Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/09
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 September 2012
Misspelled: Luxenburg should be Luxembourg Jwh (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Mailboxes in Luxembourg exists --Jwh (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Correct name as in Category:Musée des Postes et Télécommunications Jwh (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Luxemburg should be Luxembourg
Category:Post offices in Luxembourg exists Jwh (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This category breaks the categorisation hierarchy and is in breach of COM:OVERCAT. The whole point of a category structure is to aid finding specific images; I don't think it's helpful to ask a user to wade through such a potentially vast category (at present 2072 images) to find what they're looking for. If such a category should exist, we already have Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom, and this is just an unnecessary gloss on an existing category, although I strongly suggest that parallel categories should be deprecated as leading to maintenance nightmares, as well as being profligate of other resources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think this guy has the first idea what he's talking about. Firstly, this category has not replaced the 'by location' tree, it's parallel to it (therefore OVERCAT is immediately a non-issue), so quite why he thinks people need to 'wade through it' to find images if they have arrived at 'in uk', is beyond me. Second, I've asked him what maintenance issues this causes, or what backlogs it produces, and he said nothing, he just responded by filing this. I had already pointed out all the ways this category actually makes maintenance easier, the response I got didn't give me the impression he understood what I was talking about at all. All in all, I don't think an inability to understand why something is of use to others, is good grounds to get rid of it. Before I expanded the number of branches, the only way users could browse through all the images we have of uk post boxes, was to go through what now sits under the 'by location' tree. That did, and still does, consist of a mess, where over 800 images are just 'in England', even though there's a county sub-level, and there are many cats with 5 or less images. All in all, there's got to be nearly 50 categories to wade through in there given the haphazard way people have added lower levels. Plus there was over 200 that weren't even categorised in it, just dumped at the top level. He might think it's a great idea to force people to wade through all that even if they're not interested in location at all, I however think that's insane. More branches are required, and having an 'all files' cat is a necessary component of that for both maintenance and to serve those who still aren't given a branch that's of use to them, whether he understands why or not. Ultra7 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- "This guy" has been on Commons since October 2007, and has spent the last two years or so mostly maintaining categories, so possibly has as much idea as anyone else as to how they should work. That's apart from my 115,000 edits to Wikipedia and nearly three years as an Admin there. Nowhere do I see any support for parallel categories. The point is made implicitly that the "by location" tree for this topic needs maintenance. Indeed, but it's only one of many trees that need work, but it isn't a priority in my view, when we have uncategorised images going back years- yes, years. That's what should be happening, not the creation of some bastard abortion of a parallel structure; the difficulty of maintenance is ensuring that all images appear in both subtrees, and that cannot be guaranteed to happen. It's a dangerous (slippery slope)precedent to set, and should, IMO, be strangled at birth. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Who gives a crap how many edits you have to Wikipedia? Irrelevant. And if you really want to get into a pissing contest between who's done what on Commons or for how long, bring it fucking on. I'll stand by my experience through my many thousands of edits here compared to you any day, which go beyond mere category maintenance that's for sure. And I've done my fair share of that too, and many more thanks to CATSCAN, a tool whose usefulness you seem to want to completely negate in cases like this (or at least make it three times longer to 'maintain' without an all files cat). I don't care what you think the priorities are, if you don't want to maintain this tree, then you know where the door is. Readers are clearly far better off having access to an all files cat even if it's 95% full, than being expected to sort through 50 cats by location when the aspect they're looking for has nothing to do with location. Only an absolute idiot would spend the time looking through that tree in that manner, if not interested in location. And 'UK' is a perfectly reasonable point to start that tree, there is no precedent being set here at all in that regard - all significant aspects of postbox images are dictated from the postal service area level - which in this case is the UK, obviously. If you want to argue that it's not necessary to categorise UK post boxes by any other quality than location, then go ahead, I'd like to see you attempt argue that case, because it's patently absurd. Ultra7 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the way to behave to another editor. Calm down, please. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Who gives a crap how many edits you have to Wikipedia? Irrelevant. And if you really want to get into a pissing contest between who's done what on Commons or for how long, bring it fucking on. I'll stand by my experience through my many thousands of edits here compared to you any day, which go beyond mere category maintenance that's for sure. And I've done my fair share of that too, and many more thanks to CATSCAN, a tool whose usefulness you seem to want to completely negate in cases like this (or at least make it three times longer to 'maintain' without an all files cat). I don't care what you think the priorities are, if you don't want to maintain this tree, then you know where the door is. Readers are clearly far better off having access to an all files cat even if it's 95% full, than being expected to sort through 50 cats by location when the aspect they're looking for has nothing to do with location. Only an absolute idiot would spend the time looking through that tree in that manner, if not interested in location. And 'UK' is a perfectly reasonable point to start that tree, there is no precedent being set here at all in that regard - all significant aspects of postbox images are dictated from the postal service area level - which in this case is the UK, obviously. If you want to argue that it's not necessary to categorise UK post boxes by any other quality than location, then go ahead, I'd like to see you attempt argue that case, because it's patently absurd. Ultra7 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete This category is not necessary as its redundant to Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom. A flat-category of 2000 files is not particularly useful for end-users, no chance of finding anything in it. I'd agree that the "by location" tree is one aspect of the whole, and might even be the least useful possible sub-tree. Colour (especially gold at present?), design, date, postcode are all rather more interesting. But the need to look through the by-location tree, if you are interested in another aspect, has already been negated by the work you've done.
With regards to Catscan - a very powerful tool - this category is not really necessary to obtain its full functionality. A deep scan of Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom replicates this category. A deep scan of files in Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom by location and not in Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom by colour can determine files with location, but no colour info. More advanced queries can identify files that are in colour and type, but not location; in colour or location, by not type; are anywhere in the tree, but don't have postcode area info.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but when there's more than two branches, it's infinitely easier to have an all files cat as the base point for searches. Otherwise figuring out the searches needed to ensure there's full consistency becomes insanse, it's a logic problem in itself rather than what in reality should be a simple and quick maintenance exercise. Even your example is wrong - it finds locations without colour, but of course it doesn't find the reverse without the reverse search. Trying to apply that to a 4 or 5 branch system without a base point is a total headfuck, especially without a shred of a manual for the tool either. And it's hardly onerous for users to scan it either - ten clicks and a bit of scrolling on each page, and you're through the whole lot. Easier to do that than to do it in another, irrelevant, branch, while also tracking where you are in it. Simply compiling the all files cat by going through the by location branch was onerous beyond belief. Had I actually been looking for a particular image and that was the only option, I would definitely have just given up. All I can see happening is people turning to the red category as an all files proxy, if they want to look for a candidate image that isn't neatly encapsulated by any of the other branches. Ultra7 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Users will not scan a category with that many files if they are looking for a postbox. They will either take something off the first page, or give up and go somewhere else. Using some sort of search, even the primitive search provided by Mediawiki is more likely to be effective (eg [1]). And my example queries are not wrong: It said its to find locations without colour, not the reverse or both. The reverse search is needed if you want that combination. So what? That's a different search logically, and an in one by not the other search is also viable (tick difference instead of subset). The methodology I mention could be trivially be applied to a category tree with 10 distinct sub-trees,
- The more advanced queries I mention above are superior to an all-files flat list for one simple reason - they are dynamic. Before you can use it for anything you first have to ensure the all files is actually current. If you find any particular task onerous, there is probably a better way of doing it. For instance, AWB can utilise output from CatScan or directly compile the list of all files in the by-location category and add a category to them.
