is always confusing --W!B: (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Lions Or. --rimshottalk 17:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused category. If needed it can be recreated as Category:Racing circuits maps of Washington (state). Allen4names (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Content is either distributed in Category:Venturi effect, Category:Venturi flow meters or Category:Giovanni Battista Venturi. A simple redirection would catch too many false-positives; I think deletion is more appropriate. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's also Category:Venturi vehicles. Shouldn't this be a disambiguation category? It's bound to be recreated anyhow. --rimshottalk 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty now. If it is re-created I will make it a disambiguation cat. --rimshottalk 16:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Blatant misuse of a category page. Categories are not supposed to be biographies. Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jayabharat. --ŠJů (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- How can I delete this category. It was a mistake of creating this category. I want to delete it. Where should I propose it. Help me. --Jayabharat (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Category and all media within have to be deleted, because there is no Freedom of panorama in the US for statues. h-stt !? 09:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, decided myself after almost six months h-stt !? 08:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Pittsburgh Steps. One needs to be merged into the other, but as I don't have an opinion about which should be merged into which, I'm nominating both. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Categories merged - Badseed talk 22:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Steps of Pittsburgh. One needs to be merged into the other, but as I don't have an opinion about which should be merged into which, I'm nominating both. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think this should follow the same naming convention of other ciites like Category:Stairs in New Orleans and Category:Stairs in New York City, not Pittsburgh Steps or Steps of Pittsburgh. --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Mjrmtg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Steps of Pittsburgh + Category:Pittsburgh Steps → Category:Stairs in Pittsburgh --moogsi (blah) 13:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved and deleted - Badseed talk 22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think a different format is no reason for a separate category (Category:Cyrillic letters also exists). If someone is searching for a specific letter he has to look in two categories. --Torsch (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- With 500+ images in the main category, it makes sense to have a SVG subcat. Remember that for wikipedia displays, most people will prefer scalable SVG file formats while it is easier to manage for people that create SVG files form other formats. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Foroa. --rimshottalk 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Category for a not notable bus company that owns only a few vehicles 188.104.99.52 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- No reason for category deletion. --Foroa (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete The "company" Wiktoria Białystok is not relevant for any encyclopedia - it is really not notable. Thus the company and this category is out of scope. Should be deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kept Notability isn't necessarily the requirement for category creation. While I would not have created this category, I do not see any harm in keeping it. We can revisit the issue iff we start to see the creation of numerous categories pertaining to tiny Polish bus companies.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Merged into Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It was redirected two weeks ago, so there is no need to continue this discussion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Done, Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom now redirects to Category:Kentucky Kingdom. --rimshottalk 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Health in Afghanistan. This is a test nomination. Per the following CfDs:
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Category:Healthcare_in_England_by_county
The separation between health and healthcare at the country level is no longer used in en.wikipedia categories. I think the same logic applies to commons categories. In addition, if you peruse them, they are just as likely to have pictures of hospitals in the 'health' category as in the 'healthcare' category. For example:
- Category:Health in Germany, Category:Healthcare in Germany; - both contain images of buildings and healthcare services
- Category:Health in Indonesia, Category:Healthcare in Indonesia - both contain images of health and healthcare; leprosy is listed under health, but images of lepers are found under healthcare
- Category:Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Category:Health in the United Kingdom; both contain images of hospitals and other buildings of care; however NHS (which is the major provider of healthcare services) is under 'Health' and not 'Healthcare'
- Category:Health in the United States, Category:Healthcare in the United States: health cat has a number of images of healthcare; healthcare cat has images of health statistics;
- Category:Health in Israel, Category:Health in Uganda, Category:Health in Venezuela, Category:Health in Côte d'Ivoire - none of these cats even have a healthcare subcat. There are also countries that have healthcare, but no health. Note that the Israel category is the best example of the final outcome that I am proposing. Take a look at it and ask yourself, do I need this further subdivided into 'healthcare' and 'everything else'? Is it bothersome that a swine-flu outbreak is on the same level as a category about hospitals?
- Category:Health in Spain, Category:Healthcare in Spain - barely anything in the healthcare subcat; nurses/doctors/healthcare all in 'health'
- Category:Healthcare in Canada, Category:Health in Canada - almost everything is in Health; healthcare is just a few articles, so they seem to have made this shift already.
There is already a rich tree of various healthcare subcats that can and should be used, but a high-level distinction at the country level between health and healthcare is not needed. In cases where there are too many images, the solution should be to create subcats, like 'Hospitals' or 'Clinics' or 'Doctors' or 'Patients' - but a high-level separation between Health and Healthcare just ends up confusing editors, as you can see from the haphazard placement of items to date.
Finally, maintaining these categories as is poses challenging classification problems: for example, in a given image, a patient may be receiving healthcare, or may be becoming more healthy. In addition, as was discussed the other CfDs, it is actually rather difficult find a sharp line between health and healthcare - for example, where does medical research and education, or blood banks, or HIV activism, or health legislation, or public health messaging, or death from cancer go? I could cite many other examples where it is ambiguous, and definition of Wikipedia:Health and Wikipedia:healthcare is not necessarily of much help, since healthcare is the activity, and health is the result (thus two sides of the same coin).
At the end of the day, in order to make it easy for users to find and classify the images they are looking for, we have two choices:
- accept the status quo, spend some time to come up with a long list of definitions as to what is healthcare and what is health, then go through all of these categories fixing things, and spend the next few years monitoring it to make sure images dont go awry
- Merge the categories.
Thus for now, I am proposing to merge these categories to 'Health in X', keeping a redirect at 'Healthcare in X' If this merge is accepted, I will nominate the other Category:Healthcare by country cats to merge to Category:Health by country
Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
closed as merge. No arguments mooted against the merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a recent sculpture in France, where there is no freedom of panorama. This category must be emptied. Frédéric (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept, with {{No uploads}} tag. --rimshottalk 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing, as far as I can tell, as an 'L85 Endeavour'. All the images in this category were simply variants of the standard SA80. I have recategorised eveything appropriately and the category is now empty - it should probably be deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you want to do something about this page? Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to be mentioned at the top of [5] - perhaps it's a Polish term for the weapon? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bastique - yes, needs deleting too! Mike - Possibly, but no-one I know - including those who have fired it at competitions in Poland and train people how to use it - have ever heard it called that. I can't find any reference to it ever being called that in reliable sources, either - all i can find is copies of the Wikipedia article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted per request. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Although many of these paintings were created before 1923, were they published? Most of these files have PD-70 as their copyright rationale, which is not valid for the US. Handcuffed (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done, no replies in 1 1/2 years. Nominate individual files for deletion if you want, to have the copyright status checked. --rimshottalk 21:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I prefer Category:Art works to Category:Events by date, there it cannot be found Oursana (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strong no, works doesn't mean "art works", but any product and labour; Art works by date thus needs to sit under Works by date Orrlingtalk 18:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 14:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a single file, and appears to be part of Category:Human_anatomy_by_person_depicted (which will also be nominated). I can't see any purpose for this particular category. russavia (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- This cfd request belongs with regards to its content to done cfd Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted and thus can be closed. --Achim (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept per previous cfd. --Achim (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Misnomers: name is "Perth Airport" - domestic and international terminals share runways and management - Perth Airport website. Most multi-purpose airports in Category:Airports by name don't make the distinction. Some of the media in the 2 cats are ambiguous as to which one to go into. We could have a parent category I suppose, but given the small amount of images I dont think its warranted, and this doesnt address the misleading naming issue.