- A model of a more helpful category structure is that at Category:Buses in the United Kingdom, the unsorted files are placed in a temporary category, and new files can be dumped in there by the regular maintainers before being sorted properly into the multiple trees. If you are creating a new subtree, you can dump everything back to unsorted, and remove them from there as you go rather temporarily misusing the meta-categories (which should always be empty) as an extra intermediate step. That means 2 edits per file, instead of 3 edits per file. And when you are done, you don't have anything in the maintenance category.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- It might surprise you to learn then that I'm the primary creator behind the Category:Buses in the United Kingdom tree as it is today. It has no 'all files' tree, and that's pretty much what puts me off trying to figure out what searches I would need to fully cross check all images (it's been on my 'to do' list forever). I've had a stab at it, but I always seem to miss some. I created the 'unsorted' cat primarily as a convenience for non-subject knowledgable editors, but it actually also helps me catch most uncatted images anyway - I simply check for images in one branch but not another, and also not unsorted. That generally catches most new cases, but I'm sure it won't catch all. For postboxes though, I see no need for an unsorted cat, as pretty much anyone should be able to determine the branches from a simple visual inspection (maybe not postcode). The so what bit though, is that without the all files cat, and in the absence of an 'unsorted' one, I am pretty sure it requires 2*X searches to fully cross-check, where X is the number of branches. With an all files cat, I'm pretty sure it's only X+1, where the '1' is the one to verify 'all files' has all files, first, then X searches to verify each branch against it. If you actually know of the way to craft the search so that in one click it can verify that a postbox has all the right branches, I'm all ears, and if it works, I'll bin this cat myself. I've never used AWB, I'm not a fan of embedded tools. The only thing I would do with a functionality that can put all files in one branch into a single cat, is to seed a new branch! Ultra7 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the technical discussion might better belong elsewhere (eg your/my talk). The big advantage of using a tool like AWB is you can get it running and do other stuff that needs human intelligence. It also stops you flooding watchlists (reason I noticed this was the hundreds of edits on mine. Incidentally AWB is not "embedded" as its a separate program, the embedded tools are HotCat and Cat-a-Lot ;)
- With regards to the 2X vs X+1 comment what exactly are you trying to do? Is it to determine if all postbox images are in all the trees, and if not which files need additional categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- In a word, yes. Ultra7 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- With the current set up of Catscan2, its possible to get it down to 2 queries, with a 3rd step to process. 1. Scan the whole tree for the current, full list . 2. Scan for the files in all of the categories (example uses location, colour, and type, so X=3). 3. Subtract the 2nd list from the first. The all files category doesn't speed things, while a category of "all fully categorised images" would remove the need for more complex step 3. That's 3 steps regardless of what X is. The subtraction can be avoided by carrying out X queries, in this case [2], [3] and [4]. (Adjust the namespace from article to file on all these queries). For what its worth, there's 389 files at present - see this gallery.
- It ought to be possible to tweak Catscan to allow a single step process, basically what's needed is to provide "combination" settings on both the positive and negative cats. I've asked Magnus if this is feasible.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first method is a non-starter as far as being a quick and easy maintenance job, but the second method is better than anything I've used before, or at least as easy as using an all files cat, so in that case I drop my insistence on needing an all files cat. I was unaware that you could do that type of search involving examining one level and a subordinate level within it (the biggest issue in all this is the complete lack of an instruction manual for catscan, meaning you just have to experiment). Therefore, if nobody else thinks the cat is worthwhile for just looking for images, then it can go (I still do, but am not going to go into battle about it). Good luck with Magnus, but in my experience he just ignores such request (not that he is obliged to answer). Although of course, if there were combination settings available, then if you had an all files cat, then the task would require just a single scan, however many branches - one click to list all the images that have at least one cat in the branches but doesn't have 'all files'. Then you just go through that list adding all files, and any of the other missing branches, to each image. Ultra7 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The all files category does not make it any simpler, in fact it is guaranteed to add one step (the refresh to ensure its up to date). Its just as easy to compare against the entire tree, than against a single category with the content of the tree. That only fails if there's loops involved or irrelevant daughter categories which slow things right down. For instance, Category:United States is a subcat of Category:United Kingdom. I agree a usable manual for Catscan would do the world of good, I might have a stab at such a thing here. And I might get a useful response from Magnus, you never know...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first method is a non-starter as far as being a quick and easy maintenance job, but the second method is better than anything I've used before, or at least as easy as using an all files cat, so in that case I drop my insistence on needing an all files cat. I was unaware that you could do that type of search involving examining one level and a subordinate level within it (the biggest issue in all this is the complete lack of an instruction manual for catscan, meaning you just have to experiment). Therefore, if nobody else thinks the cat is worthwhile for just looking for images, then it can go (I still do, but am not going to go into battle about it). Good luck with Magnus, but in my experience he just ignores such request (not that he is obliged to answer). Although of course, if there were combination settings available, then if you had an all files cat, then the task would require just a single scan, however many branches - one click to list all the images that have at least one cat in the branches but doesn't have 'all files'. Then you just go through that list adding all files, and any of the other missing branches, to each image. Ultra7 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- In a word, yes. Ultra7 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- It might surprise you to learn then that I'm the primary creator behind the Category:Buses in the United Kingdom tree as it is today. It has no 'all files' tree, and that's pretty much what puts me off trying to figure out what searches I would need to fully cross check all images (it's been on my 'to do' list forever). I've had a stab at it, but I always seem to miss some. I created the 'unsorted' cat primarily as a convenience for non-subject knowledgable editors, but it actually also helps me catch most uncatted images anyway - I simply check for images in one branch but not another, and also not unsorted. That generally catches most new cases, but I'm sure it won't catch all. For postboxes though, I see no need for an unsorted cat, as pretty much anyone should be able to determine the branches from a simple visual inspection (maybe not postcode). The so what bit though, is that without the all files cat, and in the absence of an 'unsorted' one, I am pretty sure it requires 2*X searches to fully cross-check, where X is the number of branches. With an all files cat, I'm pretty sure it's only X+1, where the '1' is the one to verify 'all files' has all files, first, then X searches to verify each branch against it. If you actually know of the way to craft the search so that in one click it can verify that a postbox has all the right branches, I'm all ears, and if it works, I'll bin this cat myself. I've never used AWB, I'm not a fan of embedded tools. The only thing I would do with a functionality that can put all files in one branch into a single cat, is to seed a new branch! Ultra7 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I do however understand that our current system is not adequate for many searches, especially visual searches (we need media, don't we) when one searches for example a superfluous model, detail, angle, setting, light angle, color of background, .... In such cases, we need categories with many images to allow for efficient visual inspection. Basically, many deeper categorisations into fine administrative levels of the country don't make sense most of the time; larger categories are often handier. We might end up having a post box category per hamlet or per street.