- Merge Category:Perth International Airport and Category:Perth Domestic Airport to Category:Perth Airport --Moondyne (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Merge - per nominator SatuSuro (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator - I'm actually the creator of the Domestic category, as I needed somewhere to put the pics I wanted to upload :) Orderinchaos (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - two very distinct locations, while they share the same runways and IATA code thats all they share each has its own terminals, service facilities, access points etc. Suggest they are under a parent category Perth Airport which could then include the Maylands airport. Gnangarra 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd have no objection to a parent with subcats for separate locations, but current capitalisation implies proper names which they're not. Moondyne (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the terminals can be subcats under a Perth Airport category quite easily. Orderinchaos (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I came across this discussion today, and can only say these categories are a dog's breakfast! If we have Category:Airports in Perth, which sits under Category:Airports in Western Australia, we can then place Category:Perth Airport, Category:Jandakot Airport, Category:Rottnest Island Airport, Category:Maylands Airport into it. We get rid of the Perth Domestic and International Airport categories and create under Category:Perth Airport -- Category:Perth Airport Terminal 1, Terminal 3, Terminal 4 and or Category:Perth Airport international terminal and domestic terminal categories. We could also have a general aviation category. russavia (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a new parent Category:Airports in Perth. Most people wont know that terminal 1 is Internatioal, etc. Do you not think its a bit of OVERCAT, separating by terminal? Moondyne (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Perth Airport international terminal as a subcat of Category:Perth Airport, per Russavia (keeping the current as a category redirect because it is a common name). Whether the domestic terminals should get their own terminals should depend on how many clearly-identifiable photos there are, I think. In the meantime, keep the domestic airport category at Category:Perth Airport domestic terminals and split it later if necessary. Category:Airports in Perth makes sense too, doesn't need to be created via a CfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Coment - eight months in process, surely someone needs to resolve a possible change...by now ?? SatuSuro (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Give it a few days for discussion to die down again and then leave a note on the Commons:Administrators noticeboard that it needs to be closed. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not actually sure what was resolved above - since the CfD was opened 13 months ago, a Category:Perth Airport was created and Perth Domestic and Perth International Airports were made subcategories. There seems to have been some disagreement as to what to rename the Domestic and International categories to, as neither are technically an "airport" [6]. While both are on the same block of land, the terminals are located 9 km / 5.5 mi apart [7]. My suggestion based on all of this would be to rename as follows (along the lines of Russavia, agreed by Philosopher):
- Category:Perth International Airport -> Category:Perth Airport international terminal
- Category:Perth Domestic Airport -> Category:Perth Airport domestic terminals (as there are actually 3)
- Original titles kept as category redirects (per Philosopher)
- Orderinchaos (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as per Orderinchaos and general consensus above. Categories redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been unable to find and notify the creator - listed as a bot Reasons for discussion request -- This category is confusing and not well defined - there are two Hull to York routes - one via Selby - current, and another via Beverley. This category contains both. Suggest disambiguating and making use of already existing categories Category:Beverley to York railway line (plus the Hull to Beverley section of the Yorkshire Coast Line), the other set is the Category:Hull and Selby Railway (plus another section I don't know if is categorised)
Historically (and in most sources) this term can refer to the line via market weighton eg http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ccxbT09MzhIC&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q&f=false which was the preferred route eg The railway gazette, Volume 115 [8] p.278 on a section of the York-Hull line via Market Weighton, The railway gazette, Volume 96 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iIJCAQAAIAAJ p.314 I should like to pay tribute to the engineering staff of the North Eastern Region for the speedy and efficient manner in which it reopened the York to Hull line after it had been blocked by the recent accident at Full Sutton
The sub categories appear to be those of the modern route, however images in the category include those for the old route. I should note that the term "Hull to York line" for the modern route appears to be an invention.Oranjblud (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the images in the the relavent sub-categories and removed some over-categorisation. However there is still the disambiguation problem, as well as the problem that depending on defintions, extra sections of lines have to be included eg yorkshire coast line, east coast main line, leeds to selby line etc. I can't immediately think of a solution.Oranjblud (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep -It is the case with many lines nowadays that they are made up of sections of line constructed by different (rival) railway companies which never historically formed part of a single service pattern. A good example is the Poacher Line which is made up of parts of lines which survived the 1960s closures. What we do on Wikipedia (and hence on Commons) is to reflect current service patterns and only to use the original co. names to describe closed lines. The "modern" name of the line is generally taken from Quail or Network Rail documentation. By removing this category, images must then be placed in cats corresponding to the original historical company; this implies (1) that the user knows which section of line belonged to which co. in the past; and (2) that images of closed and open parts of a line are mixed together. I would suggest that we keep to the Wiki structure and that your comments about individual lines are raised and dealt with there before making changes here. Ravenseft (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you have understood correctly - the issue is not "keep delete" but that the term used refers either to
- a historic line
- a modern service operated by northern rail
- Network rail does not use the term eg see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/RoutePlans/PDF/RouteG-EastCoastandNorthEast.pdf, it uses "Hull Micklefield" and "Hull Seamer" [9] (or links from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Network_specification_London_North_Eastern.aspx ) and multiple other services use this 'line'
- I don't know what "quail" is.
- The issue is that the category has been used for two distinct topics. (I attempted a clean up a bit). There is very little evidence for the terms use in the modern era.