Wikimedia don't seem to take care about even the basic bugs (for example search bugs and unpredictability), let alone "luxury" features. Catscan can help a bit (especially its image display but unfortunately without the related categories), but its server is unreliable and it aborts at 1000 images. Catscan2 is slow and difficult to operate, has equally a unreliable server, and as far I can see, it results in file names. To see one file, one has to open and close a window/tab, so useless for visual inspection. None of those tools are really production quality and availability. So one can hardly blame someone to try to find ways to improve the visual search. I guess that wikipedia software (and the Commons administrators not to shout enough) should be blamed in the first place; after all, I think that with a number of minor extensions in category display, many problems could be solved. --Foroa (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there's a couple of villages in there. Plus the obligatory 'in Leeds' cat, suitably subdivided in ways not replicated further up. Ultra7 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I stop by-location categorisation at the county or major city level, as I think that is the finest level I think has any realistic purpose. At that level I'd switch to finer categorisation by sub-topic. So I'd split "Fields in Devon" into "Wheat fields in Devon", not "Fields in Mid Devon". Providing more precise location categories (down to village level or below) is sensible, but intersecting with the topic is overkill.
- Re Foroa - I assume you mean the Foundation not Wikimedia, as having lack of responsiveness to improving end experience? A clunky work-around to make useful output from a Catscan2 query is to use Wiki markup, and create a page with those links. The problem is that tool, like most, is designed with text in mind (easier to code), when its clear to us that the media capability is critical.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - as per nomination S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Which specific part? The part that alleges a breach of OVERCAT (simply false, it being a parallel category), the part that says it's not helpful in finding images (false, unless my opinion, and specific use for doing just that many times in the last few days to both categorise images and create new categories like Category:Royal Mail drop boxes which would never had been made if I had to wade through what he claims is the only category branch needed, is irrelevant), the part that claims people wouldn't look through 2,000+ images (see previous), the part that calls it "unnecessary gloss" (whatever that was supposed to mean), or the bit that claims it leads to maintenance and resources issues (the maintenance issue apparently being that people have to ensure images are properly categoried!?!?, and the resources issue apparently being that he is the person who is forced to do that). Ultra7 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- All parts (otherwise I would have said so) S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Consensus appears to be in favor of deleting the category. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Name. The contents of this category should be moved into Weasels in Heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion and the one for Beech Martens should be combined.
- I have made all the arguments on the Beech Martem discussion page [[5]]
- The contents of both categories should be moved into the category Weasels in Heraldry [[6]] - because, that's what they are. Kiltpin (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This category has no encyclopedic value. It is pure spam. This category collects a random mixture of bus cockpits of many different buses from Europe that stopped in Poland, get their cockpits photographed and Heureka we have this superfluous category. It makes no sense to categorize photographs of bus cockpits like this. If there is a certain need for this, please create "Bus cockpits of polish buses" or so - that would make more sense 91.57.90.123 13:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This category has no encyclopedic value. Categorizing buses according to their number of axles by country is nonsense.Really no value for any encyclpoedia 91.57.90.123 13:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The right Category is Jingu qiguan Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Jingu qiguan. --rimshottalk 20:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
wrong name. typo. MtBell (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
the name of the alloy is "Billon", not "Billion" [7], so name should be Category:Billon coins Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's right. My fault. --Carlomorino (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete - wrong name (bicyles instead bicycles) and empty Traumrune (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Misspelled. Correct category exists as Category:Fond-de-Gras train station Jwh (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
wxxxxwww@@ 197.30.47.212 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1025: Object error. Can't guess sense error. -- Rillke(q?) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Cat should be moved to Category:One Mile, New South Wales. One Mile Beach is a single beach in the suburb en:One Mile, New South Wales. AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seems this has now been done. The discussion can be closed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
bad name of this category Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, the categories should be made consistent. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Redundant title, should be combined with 'wings in heraldry'. Kiltpin (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The title is redundant. Indeed. I agree totally with User:Kiltpin, it should be combined with 'wings in heraldry'
--Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a typo of Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters (for which I am responsible). I apologize for the disturbance. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Has been moved to Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters. --rimshottalk 20:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this category is useful for anything. At them moment it's basically a synonym for Category:High-rises, but in any case covers a huge range of buildings, so you may as well just use Category:Buildings to find them. ghouston (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
this cat need to be deleted, I did a mistake cause I wanted to create Category:Strategy video games. W like wiki (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
this cat need to be deleted, I did a mistake cause I wanted to create Category:Simulation video games. W like wiki (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did a mistake again. The name should be Category:NationStates (like en:NationStates). THX!!! W like wiki (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I created this category not realizing a category already already existed. I would like this category and all its contents (all uploaded by myself, and now made obsolete by one, alternate file) to be deleted. Thank you kindly, and I hope somebody doesn't have to press the delete button 200 times. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Category:Urantia. --rimshottalk 20:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Typo in the name. TParis (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted author request over IRC. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Category stands empty after its only file was deleted Rrburke (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Category can be deleted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I created this category, and its sub-categories for England, Scotland and Oxfordshire, by mistake. I therefore nominate them for deletion. There were already well-stocked "Evangelical and Free churches" categories for East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent, so I have added "Evangelical and Free churches" categories for Oxfordshire, England, Scotland and the UK. Motacilla (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Name should be "Salt evaporation ponds of the United States" (no "s" after evap) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, yes. That was my fault. I think this can be treated as an uncontroversial case that could be requested immediately at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Stemonitis (talk)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong name. Moved to Category:Church of the Holy Trinity (Žodziški) Renessaince (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete this category. Jan Lewicki is identical with Jan Nepomucen Lewicki (same birth and death dates) Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Jan Nepomucen Lewicki. --rimshottalk 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:People of Zacatecas W like wiki (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:People of Zacatecas. --rimshottalk 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This category is a superfluous duplicate of "Józef Brandt" and should be deleted. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Joseph Brandt is the Anglicized form of the Polish name Józef Brandt. I changed 'Category:Joseph Brandt' to a redirect page. Hiart (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Pittsburgh Steelers, because on Commons we don't use "images" in categories GrapedApe (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. --rimshottalk 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, to be deleted Szilas (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Rename to "2012 anti-American protests" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to Innocence of Muslims (video). --rimshottalk 20:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename to "Innocence of Muslims" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Info The category has already been renamed to Category:Innocence of Muslims (video). Senator2029 18:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Innocence of Muslims (video). --rimshottalk 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
to delete, see Category:Tabernacles, redundant category GFreihalter (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
שגיאה טכנית. תודה יעל י (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Wall-reflective No. 5. --rimshottalk 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
empty category, will add "buildings in hayward" shortly Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This category is completely redundant to Category:SVG coat of arms elements. There is no discernible sense to differentiate, see also this talk (there is no feedback on the page of the creator) Perhelion (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We must know what is the differnce between w:heraldry and w:coats of arms: "Heraldry is the profession, study, or art of creating, granting, and blazoning coats of arms". There can't be a heraldry graphical element and there is also not such category, but there is logically be Category:Coat of arms elements. This include all subcategories from the same one man creator. It would be the same thing if we categorize "SVG fish elements" under "Fishing SVG elements" or "SVG cake elements" under "Baking SVG elements". -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 14:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I emptied the sub-categories and merged its contents with “Category:SVG coat of arms elements” so that an immediate deletion of “Category:Heraldry SVG elements” is feasible and recommended. --
maxxl2 - talk 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:SVG coat of arms elements. --rimshottalk 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Rename into Category:Doors in Tyrol Anna reg (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Doors in Tyrol. --rimshottalk 22:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
useless category, the united states wear the "standart" ribbon of NATO who can be found here: Category:Ribbon bars of NATO Flor!an (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Should be translated into English. What is the correct English word for Feldbahnloren? 188.104.111.21 10:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find one. That's the main reason for me to create it under the german term. Obviously there's no need for this type of railway cars to distinguish from others in English or American, but obviously there's a need to distinguish them here on Commons. Creating a new term would be Original Research. Just my 2 cents.--Markscheider (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ich sehe auch keinen Grund für eine Übersetzung. Commons ist ein mehrsprachiges Repositorium für Bilder und andere Dateien. Da muss auch der geneigte Angelsachse es mal aushalten können, dass eine Kategorie nicht in seiner Muttersprache erscheint. --Mogelzahn (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wobei das für mich nicht an erster Stelle stand. Aber es kommt natürlich verstärkend hinzu. --Markscheider (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ich sehe auch keinen Grund für eine Übersetzung. Commons ist ein mehrsprachiges Repositorium für Bilder und andere Dateien. Da muss auch der geneigte Angelsachse es mal aushalten können, dass eine Kategorie nicht in seiner Muttersprache erscheint. --Mogelzahn (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at English Wikipedia, the English term for Feldbahn is en:Feldbahn. The English term for Lore is lorry, but this doesn't seem to be a perfect match. I'm a proponent of using English category wherever possible, but this appears to be a case of "For some themes, there exists no identical or usable English term", so keep the existing name. --rimshottalk 07:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Feldbahnloren = Category:Mining carts ?! --Coalisi (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- NOPE. --Markscheider (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept, as a better English name hasn't been found. --rimshottalk 00:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
i dont see "scenes" used elsewhere on WC. can easily be upmerged, or changed to "Category:Aerial photographs of the San Francisco Bay Area" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, might need a split in Category:Panoramics in the San Francisco Bay Area for panoramics. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will create both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have created both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I had long ago placed each of these images in at least one other SFBA related category. There is absolutely no reason for this category to remain, we just have to wait for an admin to review the backlog of discussions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- When it is empty (and properly diffused), I can delete it. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have double checked the diffusion (i did miss some last time, or new images were added), added the images to more categories, and now its empty. thanks for the guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- When it is empty (and properly diffused), I can delete it. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I had long ago placed each of these images in at least one other SFBA related category. There is absolutely no reason for this category to remain, we just have to wait for an admin to review the backlog of discussions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have created both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I will create both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after diffusion. --rimshottalk 22:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
AFAIKS there is no relationship to the 'Category:Graflex cameras' Frank Gosebruch (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be a reason for listing the category here. As to the Graflex, who added it to the cat? Perhaps there should be a category "Taken with Graflex cameras?" -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing with the removal of one category Category:Engines by cylinder layout, otherwise the categories as they were are reasonable enough.--KTo288 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Challenged parent categories Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The Napier Deltic engine is, amongst those who follow such things, a well known and unusual diesel engine. It began as a naval ship engine, but is best known for its long service powering the British Rail 'Deltic' locomotive.
User:MB-one evidently disagrees, and five times now has removed the parent categories. Despite one past agreement to leave them alone in the future. See
- User_talk:MB-one#Category:Napier_Deltic
- User_talk:MB-one#Decategorizations_of_Category:Napier_Deltic
Their point appears to be that categorizing each image as a "locomotive engine" would be acceptable for individual images, provided that we had WP:RS attesting that the specific engine in each photo had been used for locomotive purposes. However as the engine type overall was used for both purposes, ships and trains, it is evidently impossible to now categorize the engine category under either.
This is of course a nonsense. Such an interpretation would make the entire MediaWiki categorization system impossible. As a similar example, the Soviet Zvezda M503 engine, developed for much the same naval purpose, has since been used in a German tractor pulling rig. Does this mean that neither engine, nor any other engine similarly useful for more than one purpose, can ever be categorized here? Of course not!
It is a simple mistake to see MediaWiki's categorization as being restricted to being a simply-branched tree. MediaWiki imposes no such limitation. If parallel inheritance is appropriate, such as usage for two purposes, then we can and should reflect that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I simply disagree. An engine is a locomotive engine, as long as it is used in a locomotive. An engine used to power a vessel isn't a locomotive engine. It wouldn't make anything impossible, if we stick to this principle. Maybe we can agree to create a new category Multi purpose diesel engines? But we have also another issue: the overcategorization (Opposed piston vs. Engines by cylinder layout). --MB-one (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, the "Napier Deltic" is not "an engine" in the way that Old Bess is an engine. It is a class of engines, not one, specific, named instance of an engine. It is perfectly likely that a class of engines can be simultaneously both locomotive and marine engines.