- I was hoping for a suggestion on how to solve this need for disambiguation.Oranjblud (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you have understood correctly - the issue is not "keep delete" but that the term used refers either to
- I think I could just disambiguate this, but would like some advice on what to do with the modern line/service, as it is not obvious.Oranjblud (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I have said for the Sheffield to Hull line above, we need to check NR and Quail. Quail is a series of books containing track maps for the UK. Ravenseft (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I could just disambiguate this, but would like some advice on what to do with the modern line/service, as it is not obvious.Oranjblud (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. It's the view of National Rail that the current Leeds-Selby-Hull line is the Selby Line. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Mackensen, I'm convinced. Should just redirect there? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, please go ahead. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the subcategories except Category:Trains on the Hull to York Line and its sub-cats (several of which are empty, and could be deleted immediately). What do we do with the files there? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I should add, this category is effectively a disambiguation page now. It might be worth leaving it as such, rather than deleting outright. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll re-categorize them; no guarantee that it's a 1-1 with the Selby Line. Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done re-categorizing. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Mackensen. Now there are 7 empty subcats of Category:Trains on the Hull to York Line. Should any of these be kept redirecting somewhere or should they get deleted? --Achim (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Achim55 They should be deleted. This isn't a case of a misnamed category so there isn't a "correct" redirection target. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Mackensen. Now there are 7 empty subcats of Category:Trains on the Hull to York Line. Should any of these be kept redirecting somewhere or should they get deleted? --Achim (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept as {{Disambig}}, subcats (all empty) deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If I understand metacategories correctly, this category should contain other categories with names like "Windmills in Foo", where "Foo" is a location (city or whatever) in Belgium. Instead, it seems to contain categories about specific windmills where the location happens to be included in the name of the category. I don't know enough about Belgian geography to group these appropriately. Can someone else help? Auntof6 (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Auntof6, an aunt of 6 ??? :-). As far as I know, there is no such location in Belgium with the name foo. Could it refer to an Metasyntactic variable ??? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with it: all windmills have the location in their name. It avoids redundant categories "by name" which tend to be filled up very partly. In fact, all windmills are in the main and by location cat. --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Either the entries in this category should be grouped by location, or the metacategory tag should be removed. The entries in it now are not organized as metacategory entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Lotje, "Foo" is a common metasyntactic variable used in Wikimedia projects. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is your personal interpretation. They are organised and sorted by location. --Foroa (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with it: all windmills have the location in their name. It avoids redundant categories "by name" which tend to be filled up very partly. In fact, all windmills are in the main and by location cat. --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Nominator is spot on; categories of this sort are meant to contain subcategories for specific locations, not individual site categories. I don't understand why Foroa has such an unusual interpretation. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are 86 categories in Category:Categories of Belgium by location so I don't see why windmills requires singling out. It makes sense that Category:Bruges should have one sub-category of Category:Windmills in Bruges not six sub-categories for six different windmills. Someone has addressed Nyttend's concerns and sub-divided the Category:Windmills in Belgium by location into location categories, instead of individual windmill categories. Can we close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, a CFD still open from 3½ years ago! Unlike when the CFD was created, this category is presently a normal "by location" category, and I see no reason to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It was nominated for discussion, not deletion! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, a CFD still open from 3½ years ago! Unlike when the CFD was created, this category is presently a normal "by location" category, and I see no reason to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are 86 categories in Category:Categories of Belgium by location so I don't see why windmills requires singling out. It makes sense that Category:Bruges should have one sub-category of Category:Windmills in Bruges not six sub-categories for six different windmills. Someone has addressed Nyttend's concerns and sub-divided the Category:Windmills in Belgium by location into location categories, instead of individual windmill categories. Can we close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, Nyttend, there are plenty of open CFDs from 2011 and 2012. A few of them are complex issues that still require further discussion, but many, like this one, have been solved in the background over the past years while the discussion remained open. I've been trying to close as many as possible. Take a look if you have a minute. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- PS, Themightyquill, see [10], an archived version of the page with its contents from three years ago. Unlike most categories of Belgium by location, it was then being used to hold individual windmill categories. Apparently the nominator and I overlooked the presence of a few categories that are still here, e.g. Windmills in Ostend. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't overlook them. I changed the way the category was being used to the way you see now. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- You said If I understand metacategories correctly, this category should contain other categories with names like "Windmills in Foo", where "Foo" is a location (city or whatever) in Belgium. Instead, it seems to contain categories about specific windmills where the location happens to be, even though the category did contain things like "Windmills in Brugge", "Windmills in Ostend", etc. I would have voted to "keep and prune" (i.e. empty out the irrelevant members, which you did) had I noticed that the Windmills in Foo categories indeed were here, and your nominating statement seems to suggest that you didn't notice that the Windmills in Foo categories were already here. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't overlook them. I changed the way the category was being used to the way you see now. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- PS, Themightyquill, see [10], an archived version of the page with its contents from three years ago. Unlike most categories of Belgium by location, it was then being used to hold individual windmill categories. Apparently the nominator and I overlooked the presence of a few categories that are still here, e.g. Windmills in Ostend. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- At any rate, the problem is solved now, so I'm going to close. Thanks to you both for your input. I think it's rather clever to use internet archive to see how a category looked in the past. I'll have to remember that for future use. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue has been solved by the creation of location focused sub-categories suitable for a metacategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Akademie für Lehrerfortbildung und Personalführung (Dillingen an der Donau) (actual name and function), the buildings are in de:Dillingen an der Donau and not in de:Augsburg GFreihalter (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I ask not to delete! Since the seminary was formerly in Dillingen. These buildings were the former seminary of Augsburg, now there are at Augsburg. The story, you can read in the corresponding Wikipedia article, please! I know that the debate will end once again with a quick-fire proposal and I am not allowed to speak. But my work at the Wikipedia Commons: Priester seminar Hieronymus (Augsburg) has not yet ended, it still lacks the unique visuals of the branch office of today Pfaffenhausen and Seminary in Augsburg. I also ask the story behind it to capture in its entirety and not work off any marginal notes, that would bring nothing to the whole Wikipedia article. Which you can then delete it if you at it is! --Serafim 89 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since 2012 there was a discussion on this site about a deletion. Since I can not agree with the user who made this request, and on the part of administrators was no response, I see the delete request is declared as completed! --Der Seraph [J.S.] ♂ JohannesSch. (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 09:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept and closed 2 June 2014 by JohannesSeraph due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There aren't that many images, thus it's just place them into the parent category "Photos by Guy Lebègue". -- Docu at 05:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Contains 82 files now. --Achim (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Reasons for discussion request --
- NB similar issues raised on the english wikipedia page en:Sheffield to Hull Line - maybe some of the problems come from that article being (seemingly) innacurate..
- This "line" is really a railway service - it includes several named railway lines including the Hull and Selby railway, and others I am not 100% certain of, which may not have categories. The sub-category "Trains on the .." is entirely valid - provided it is used for trains performing that service - however it doesn't make sense for other train services operating over part of the same route.. (hope that makes sense)
- I removed some sub-categories relating to train services to Scunthorpe - this just didn't make sense - Scunthorpe is nowhere near on any scheduled Sheffield to Hull service. eg Category:Althorpe railway station and similar
- The service also includes trains via Selby http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20111211/30.pdf .. (complicates things even more)
It just needs cleaning up, by someone who knows what lines are what. I can't do this at the moment. I would guess the best way would be to have mostly categories not images in this cateogory for different sections of the line. However there are issues if the service changes route.. Maybe someone else has better suggestions. Oranjblud (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep -See comment for Hull to York Line. Ravenseft (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you have comprehended the whole issue - the issue is not "keep/delete" - the issue is that the contents of the category appear to be a mess - with no explanation of when or why a particular image should be in this category.