- Secondly, you are assuming that MediaWiki categorization, and its use at Commons, is ontologically defining. It isn't - it's not powerful or capable enough to do so. Commons categorization exists as a navigational and resource management convenience. Categorizing resources into a category is for the benefit primarily of the category, not for the resource. It creates a category structure that has some useful ability for navigation, across resources that are "of interest" to the scope of that category. It certainly doesn't attempt to make a defining
is-astatement about a resource. - As to the layouts, then there are two aspects to the unique layout of the Deltic: firstly it's opposed piston, secondly it's a delta layout. Both of these are worth recording, and recording through categorization. They are worth recording specifically and, if necessary, separately (we have no category for opposed piston delta or box engines, nor do we require one). The artefact that one of these categories happens to have been instanced on Commons as a subcategory is utterly trivial. The two category memberships for the engine category have separate functional relationships to that engine, and should be preserved as such. COM:OVERCAT is a reasonable principle in general, but it frequently falls down over details. A slavish conformance with such a policy, and a dogmatic refusal to consider the precise details of a situation, is one of the most locally common of Emerson's "hobgoblins of little minds". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete both as WP:OVERCAT and WP:POINTY edit-warring, in support of the issue above. We have very few Deltic images. We have no images that show the (few) clear distinctions between their railway and marine applications. The only purpose of these two sub-categories was to be POINTY about the categorization of the main cat and to split the images apart to make it even more difficult for readers to navigate. To quote a relevant comment from their talk page, made about a quite different category, "your hypercorrections are not helpful to our users". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I doubt there will be consensus I made the alterations I think should apply, I added the 3 classes of locomotive (are there any more?) that use these engines to Category:Napier Deltic in railway applications, I removed Napier Deltic from the class 55 cat as the locomotive now is in the engine cat, I removed Category:Diesel locomotive engines and Category:Marine diesel engines from the parent cat as they are now served by the subcats. I would not have personally have found it necessary to create the subcats but neither are they so bad that they deserve deletion. I do however agree that on the whole the categories can't always be so precise and that a fair amount of flexibility is often needed for the category system to work Oxyman (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Oxyman. --MB-one (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I doubt there will be consensus I made the alterations I think should apply, I added the 3 classes of locomotive (are there any more?) that use these engines to Category:Napier Deltic in railway applications, I removed Napier Deltic from the class 55 cat as the locomotive now is in the engine cat, I removed Category:Diesel locomotive engines and Category:Marine diesel engines from the parent cat as they are now served by the subcats. I would not have personally have found it necessary to create the subcats but neither are they so bad that they deserve deletion. I do however agree that on the whole the categories can't always be so precise and that a fair amount of flexibility is often needed for the category system to work Oxyman (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
שם הקטגוריה היה שגוי - אין "בית בן צבי" אלא "יד בן צבי" - מוסד מחקר ולימודים בשכןנת רחביה בירושלים יעל י (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- יד בן צבי שוכן בכמה מבנין: בית הפועלות, שני הצריפים השוודים ובית ואלרו (בית בן צבי). Deror avi (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
גם אם לבית שבו התגוררו בני הזוג בן-צבי קוראים בשם זה כיום - הרי שהקטגוריה אינה אמורה לכלול את הצריף למשל. מה דעתך? יעל י (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- מקווה שראית את Category:Yad Ben Zvi :) יעל י (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is this done? --rimshottalk 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Closed, assumedly done. --rimshottalk 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Empty; Category:Daŭhinaŭ already exists Renessaince (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Daŭhinaŭ. --rimshottalk 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It is proposed that the category be renamed to Category:Marcel Baschet. Looking at the result of this Google Book search it is clear that the artist is usually referred to by the short name. According to Grove, the full name is in fact Marcel-André Baschet, i.e. opposite order and hyphenated, but we should go by the common, short form. --Favonian (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Support - I agree entirely - he's much more usually called "Marcel" than "Marcel-André" or "André-Marcel", and the BNF (which is my prefered Authority basis agrees with it :) ---Hsarrazin (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)- Support - Tout à fait, il est connu sous le nom de Marcel Baschet. François GOGLINS (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC).
Moved to Category:Marcel Baschet. --rimshottalk 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Should be retitled "Category:Stevenage F.C.", as the club was renamed to this two years ago, per this. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Stevenage F.C.. --rimshottalk 20:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Should be retitled "Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.", as the club was renamed to this two years ago, per this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to Commons naming convention, it should be Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.. --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, my bad. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Any chance of this move going ahead, this nom was made September last year...? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, my bad. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.. --rimshottalk 20:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category be called Billety. That is to say, in English, rather than in French? Kiltpin (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- This, of course goes for all the sub-categories as well. Kiltpin (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are equivalent designations in British heraldry. You have many instances where the French word (or even a Gallicism of something English) is used in British heraldry. Seems to be more a matter of taste of the author. -- Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really think that works. The reference comes from a book written in "MDCCXLVII". Which means 1747. The book was donated to the library in 1914. I think we and heraldry have moved on a bit since then. If nothing else, there is no "é" on the majority of English keyboards. Kiltpin (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- From a 1910 book. Do you ever look up something for yourself? Is it that difficult to do some minimal research before putting every category you stumble upon for discussion?-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- So 110 years old then. Do we have a convention that category titles should be written in English? Yes or no? If yes, then I don't need to do any research, minimal or otherwise. If no, then I don't need to do any research for the same reason. My second point about the lack of an "é" is still equally valid. I was going to say something about your 'stumbling' comment, but instead I am going to assume good faith. Kiltpin (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- First, we aren't yet in 2020 (and by the looks of it, I wonder if we will ever be).
- Second, heraldry hasn't changed almost nothing in those last 100 years, to the point that many of the current treaties we use here as guidance are reprints from late 19th and early 20th century works.
- Third in case you have not yet understood by both links above, both billety and billeté are used in British heraldry.
- Fourth, if you really insist, then go for it and change the name to billety, I don't really care. Billety seems to be more commonly used, anyway, even if both are valid designations.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was a reasonable issue to have raised, but I tend to agree with Darwin, authorities on heraldry tend to use both versions, as with so many heraldic terms. I think we just have to live with unco-ordinated terminology. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC))
- So 110 years old then. Do we have a convention that category titles should be written in English? Yes or no? If yes, then I don't need to do any research, minimal or otherwise. If no, then I don't need to do any research for the same reason. My second point about the lack of an "é" is still equally valid. I was going to say something about your 'stumbling' comment, but instead I am going to assume good faith. Kiltpin (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- From a 1910 book. Do you ever look up something for yourself? Is it that difficult to do some minimal research before putting every category you stumble upon for discussion?-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really think that works. The reference comes from a book written in "MDCCXLVII". Which means 1747. The book was donated to the library in 1914. I think we and heraldry have moved on a bit since then. If nothing else, there is no "é" on the majority of English keyboards. Kiltpin (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept and a redirect created from Category:Billety, so that it can be found by both names. --rimshottalk 14:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Move to Characters in the Mahabharata, to be consistent with parent category Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Characters in the Mahabharata. --rimshottalk 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Near-duplicate of Category:Photographs by Dr Neil Clifton Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, if this could be left for Faebot to do its thing and finish identifying all current matching images, I would be happy to merge the categories at the end of this week (when I can get back to my desktop after travelling) and ensure that any future runs take this into account. I tend to use "images by" rather than "photographs by", but if there is a reasonable rationale to stick to "photographs by" then I'll happily tell Faebot to use that as the preferred category in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- If there's clear precedent for one over the other, then I don't much mind either way. Personally I use both for my own images, because I have photos and also many non-photos.
- Wouldn't it be easier to stop Faebot though, decide on the target quickly and then re-start it? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not just at the moment. I can merge very easily but I'm not back at my desktop to sort this out until Thursday night. Faebot has actually done its job now and will not be touching this category, so someone else could merge, but it honestly makes more sense to let it stand for a couple of days and I'll get onto it and tweak the bot to ensure this duplication does not happen again. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge both into Category:Files by Dr Neil Clifton. Don't see the need for both categories. russavia (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be worth me moving the other Geograph user categories over to using the generic "Files by ..."? This is at least easy for the remaining categories yet to be created and I *could* harmonize the backlog in the longer term. --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy with "Files by ", "Images by " and "Photographs by ", as appropriate. Some contributors might have all three. I would somewhat favour using the most specific.
- Do you think it would be worth me moving the other Geograph user categories over to using the generic "Files by ..."? This is at least easy for the remaining categories yet to be created and I *could* harmonize the backlog in the longer term. --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- We shouldn't label sound or video as "images". If we can't tell themn apart, then "Files by " is the best we can do. However technical media types ought to give us "Images" at least.
- "Photographs" is harder, as there's no simple technical way. However those from Geograph or photo archives (and they're the bulk of our issue here) are clearly photographs. We could use that categorisation based on source, or a bland "Images" if we're re-categorising Commons upload that are otherwise indistinguishable. Personally I have "Photographs", "Book scans" and "Drawings", but it's probably impractical to ever select between those automatically.