- - one issue is that the line is ill defined - Network rail doesn't use the term. The only usage I could find was for a 'Hull to Sheffield service' operated by Northern rail - which does not use one specific line.
- The additional problem, which I will repeat - is that for some reason currently inexplicable to me this category has been used for trains between Goole and Lincoln (or maybe Scunthorpe)- there is no way this can be considered part of a line from Hull to Sheffield, either historically or currently.
- It needs some discussion as to what and how and when images should be placed in this category, including what constitutes a valid category - given the seeming confusion on what the so called 'line' includes eg why is "crowle station" in the category http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Crowle_railway_station&oldid=65568864 - this is not on any current scheduled route from Hull to Sheffield.
- I wonder if the intended use is for trains operating a "Hull to Sheffield" service??Oranjblud (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late reply. I can see your point. I believe that "Hull to Sheffield" is supposed to represent a service although it is a bit of a fudge as the "service" actually covers various sections of historical lines (for Crowle - the South Yorkshire Railway). The best solution would be to see what name is given by Network Rail and if none then what is shown in Quail. Ravenseft (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oranjblud and @Ravenseft: en:Sheffield to Hull Line has been deleted for over a year. Can we delete this category as well or do we need further discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, please go ahead and delete this category. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: : What should be done with the contained files and sub-categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: : this discussion on Wikipedia might help. Mackensen may already be on the case. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: Yes I have, as time permitted, but not as aggressively as Category:Hull to York Line. Mackensen (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: : this discussion on Wikipedia might help. Mackensen may already be on the case. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: : What should be done with the contained files and sub-categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, please go ahead and delete this category. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've diffused what I can into other categories. The remaining images are on the railway line between Swinton and Doncaster via Mexborough. There's an ongoing discussion on en.wikipedia about the proper name for that line. Once that's settled the categories can be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Lamberhurst: we've gone with Swinton to Doncaster Line for the last segment. The remaining categories may be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: That must have been a huge amount of work. Thanks so much for your effort. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleting emptied categories: Category:Sheffield to Hull Line, Category:British Rail Class 142s on the Sheffield to Hull Line, Category:British Rail Class 156s on the Sheffield to Hull Line, Category:British Rail Class 158s on the Sheffield to Hull Line, Category:LNER Thompson Class B1s on the Sheffield to Hull Line, Category:Trains of London and North Eastern Railway on the Sheffield to Hull Line. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Categories of victims, fatalities, deaths
[edit]There were made some renames (moves) of categories of "victims" to categories of "deahts". Some other such renames were requested as well as a reversion of the renamed categories to their previous names.
I try summarize main arguments from discussions and edit summaries:
- The main argument for the first rename direction: "Victims" is too ambiguous, it cover also injured, captives or robbed, not only killed people. The parent category is of people by kind of death.
- The main argument for the second (reverse) rename direction: "Deaths" is incorrect, the categories contain media and categories about dead peoples as persons who died, not only media about their deaths as events.
--ŠJů (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions:
- Comment: There should be a consistent way of naming categories which are sub-categories of "Category:Dead people by manner of death". Personally, I find either "Deaths from ..." or "People who died from ..." fine, but prefer the former as it is shorter. I don't think there is any practical difference between people who have died and their deaths as events, and do not think it is a good idea to try and distinguish between the two. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think, the fact that some other victims can be mixed among dead victims (some memorials are dedicated to all victims) is not so confusing as the fact that some categories of people were renamed to categories of events (deaths). Girolamo Minervini belongs to Category:Victims of terrorism in Italy, Death of Girolamo Minervini would belong to Category:Deaths from terrorism in Italy – but I think, we should not create such categories of deaths. We have relatively few real categories of deaths (see Category:Death of people). We shouldn't confuse them with categories which sort people by manner of death. --ŠJů (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a place for both "Victims" categories and "Deaths from" categories. As you point out, the term victim is wider because it includes people who have been injured or affected, not just people who have died. If it is felt that a category like "Girolamo Minervini" is more appropriately placed under a "Victim" category, that's fine. But "Victims" categories should not be made subcategories of "Dead people by manner of death", because we will end up with people who are not dead in that category. When a "Victims" category is entirely made up of files relating to deceased people, then it is more appropriate to rename it to "Deaths from ...". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer a uniform "deaths" solution as far as possible because it is simple and covers the majority of the cases. Currently there is a mix-up with victims, casualties, fatalities, ... Each variation on deaths will result unavoidably in a mix-up as can be seen in the various subcategories of Category:War casualties and Category:Victims of war. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a place for both "Victims" categories and "Deaths from" categories. As you point out, the term victim is wider because it includes people who have been injured or affected, not just people who have died. If it is felt that a category like "Girolamo Minervini" is more appropriately placed under a "Victim" category, that's fine. But "Victims" categories should not be made subcategories of "Dead people by manner of death", because we will end up with people who are not dead in that category. When a "Victims" category is entirely made up of files relating to deceased people, then it is more appropriate to rename it to "Deaths from ...". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think, the fact that some other victims can be mixed among dead victims (some memorials are dedicated to all victims) is not so confusing as the fact that some categories of people were renamed to categories of events (deaths). Girolamo Minervini belongs to Category:Victims of terrorism in Italy, Death of Girolamo Minervini would belong to Category:Deaths from terrorism in Italy – but I think, we should not create such categories of deaths. We have relatively few real categories of deaths (see Category:Death of people). We shouldn't confuse them with categories which sort people by manner of death. --ŠJů (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You omitted to give your comments to the fact that these false "deaths" categories (which are really not categoires of deaths but categories of people by their death) are confusable with real categories of deaths (Category:Death of people). We should make clear distinction between categories of people by their death and categories of deaths as events. Categories of people shouldn't be named as categories of events. --ŠJů (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand the difference between between categories of "people by their death" and categories of "deaths of people". The results seems the same. --Foroa (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- As is evident from my earlier remarks, I agree with Foroa. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Foroa, you really see no distinction between categories of people and categories of their deaths? Even if I linked Category:Death of people as an example of a real category of deaths? ... I fail to explain it to you :-) --ŠJů (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- As is evident from my earlier remarks, I agree with Foroa. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand the difference between between categories of "people by their death" and categories of "deaths of people". The results seems the same. --Foroa (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- You omitted to give your comments to the fact that these false "deaths" categories (which are really not categoires of deaths but categories of people by their death) are confusable with real categories of deaths (Category:Death of people). We should make clear distinction between categories of people by their death and categories of deaths as events. Categories of people shouldn't be named as categories of events. --ŠJů (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Requests for moves from people (victims) to deaths (fatalities)
[edit]Rename Category:Victims of war (talk) to Category:War fatalities (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Victims of war;War fatalities;r; Current naming too general and confusing... Tagged 2012-02-08, opposed, discussed. |
Rename Category:Victims of Titanic sinking (talk) to Category:Deaths from the sinking of the Titanic (0 entries moved, 59 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Victims of Titanic sinking;Deaths from the sinking of the Titanic;r; tagged 2012-04-21, discussed |
Rename Category:Victims of massacres during Polish 1970 protests (talk) to Category:Deaths from massacres during the Polish 1970 protests (0 entries moved, 22 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Victims of massacres during Polish 1970 protests;Deaths from massacres during the Polish 1970 protests;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed |
Rename Category:Plaques to victims of massacres (talk) to Category:Plaques to deaths from massacres (0 entries moved, 6 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Plaques to victims of massacres;Plaques to deaths from massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed |
Rename Category:People who died by suicide (talk) to Category:Deaths from suicide (0 entries moved, 543 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.People who died by suicide;Deaths from suicide;r; tagged 2012-04-21, discussed |
Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of massacres (talk) to Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from massacres (0 entries moved, 131 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Monuments and memorials to victims of massacres;Monuments and memorials to deaths from massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed |
Requests for moves from deaths (fatalities) to people (victims, deaths)
[edit]Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Israel (talk) to Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Israel (0 entries moved, 103 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Israel;Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Israel;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Afula (talk) to Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Afula (0 entries moved, 13 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Afula;Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Afula;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths in childbirth (talk) to Category:Women who died during childbirth (0 entries moved, 246 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths in childbirth;Women who died during childbirth;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism (56 entries moved, 23 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from terrorism;Victims of terrorism;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism by country (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism by country (3 entries moved, 12 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from terrorism by country;Victims of terrorism by country;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in the United States (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism in the United States (0 entries moved, 11 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from terrorism in the United States;Victims of terrorism in the United States;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in Italy (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism in Italy (0 entries moved, 12 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from terrorism in Italy;Victims of terrorism in Italy;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in Israel (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism in Israel (0 entries moved, 8 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from terrorism in Israel;Victims of terrorism in Israel;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from road accidents (talk) to Category:Victims of road accidents (0 entries moved, 1,732 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from road accidents;Victims of road accidents;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from murder (talk) to Category:Victims of murders (0 entries moved, 609 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from murder;Victims of murders;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from massacres (talk) to Category:Victims of massacres (0 entries moved, 26 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from massacres;Victims of massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from duelling (talk) to Category:People killed in duels (0 entries moved, 40 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from duelling;People killed in duels;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
Rename Category:Deaths from drowning (talk) to Category:Victims of drowning (0 entries moved, 700 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from drowning;Victims of drowning;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed |
Rename Category:Deaths from diseases and disorders (talk) to Category:Deads from diseases and disorders (0 entries moved, 18 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Deaths from diseases and disorders;Deads from diseases and disorders;r; tagged 2012-04-21 |
- Comment: "Deads from diseases and disorders" doesn't make sense. There is no such word as deads in this context. The {{Move}} tag should be removed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Deaths is better than "victims". People killed in duels is fine as Deaths from duelling is both awkward but also dueling is US, duelling is UK spelling. Victims from drowning is okay, but there is no need to change that category. Women who died in childbirth is okay, but deaths implies the mother, not the child, so does not need to be changed. I really do not see any need to change any of these, though. Apteva (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I SUPPORT these moves. with of course the exception of language coins that might be doubtful, like "Deads from-" which better remain Deaths or anything better. I DON'T support switching from "Fatalities" or "Victims" to "Deaths" as in some of the entries in the above proposal; "fatalities" is - as pointed out in many other occasions where we discussed this thing - the best word to denote (people who are subject to) loss of life as victims of given event. Most occurrences of "Deaths" will have to be renamed as "Fatalities" (in-turn a subcat of Victims) or back as "Victims". The case with "Deaths from murder" is exceptionally outragious: what was wrong with Victims of murder in the first place? Is there any victim of murder who isn't dead? Orrlingtalk 22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Stale. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Categories of Korean provinces
[edit]2012-04-16, categories of provinces of North an South Korea were tagged to be renamed to English names. Up to now, none of these requests were opposed nor supported. These categories have hundreds subcategories! Is it necessary to make such massive rename? --ŠJů (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
List of requests
[edit]Rename Category:Chagang-do to Category:Chagang Province (0 entries moved, 19 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Chagang-do;Chagang Province;r; |
Rename Category:Ryanggang-do to Category:Ryanggang Province (0 entries moved, 22 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Ryanggang-do;Ryanggang Province;r; |
Rename Category:Pyongan-pukto to Category:North Pyongan Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Pyongan-pukto;North Pyongan Province;r; |
Rename Category:Pyongan-namdo to Category:South Pyongan Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Pyongan-namdo;South Pyongan Province;r; |
Rename Category:Kangwon-do to Category:Kangwon Province (North Korea) (0 entries moved, 25 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Kangwon-do;Kangwon Province (North Korea);r; |
Rename Category:Jeollanam-do to Category:South Jeolla Province (45 entries moved, 113 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Jeollanam-do;South Jeolla Province;r; |
Rename Category:Jeollabuk-do to Category:North Jeolla Province (1 entries moved, 62 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Jeollabuk-do;North Jeolla Province;r; |
Rename Category:Jeju-do to Category:Jeju Province (0 entries moved, 149 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Jeju-do;Jeju Province;r; |
Rename Category:Hwanghae-pukto to Category:North Hwanghae Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Hwanghae-pukto;North Hwanghae Province;r; |
Rename Category:Hwanghae-namdo to Category:South Hwanghae Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Hwanghae-namdo;South Hwanghae Province;r; |
Rename Category:Hamgyong-pukto to Category:North Hamgyong Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Hamgyong-pukto;North Hamgyong Province;r; |
Rename Category:Hamgyong-namdo to Category:South Hamgyong Province (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Hamgyong-namdo;South Hamgyong Province;r; |
Rename Category:Gyeongsangnam-do to Category:South Gyeongsang Province (0 entries moved, 36 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Gyeongsangnam-do;South Gyeongsang Province;r; |
Rename Category:Gyeongsangbuk-do (talk) to Category:North Gyeongsang Province (0 entries moved, 54 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Gyeongsangbuk-do;North Gyeongsang Province;r; |
Rename Category:Gyeonggi-do (talk) to Category:Gyeonggi Province (0 entries moved, 28 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Gyeonggi-do;Gyeonggi Province;r; |
Rename Category:Gangwon-do (talk) to Category:Gangwon Province (South Korea) (0 entries moved, 39 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Gangwon-do;Gangwon Province (South Korea);r; |
Rename Category:Chungcheongnam-do (talk) to Category:South Chungcheong Province (0 entries moved, 40 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Chungcheongnam-do;South Chungcheong Province;r; |
Rename Category:Chungcheongbuk-do (talk) to Category:North Chungcheong Province (0 entries moved, 39 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Chungcheongbuk-do;North Chungcheong Province;r; |
Oppose난센스도 좋은 것입니다.대한민국에서 이런 것이 사용되어 있는 곳이 없다.--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Seems fair enough. There is no consistent scheme, but generally loacal terms for administrative subdivisions are frequently seen. Most European languages use it throughout or at least in part. But redirects must be made for easier sorting/categorization. In the end, both terms should lead to the proper category. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do the names with "-do" qualify as the formal names of these provinces? Because that could exclude them from the necessity of being translated. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done: "-do" qualifies names of provinces in Korean. Local name preferred. Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This category should be merge into the category "Software icons". There is no clear limit between application icons and other software icons, as is apparent from the overlapping content. Paulbe (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is probably more related to a poorly named category: "Software icons" should probably better b e"System software icons". --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Application icons and remove software icons. The contents of software icons should be divided between application icons, a system software icons category and a toolbar button icons category. CyberSkull 10:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I just came to this page for this exact reason: I wasn't sure were to put a file Software icons or Application icons and were the difference was. The Idea by CyberSkull is not bad, but were do you draw a line between System Software and Applications in general? There should be something done to clarify these categories for sure! -- Patrick87 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. It is rather easy. System software is divided into operating systems, firmware, device drivers and utility software. (Sometimes people says "system software" but they just mean "utility software". Well, that's how English language works. See Synecdoche.) Now, as for the difference between utility software and application software:
- You run utilities when you want to tend to your computer. You run applications when you want to tend to your business.