- My only concern with this specific group is that it's splitting "Geograph content by Dr Neil Clifton" on a randomly arbitrary basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion so far, I suggest I get Faebot to merge to the original category of Photographs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Faebot is paused at the moment and this gives me a bit of time to merge the category as suggested (I'm back home from tonight), and review the detail of the long categorization job. If anyone spots any other possible issues with Faebot's contributions over the last week or so, or suggestions for improvement, please do drop a note on my talk page and I'll be only too happy to discuss further and if necessary pause Faebot's Geograph categorization until there is a better consensus. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, merge is now running and should complete in a
few hoursday or so. The 'Photographs by' category currently has 10,182 images, so it will be interesting to see if that increases due to previously unidentified Geograph imports. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 
Done The results are in, 33 previously unidentified images were merged into the original category. Faebot has been tweaked so that Dr Neil Clifton will be avoided on any future run (and I may later tweak it to use the original cat as an exception). Thanks for your patience. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, it should not be hard to differentiate between basic media types (video versus photos versus audio). Though this is not an issue for Geograph categorization (they are all photos), if you have an interesting and specific categorization problem like this, I would be happy to put it on my back-burner to investigate. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Images by Dr Neil Clifton has been merged to Category:Photographs by Dr Neil Clifton. --rimshottalk 13:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to move all the media from this Category to Category:Music video games and delete this category after. Both cats are the same. All the Games, which were listed under this category are en:Music Video Games. There is now wikiarticle named en:Dance Video Games. W like wiki (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the categories are related but not the same. Music video games are more than just dance video games, so it makes sense to have dance games as a subcategory of music games. When I created the category I based it on the English Wikipedia's Category:Dance video games, and now there are a few more wikipedias that use the same category. /Ö 17:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, Ö, u r right. that makes sense. But why there is no wiki-article called Dance Video Game? And why many of the games listed under the Category:Dance video games are called Music video games or Rhythm game. Btw: the last one is a sub-genre of Action video games. Difficult, isn't it? --W like wiki (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nutshell: keep, it is a well defined and intuitive category. Commons differs from Wikipedias and there is need for categories that don't have and will never have their respective articles in any Wikipedia. LBDR: Dance games are a type of music games and a type of rhythm games, with the very specific criterion of using one's body as a controller. I.e. a well defined subtype of music rhythm games. Guitar Hero and similar are also both music and rhythm games, but they simulate playing instruments. Then there are singing games, again a type of music games, but instead of a dummied version of an instrument, the player must produce the singing "as is" without, eh, mercy ;) I wouldn't call them rhythm games necessarily. As for non-music rhythm games there are at least the wasd version of DDR, probably some others as well, and similar minigames in RPGs and such (*grr*), and non-rhythm music games would include rare, and probably older, entries such as Super Mario Paint Composer (?), which in essence is a simple composer tool with sounds from Mario games. --Pitke (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree --Judithcomm (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- W like wiki, Ö, Pitke, Judithcomm: Has consensus been reached to keep, or do we need further discussion? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Judithcomm (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- No one's contested my call so I'm inclined to think we have consensus to keep. My own opinion is to keep. --Pitke (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- The category seems to work, so keep it. Thx to Pitke for the explanation and Themightyquill for the call. --W like wiki (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept, as per Pitke. --rimshottalk 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Redundance Chief tin cloud (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- In 1917, Packard built only one model, the Twin Six. 2-25 refers to Twin Six, 2nd series (model year 1917 only), short wheel base (125 in.). I suggest to either
- dissolve this category
- reintegrate it under Twin Six (possibly retitled "Twin Six, 2nd series" which would cover the lwb 2-35 model, too)--Chief tin cloud (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No opposition in over three years. Redirected to Category:Packard Twin Six (2nd series). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Chief tin cloud (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am indeed not happy about the way Packard vehicles are categorized presently, and this is an example. 2201 is not an official model designation but the internal code for the 22nd series (1948 until early 1949) Packard Eight. The 22nd series consisted of:
- Six; lwb cars only; wheelbase 141 in.; see Category:Packard Six
- 2240-2282 Six Touring Sedan (4-door) (export only)
- 2240-2286 Six Sedan Taxicab
- 2220-2280 Six Limousine Taxicab (NYC style)
- Six; lwb cars only; wheelbase 141 in.; see Category:Packard Six
- Eight; wheelbase 120 in.; see Category:Packard Eight
- 2201-2292 Eight Touring Sedan (4-door)
- 2201-2295 Eight Club Sedan (2-door)
- 2201-2293 Eight Station Sedan
- Eight; wheelbase 120 in.; see Category:Packard Eight
- Eight Deluxe; wheelbase 120 in.; an Eight subseries with somewhat better trim.
- 2211-2262 Eight Deluxe Touring Sedan (4-door)
- 2211-2265 Eight Deluxe Club Sedan (2-door)
- Eight Deluxe; wheelbase 120 in.; an Eight subseries with somewhat better trim.
- Confusingly, this model was sometimes called by Packard the Deluxe Eight, which in fact was a top-of-the line model in 1929-1931, models 645, 745, 840 and 845 (Category:Packard 645, Category:Packard 745, 'Category:Packard 840 and Category:Packard 845). Presently (and IMO by error) in Category:Packard Deluxe Eight; belongs into Category:Packard Eight.
- Super Eight; see Category:Packard Super Eight
- 2202-2272 Super Eight Touring Sedan (4-door), wheelbase 120 in.
- 2202-2275 Super Eight Club Sedan (2-door), wheelbase 120 in.
- 2232-2279 Super Eight Club Convertible, wheelbase 120 in.
- 2222-2277 Super Eight 7-passenger Sedan (4-door), lwb, wheelbase 141 in.
- 2222-2276 Super Eight 7-passenger Limousine (4-door), lwb, wheelbase 141 in.
- Super Eight; see Category:Packard Super Eight
- Super Eight Deluxe; , wheelbase 141m in.; Super Eight subseries similar to Eight Deluxe; see Category:Packard Super Eight.
- 2222-2271 Super Eight 7-passenger Sedan (4-door), lwb
- 2222-2270 Super Eight 7-passenger Limousine (4-door), lwb
- Super Eight Deluxe; , wheelbase 141m in.; Super Eight subseries similar to Eight Deluxe; see Category:Packard Super Eight.
- Custom Eight; see Category:Packard Custom Eight
- 2206-2252 Custom Eight Touring Sedan (4-door), wheelbase 127 in.
- 2202-2225 Custom Eight Club Sedan (2-door), wheelbase 127 in.
- 2233-2259 Custom Eight Club Convertible Victoria, wheelbase 127 in.
- 2226-2251 Custom Eight 7-passenger Sedan (4-door), lwb, wheelbase 148 in.
- 2226-2250 Custom Eight 7-passenger Limousine (4-door), lwb, wheelbase 148 in.
- Custom Eight; see Category:Packard Custom Eight
- There is already a Category:Packard Eight, so it seems logical to either
- integrate Category:Packard 2201 in Category:Packard Eight
- to eliminate Category:Packard 2201 completely, transferring the pictures in it into Category:Packard Eight.
- There is already a Category:Packard Eight, so it seems logical to either
- Further, Packard used a system by series, not model years (starting with the 6th series, 1929; before, series corresponded with single models). With the exception of the very last years (starting with the 24th series, IIRC), series varied from model years, so we should consider to change that. Here: 22nd series was introduced September 8, 1947, and ran until May 1, 1949, thus covering nearly two model years. Cars built between January and May, 1949, had a "-9" suffix behind the model designation; (2201-9). They are identical to the 1948 cars, but were registered as 1949 models.
- And last, the only car presently shown in Category:Packard 2201 is a Station Sedan (model #2201-2293). 22nd and 23rd series cars are easily distinguishable, f.e. by the side trim (low on 22nd, at belt line level on 23rd). This does not apply to the Station Sedan; there is no way to tell if it is a 22nd or 23rd series car without a look on the VIN.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No opposition in over three years. The category now includes a sub-category Category:Packard Station Sedan (for the images that were in the category back in 2012) as well as two other images, one of which is apparently a Packard Eight Touring Sedan from the same 22nd series. I've redirected this category to Category:Packard Eight (22nd series), added it to Category:Packard Eight and left things otherwise the same. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The name is confusing as it is not the current Cathedral of Lleida. Since 1707 it is Category:New Cathedral of Lleida. I suggest to use the local name "La Seu Vella de Lleida", see en:La Seu Vella, Lleida, or alternatively "Cathedral of La Seu Vella" or "Old Cathedral of Lleida". --V.Riullop (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Vriullop. I would use "Seu Vella de Lleida" but the names he proposed above would be fine, too.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No more comments in one year. Please, move to "Category:La Seu Vella de Lleida". --V.Riullop (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Old Cathedral of Lleida. Green Giant (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Pointless rename of Category:Automobile engines by model Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would have been right to say "Correctly renamed substitute of a pointless category". Since the names of every subcat following the naming scheme Category:"Brand" "model" engine it's only logical to create a parent category with the titel "by brand by model".--FAEP (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- For someone claiming an "advanced level of English", this "Category:Automobile engines by brand by model" name isn't even grammatical.
- "Model" is (per other category structures) considered as a manufacturer's designation, thus implicitly part of a sub-structure within the "brand" or "manufacturer" (we have metacategories for all three terms). Duplicating this as "by brand by model" is pointlessly tautological. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop edit-warring by removing the discussion tags and replacing them with speedy deletion tags. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I really hope you're kidding. As I said, the parent-category shows the naming scheme of the subcats, and since brand and model are two different things there's nothing "tautological".--FAEP (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The name Category:Automobile engines by brand by model is not corresponding to the real content of the category. Such category names are intended for the second level of meta-categories, this category contain no meta-categories. The previous name "Category:Automobile engines by model" was more accurate. The contended categories are directly categories of individual models, they are not grouped into meta-categories of models by brand. If you would like to emphasize both levels in the category name, "Category:Automobile engines by brand and model" would be a correct variant. --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Btw, this category is redundant and causes needless overcategorization. Engine models should be categorized by brand, such "flat category" by model is not useful. --ŠJů (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Despite little support for your views here, I see that you've now gone ahead and emptied the categories anyway. If I still gave a damn about Commons or WP I'd call this vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
According to English Wikipedia, the name of these bridges are en:Kemer Bridge, en:Limya Bridge. As we know, when we chose the name of category, we behave according to the name in English Wikipedia. In Commons, we don't make discussions on naming. If users think the naming in English Wikipedia should not be appropriate, he/she have to go to talk page of related article in English Wikipedia, and request renaming. Otherwise, users must not decide names of categories according to his/her own POV by his/her own original research. So those categories have to be Category:Kemer Bridge and Category:Limya Bridge. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- See Category talk:Bridge near Limyra. En:wikipedia names have been changed. --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- See Category talk:Bridge near Limyra for, I believe, a good compromise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As of 2016, the English wikipedia articles are at en:Bridge near Limyra and en:Bridge near Kemer. They don't seem to have moved since 2012, nor has there been further discussion during the past 4 years. Can we close? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong category name. It should be Impaled with quarterly. Kiltpin (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Impaling and quartering are two methods of marshalling more than one shield together. Impaling means two and quartering is three or more. All these shields are impaled with (another, that is) quarterly. Parts of a shield can be impaled and parts can be quarterly, but the complete conjoined shield cannot be both. Kiltpin (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is the best designation, but wrong it is not. Look here for a lot of examples of the term being used in heraldry treaties. It is about as used as your proposal "impaled with quarterly".
- Usually when one have two equivalent terms, if there is a tie, the oldest choice here in Commons prevails. But if people find that "impaled with quarterly" is prettier, I don't mind moving it to another cat. But wrong, it is not.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will admit that it is not wrong, but the lack of wrongness does not create rightness. "Impaled quarterly" is just awkward. Arms are impaled "with" another. So "Impaled with quarterly" is more accurate and gives a far better description of what the category contains. Kiltpin (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Impaled with quarterly and moved Category:Impaled quarterly of 6 to Category:Impaled with quarterly of 6 as well. Thanks to you both for discussing this calmly. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect rename. Fiat have made lots of engines with twin camshafts. Only the original narrow family,Category:Fiat twin cam engine, is known as the "twin cam" specifically. See the en:WP article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It's only an incorrect rename for someone who is obviously not familiar with the plural policy here on commons. Please take a look at Commons:Rename a category#Types of renames. And also read Commons:OVERCAT#Over-categorization please, since this is a matter that you're regularly ignoring. Thank you in advance.--FAEP (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- A quick handful of counter examples:
- Category:BMC A engine
- Category:Ford Cologne V6 engine
- Category:Ford Taunus V4 engine
- Category:Rover V8 engine
- Category:Triumph Slant-4 engine
- Category:Volvo B18 engine
- There's nothing wrong with "Category:Fiat twin cam engines", except that it means something different to "Category:Fiat twin cam engine". One is the set of all engines Fiat have made with twin camshafts, the other is a more specific family of engines they made, known as the Fiat twin cam engine. We can call either of these what we wish, but we can't call them both the same thing.