- Applications create or consume contents. Utilities create and consume maintenance-related stuff like partitions, folders and logs.
- Hi. It is rather easy. System software is divided into operating systems, firmware, device drivers and utility software. (Sometimes people says "system software" but they just mean "utility software". Well, that's how English language works. See Synecdoche.) Now, as for the difference between utility software and application software:
- There are also video games that are software but are not part of either of the two above.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator and Foroa are right that icons are badly miscategorized in Commons. But the solution is not deletion. The solution is:Best regards,
- Add {{CatMetaCat}} to Category:Software icons.
- Move all icons within it to either Category:Application icons, Category:Utility software icons, Category:Operating system icons, Category:Game icons, Category:Plug-in icons and Category:User interface icons.
- Move all miscategorized icons in :Category:Application icons to appropriate category.
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Codename Lisa: I see you sorted this category and redirected it to Category:Software icons. You don't seem to have established the sub-categories above, but there are other sub-category trees of Category:Software icons by genre and Category:Software icons by name. Are we okay to close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing either as resolved or lack of interested. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Following subcategories of Category:Kurdistan are very problematic.
- Category:Geography of Kurdistan
- Category:Villages in Kurdistan
- Category:Nature of Kurdistan
- Category:Animals of Kurdistan
- Category:Birds of Kurdistan
- Category:Insects of Kurdistan
- Category:Mammals of Kurdistan
- Category:Reptiles of Kurdistan
- Category:Flora of Kurdistan
- Category:Flowers of Kurdistan
- Category:Cuisine of Kurdistan
- Category:Minarets in Kurdistan
As long as I know, Kurdistan is many meanings.
We'd better use
Category:Kurdistan province for Kurdistan Province of Iran
Category:Turkish Kurdistan for Turkish Kurdistan
Category:Iranian Kurdistan for Iranian Kurdistan
Category:Iraqi Kurdistan for Iraqi Kurdistan
If this category means Kurdistan, its borders are very ambiguous and this category make matters more complicated.
Some users want to use "nature of", "geography of" Kurdistan,
in the same way, some users want to use "nature of", "geography of"
Western Armenia. Manchuria, Zazaistan, Alevistan, Chameria etc.
for same places.If one wants to
I think especially for categories related with nature, geography, we'd better prefer to use Category:Categories by country (for example Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria).
Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- See Category talk:Kurdistan#? and Category talk:Villages in Kurdistan for my answer. See also this… Thank you--Ghybu (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- PS: An admin can restore the historical of these categories? Because I am not the creator of all the categories. They had been deleted because they had been emptied without discussion--Ghybu (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- As used here, Kurdistan is the region of the Kurds, a large region with many disputable borders and overlapping many regions in several countries. If one wants to properly educate people and document Kurdistan, one has to focus on the items that are pertaining to the culture and the people of it. We don't make categories for Birds of the European Union or Mammals of Northern Africa: our finest grain division goes to natural areas, often much smaller than the countries, which are in their turn classified again in countries. Political/administrative countries are not always the best divisions for such categorisation, but those are the ones that are mostly used here. For specific birds, plants ... named after Kurdistan (with basically an unknown meaning and area scope), I would suggests to create a category "things named after Kurdistan": at least that would be clear for everybody and not disappear in millions of other things that are only very remotely related to Kurdistan. --Foroa (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Ethimologically Kurdistan means the land of Kurds. But in fact Kurdistan is not the land of Kurds. Many ethnic groups live there, there are not only Kurdish villages, but also Arab villages, Zaza villages, Turkmen villages, Chaldean villages, Assyrian villages etc. in the same area. So category:Kurdistan and its sub categories are not categories of Category:Kurdish people. At the same time, Category:Kurdish people cannot fit into the frame of Category:Kurdistan. As to Turkey, ethimologically it means the land of Turks. But in fact it's not the land of Turks. We don't use categories named after Turkey, sa categories related with Turks. Because many ethnic groups live in Turkey. We have Category:Villages in Turkey (I think we have to prefer to use more specific categories for villages) as "universal" category that is understandable for every user. But some Kurdish users may want to use "Village of Kurdistan", some users may want to use "Village of Tul Abdin", some Zaza users may wan to use "Village of Zazaistan" for categorising one village. If these categories would be applied, a village would have too many categories such as Category:Villages in Turkey, Category:Villages in Kurdistan, Category:Villages in Tur Abdin, Category:Villages in Zazaistan. Maybe some Armenian users may want to use Category:Villages in Western Armenia, Iraqi Turkmen users may want to use Category:Villages in Turkmeneli or Category:Villages in Turcomania, some Iranian Azerbaijani users may want to use Category:Villages in Iranian Azerbaijan or Category:Villages in South Azerbaijan. These categories cause chaos. Main categories such as Kurdistan, Tur Abdin etc.. can be kept. But their sub categories are too problematic. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder, why do you always come to talk about your fears? You always tell, people can create categories as Alevistan, Zazaistan, Western Armenia, Turkmeneli etc. They can create, its not end of life. This is a free project. All users try to protect their languages and cultures. This is Wikimedia. Its not Republic of Turkey. You cant ban an international name (for example : Vulpes vulpes Kurdistanica is used as Vulpes vulpes in Turkey.) None of categories are problematic. Its interesting that, Categories are problematic just for Turks. Where is the problem? Its easier for me (and users of ku:, ckb:, diq: wiki projects) to find Kurdish villages in category of Villages in Kurdistan. If you want, and if the village is in eastern Turkey, you can add categories related to Turkey. Nobody is againist that. Wikimedia should be useful for all users of all wiki projects. Same situation is possible for nature, insects, geography etc. There are dozens of animals and plants which are named Kurdistanica. People want to know about fauna and flora of Kurdistan too. Why do we have to worry for categories? If users can find what they find, there is no problem. By the way, stop to empty categories without discussion!--Gomada (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- The presence of scientific names including kurdistanica is not enough reason to create "Category:X of Kurdistan". In the same way, the presence of Agdistis turkestanica, Coleophora turkestanica, Tulipa turkestanica etc. is not enough reason to create "Category:X of Turkistan" (en:Turkistan). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder, why do you always come to talk about your fears? You always tell, people can create categories as Alevistan, Zazaistan, Western Armenia, Turkmeneli etc. They can create, its not end of life. This is a free project. All users try to protect their languages and cultures. This is Wikimedia. Its not Republic of Turkey. You cant ban an international name (for example : Vulpes vulpes Kurdistanica is used as Vulpes vulpes in Turkey.) None of categories are problematic. Its interesting that, Categories are problematic just for Turks. Where is the problem? Its easier for me (and users of ku:, ckb:, diq: wiki projects) to find Kurdish villages in category of Villages in Kurdistan. If you want, and if the village is in eastern Turkey, you can add categories related to Turkey. Nobody is againist that. Wikimedia should be useful for all users of all wiki projects. Same situation is possible for nature, insects, geography etc. There are dozens of animals and plants which are named Kurdistanica. People want to know about fauna and flora of Kurdistan too. Why do we have to worry for categories? If users can find what they find, there is no problem. By the way, stop to empty categories without discussion!--Gomada (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
To Takebeg, i told you few times. If you really think, categories of Kurdistan are confusing, why dont you do anything about turkish categories? Here some examples: Kasimiye Medresesi, Kirklar Kilisesi, Mardin Ulu Camii, Mor Yuhanun Kilisesi, Anadolu Hisarı, Rumeli Hisarı, Sakip Sabancı Müzesi, Yalı, Galata Mevlevihanesi... There are dozens of them. Why are those categories in turkish langauge? Who can find category of Yalı? Only a person who can speak turkish. We dont have much time to spend as you. Therefore, please stop to waste our time by your discussions about Kurds and Kurdistan.--Gomada (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- We aren't discussing Kasimiye Medresesi, Kirklar Kilisesi, Mardin Ulu Camii, Mor Yuhanun Kilisesi, Anadolu Hisarı, Rumeli Hisarı, Sakip Sabancı Müzesi, Yalı, Galata Mevlevihanesi.... When you find reliable sources in English, you can translate them to English. Takabeg (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I dont care any of them. i will not spend my time for categories or articles related to Turkish. We expect same respect from you. But im not sure, if you can control yourself. Therefore, I just show to people how you act againist Kurds and Kurdistan. Even if you deny, i know what you are doing (about articles related to Kurds) on Turkish Wikipedia too.--Gomada (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Support It prevents mental confusion as Takabeg says and Kurdistan is an area which many people live in there like Kurds, Turks, Zazas, Arabs, Turkmens, Iranians, Iraqians etc. For this reasons we should change. Also I believe that this discussion should not be a political subject. In addition, I'm Turkish and I am not against Kurds. However, I against racist and fascist. The important thing for me is neutrality and goodwill. I apologize for my English. It is not bad but not good.--Reality006 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you need to say : I against racist and fascist ? Is there a racist here? Do you have a claim?--Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We are not Buranovskiye Babushki. Lets do something useful. Please remember that:
- there can only be one category with one name for a specific topic, mainly the one that is most common in English lingua franca
- Commons categories are mainly split in around 250 (political/administrative) countries
- Wikipedia's exist in 280 ethnic groups/languages out of the couple of thousands I guess, so we have to live with some priorities and ethnic groups will often be hidden behind political countries.
So to be able to do productive work:
- Is there some list from all the Kurdish villages and their corresponding offical name (in the country they belong to) ?
- Is this list generally accepted and by whom ?
- Is there some sort of formal list from all the Kurdish villages belonging to what you call Kurdistan ?
- Is this list generally accepted and by whom ?
Without an answer on the questions above, Kurdistan and Kurdish villages do not exist any more, so we can delete most of the related categories. I will remove all contributions that do name calling or racism accusations; they tend to be unfair and ungrounded anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is no reason to delete categories. In Kurdish Wikipedia, we create articles about all Kurdish villages and cities. Maybe you know, Turkey has changed names of our villages in last century.(Kurdish villages in Turkey) Therefore, Kurdish names are still banned in Turkey. (in Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan, there are similar problems) This is a list of Kurdish villages that had burnt by Turkish soldiers.We try to protect a culture. Its not easy. You shouldnt say, lets just delete. If people cant develop and protect their culture on Wikimedia, why do we use it in hundred of languages?--Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why not treat Kurdistan in a regional sense?
We can simply treat Kurdistan as a geographical region, because no matter where the state boundaries run, it is still a region that can be circumscribed (between the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, basically). "[Stuff] of Kurdistan" categories would be in "[Stuff] of Asia" as well as in the pertinent country categories (because these countries all have a Kurdish part, but are not all Kurdish).
Compare Category:Mojave Desert and Category:Kalahari, which pose the same problem.
The main category of "Kurdistan" would be Category:Subregions of Asia. We have some politically disputed regions there already and it works fine. Whether we put it into Turkey/Iran/Iraq/Syria as a standard subcategory or with "see also" is more a matter of taste than anything else.
I would favor such a solution due to the fact that political and natural boundaries are not coincident everywhere, so we need a "by region" scheme in any case.
In a nutshell, "Kurdistan" categories would run alongside, not within the "by country" tree and connect to it at the appropriate points.
NB: we have a similar problem when "[Stuff] of Turkey" as soon as we start using continent categories. There is simply no proper reason for deleting "Kurdistan" categories, at least not when we have regional categories.
(Politically I'd say that the more pressing problem is the Brythonic nationalists who want to treat the Norman regions as "countries", which they are clearly and empathically NOT. See e.g. Category:Culture of Jersey.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kurdistan on its own is a political and controversial term and refers to an "aspired country" with ambiguous borders. It is not even one of the states with limited recognition so we have no reason to treat it like one.
- You cannot treat it the same way as non-controversial regions such as w:Caucasus (Region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea), w:Mesopotamia (toponym for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system (Most maps of Kurdistan you find on google would overlap Mesopotamia some maps I randomly found: [11])) etc which are more or less defined. Borders of Kurdistan are defined by the next person defining them. What would be the goal of this category?
- However, there is a valid political entity "Iraqi Kurdistan" (Autonomous region of Iraq) with defined borders and likewise "Province of Kurdistan" in Iran again with defined borders. These can be tagged accordingly.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Dysmorodrepanis, dont waste your time. Takabeg, Reality006 and とある白い猫 are Turks. Therefore they know the best(!) about Kurds, Kurdish and Kurdistan.Some of them wants to delete categories of Kurdistan, some of them wants to change codes of Kurdish wikipedia etc... For example, this file. If you show a map of Kurdistan, they will say; its not correct and there is no source. If you show sources. They say: Thats Kurdish claim. In short, you can never come to an agreement. Whatever, i love you guys (: --Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- As long as I know, Reality006 is a Turkish, I and とある白い猫 are not Turkish. Anyway, comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Of course (: Ziya Gökalp wasnt a Turkish either. But, he was the creator of Turkish nationalism. This is a result of assimilation. I dont need to discuss your ideas ;) Gomada (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone here that neither racism nor personal attacks are acceptable on Commons. Please treat each other with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- As long as I know, Reality006 is a Turkish, I and とある白い猫 are not Turkish. Anyway, comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Dysmorodrepanis, dont waste your time. Takabeg, Reality006 and とある白い猫 are Turks. Therefore they know the best(!) about Kurds, Kurdish and Kurdistan.Some of them wants to delete categories of Kurdistan, some of them wants to change codes of Kurdish wikipedia etc... For example, this file. If you show a map of Kurdistan, they will say; its not correct and there is no source. If you show sources. They say: Thats Kurdish claim. In short, you can never come to an agreement. Whatever, i love you guys (: --Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that the political boundaries are disputed doesn't matter. As you will note we have already an established system for treating this and similar cases. We can simply use this for "Kurdistan" (as we would use it for "Mesopotamia" which is neither part of Iraq nor of Iran but both, or "Central Asia", or "South Asia" which is basically the former British India etc., or "Yucatán Peninsula" which is Mexico and Belize and Honduras,or "Cyprus" and "Korea" which are 2 states in one region). No political claims are made, NPOV is maintained, as is usability. Remember: The user is the most important person on Commons, and we cannot know how users call the region in question.
- Instead of clumsy constructs like "Iraqi Kurdistan" we can then simply use "Iraq" and "Kurdistan" categories. Take for example File:Ramphastos vitellinus -Palmari Reserve -8a.jpg, it has three locality categories, two of which are "bird" categories. (If we had "Javarí River" or "Palmari Reserve" categories, there would be there too BTW)
- You will note that it is in the national category "Birds of Brazil", and in the regional category "Birds of the Amazon Basin". Brazil is a country. The Amazon Basin is not a country but simply an important region (for birds).
- In the contested case, the national category would be "Birds of Turkey", and the regional category "Birds of Kurdistan". This way, all users can find it regardless their politicalbent. And as I said, this is the only thing that counts after all has been sad and done: whether users can locate the content from every angle they could reasonably seek it.
- TL;DR: this works for "Palestine" categories and there is no reason it would not work for "Kurdistan" categories. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Dysmorodrepanis for a clever point of a view. I fully understand Gomada's frustration in this discussion. --MikaelF (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Kurdistan Definition
-
- Forgive me but your analogy is full of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions IMHO.
- Unnecessarily controversial: First of you are completely disregarding the controversies surrounding the category. "Kurdistan" can refer to "Where Kurds happen to live" or can refer to an "Aspired Country". By using this category you are marking any territory or places where a species lives as Kurdish soil. Commons categories should not be used for such original research or fantasy. This isn't territory grab phase of the board game Risk.
- Borders not defined: There is an agreed definition on where Yucatán peninsula, Mesopotamia, Korea, Amazon Basin begins and ends. These are geographic regions unlike Kurdistan which is an ethnic region with purposefully vaguely defined borders. By definition borders can include Istanbul or even Munich depending on how one wishes to define them. This is not a good way to categorize any topic aside from content that is relevant to the term "Kurdistan" directly which could include flags and maps and other similar content.
- Not how pages are categorized normally: That is more like referring to New Mexico with New and Mexico. Iraqi Kurdistan is a valid political entity (autonomous region) and is a sub division of Iraq unlike Kurdistan. Tagging Iraqi Kurdistan content with Iraq would be redundant as that is the root category. This would be more like tagging stuff in "Michigan" with a "United States".
- Not a [single] political entity: "Palestine" is a valid political entity with partial recognition. There is a Palestinian parliament and government etc. In the case of "Kurdistan" not only is there no such political structure but you would have (at best) four (or more) different independent (of each other) political representation in four (or more) different countries.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive me but your analogy is full of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions IMHO.
As stated above and higher up, until we have an agreed definition of Kurdistan and a formal reference for its boundaries, all categories that are related to the undefined Kurdistan territory make no sense. --Foroa (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the main Kategory Kurdistan ist nesseseary as it exists an article in many Wikipedias. See Interwikis.
- History of Kurdistan ist nessesseary - z.B. Category:Koçgiri Rebellion should be categoriced there and in turkish categories.
- Category:Society for the Rise of Kurdistan is directly related to Kurdistan and should be categoriced there and in turkey.
- A category named "Things named after Kurdistan" is a good idea
- Categories about animals, natural geography etc. which are not really related to Kurds but more to nature are not really nessesary. - Please delete them!
- there are local categories which are clearly kurdish regions as they are named after them. There are others which are clearly not part of Kurdistan and there are many regions where there are reasons to think both. And the regions where there are reasons to think both are according to the map above much bigger than the regions where this is clear.
It will be difficult to find a good categorisation sheme for the political and cultural geography - let the people find the wild animals, plants and other natural things through the categories for towns and regions. Kersti (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Done: The discussion has mostly died down, therefore I will close this discussion. As a guidance for the future: Since "Kurdistan" is not a fixed political entity, "Kurdistan" should not be used for geographical entities ("Villages in Kurdistan", "Flowers of Kurdistan"). On the other hand, using it for social or political categories is fine, although using an adjective would work better ("Cuisine of Kurdistan" or "Kurdish cuisine"). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)