- Category:Fiat Lampredi engine would be a reasonable synonym for the twin cam engine, although it's less familiar as a name and it's also inconsistent with naming used so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The English wikipedia is now at en:Fiat Twin Cam engine with the capitalization likely intended to distinguish the "specific family of engines they made" from all Fiat engines with twin camshafts. I propose we move Category:Fiat twin cam engine to Category:Fiat Twin Cam engine and add category descriptions to note the distinction. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved Category:Fiat twin cam engine to Category:Fiat Twin Cam engine. Hopefully capitalization will help with clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Weird bracketed name, unclear scope. Purpose of this category is already served by Category:Alpaca fur-skins and Category:Alpaca wool. Suggest emptying this category of its only member (which is already in Category:Alpaca fur-skins) and delete. Deryck Chan (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are right. In accordance with all other fur related categories (see category:Fur garments) we should find a way, to get an own category for processed alpaca skins, in contrast to processed alpaca wool and to alpaca skins. I would suggest to rename it in Alpaca fur-skins (clothing) (in accordance to other categories with the same problem, like sheepskin (clothing) and alpaca fur-skins)? Please consider, my English is not good enough to see the fine differences. Thank you. --Kürschner (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- (de) Wenn es ein Foto von Kleidung aus Alpakafell gäbe, würde ich empfehlen, eine Kategorie "Alpaca fur-skin clothing" zu entstehen. Jedoch gibt es kein solches Foto. Die Kategorie enthält jetzt nur ein Foto von einer Felldecke, die keine Kleidung ist. Ich glaube, es gibt nur 2 Fotos an Commons mit Kleidungen aus Alpaka und die sind nicht in dieser Kategorie.
- (en) If we did have a photo of some clothing item made from alpaca fur-skin, then I agree we should create an "Alpaca fur-skin clothing" category. But there isn't. This category currently only has one photo and that isn't a clothing item. I think there are 2 photos on Commons that are alpaca clothing items, neither of which is in this category.
- They are File:Alpaca fleece.JPG and File:Alpaca wool scarf.JPG. Deryck Chan (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deutsch: Du hast recht, es wird wahrscheinlich wegen des geringen Vorkommens auch kaum etwas dazukommen. Es ist halt nur wegen der Übereinstimmung mit den anderen Kategorien. Eine Kategorie für Nichtkleidung einer bestimmten Fellart habe ich nie angelegt, das würde m. E. nach zu weit führen. Deshalb verweise ich in jeder Kategorie darauf, dass sie für alle verarbeiteten Produkte aus Fellen dieser Art gilt. Selbstverständlich kann die Decke auch unter die Fellart einsortiert werden. --- Korrekt wäre es, wenn es jeweils eine Oberkategorie für verarbeitete Felle gäbe, und darunter die für Bekleidung. Da Pelz aber meist derart überwiegend für Kleidungszwecke verarbeitet wird, würde ich es gern bei der ungenauen aber einfachen Kategorisierung belassen. --- Frage: Wie würdest Du eine Kategorie nennen, in die die traditionelle Pelzbekleidung der Völker (Trachten) wie Eskimos, Indianer einsortiert werden (möglichst mit "Fur" beginnend...).--Kürschner (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- (de) Antwort: Category:Fur garments. Ich habe auch an Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Sheep fur-skins kommentiert. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alles klar, kann gern umbenannt werden. Suche nur nach der einfachsten Möglichkeit, die Dateien umzukategorisieren? --- Ich suche eine Unterkategorie unter der Kategorie Fur garments, in denen die Trachten mit oder aus Pelz gesammelt werden können? --Kürschner (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- (de) Antwort: Category:Fur garments. Ich habe auch an Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Sheep fur-skins kommentiert. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The only remaining image in the category is an image of a carpet not clothing, and that image is also in Category:Alpaca fur-skins. I'm deleting this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file per Themightyquill's request for speedy deletion and restored per Kürschner's request on my talkpage. The category is not empty. Taivo (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Madrasahs by country -> Category:Madrasas by country
- Category:Madrasahs in Bosnia and Herzegovina -> Category:Madrasas in Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Category:Madrasahs in Egypt -> Category:Madrasas in Egypt
- Category:Madrasahs in India -> Category:Madrasas in India
- Category:Madrasahs in Morocco -> Category:Madrasas in Morocco
- Category:Madrasahs in Russia -> Category:Madrasas in Russia
- Category:Madrasahs in Syria -> Category:Madrasas in Syria
- Category:Madrasahs in Tunisia -> *Category:Madrasas in Tunisia
- Category:Madrasahs in Turkey -> *Category:Madrasas in Turkey
- Category:Madrasahs in Uzbekistan -> *Category:Madrasas in Uzbekistan
- As we know, when we chose the name of category, we behave according to the name in English Wikipedia not by my/your/his/her/our/their POV. I believed User:Foroa also always behave so. In this case, en:Madrasas by country, en:Category:Madrasas in Turkey have to be preferred in Commons. Although there is the artile titled en:Madrasah in English Wikipedia, categorization per en:Madrasas by country. The reason why they prefer madrasas for categories, as long as I understand, 'madrasas is more common than madrasahs in English language.
- Unfortunately, User:Foroa had deleted Category:Madrasas by country, Category:Madrasas in Turkey and continues trying to delete them by using his/her right of administrator of Commons.
- Moreover, the same user had removed interwikis of those categories, removed important sub categories such as Category:Islamic schools by country. I couldn't understand his/her harmful actions. I want to think that those his/her harmful actions might be caused only by his/her blind reverts, and might not have any intention to destruct Commons. So I recommend User:Foroa to behave calmly. Takabeg (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- As we all know, category names should use consistent naming up to the top parent level. And we certainly don't change naming in the middle of a world wide category tree without any form of discussion, so we have to look at Category:Madrasahs as a whole. The category tree names are all in line with the top level en:Madrasah name (that has never been challenged); this has already be discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Madrassas after a check on reference encycopedias to determine the prevailing word. --Foroa (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The English wikipedia article was moved to en:Madrasa in October 2012 and seems to have been stable ever since. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The only opposition was based on the top level Category:Madrasahs being parallel with the wikipedia article, but that hasn't been the case in years. I'd suggest we now move everything to "Madrasas" as per the initial nomination. Foroa is no longer editing, so won't be objecting. @Ruthven: Could you help with this via commons delinker? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moving Madrashas to Madrasas. Ruthven (msg) 19:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en septembre 2012
[edit]The language policy points it out quite clearly -> this category name must get translated in english 91.57.89.103 12:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- C'est une recommandation et non pas une obligation. Et de toute manière, c'est même pas la peine de m'obliger à changer ça parce que je n'en ferais rien du tout. Je ne me suis pas embêté à faire 45 km à vélo et 300 photos tout ça pour qu'une IP vienne embêter son monde. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Read Commons:Language policy you idiotic frenchman --79.221.101.202 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- C'est non discutable et non négociable. Et au lieu de venir me taper sur les doigts, vous feriez mieux d'utiliser le modèle Template:En. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's ok as it is a pretty detailed cat and french people don't speak so good englisch.--Sanandros (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- En effet, le nom de la catégorie est très détaillé, et les français parlent très mal l'anglais. Il n'y a pas de sens à employer l'anglais. Thanks Sanandros for translations. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's ok as it is a pretty detailed cat and french people don't speak so good englisch.--Sanandros (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en décembre 2012. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request -- I think these need merging / sorting in some way - looking at the contents it is clear that the "trains by" category contains rolling stock of various types - I can't see any differentiation between the contents of the two categories. If the intention was "locomotives" then this has been ignored. It's not clear which is the logical parent of the other either "trains by company" is a subcat of "rolling stock by company", but "rolling stock" is a subcategory of "trains" (contradiction)- proposing merge of categories and their subgroups were appropriate - mostly into "rolling stock", "multiple units", "locomotives" etc.
Currently the set up just splits similar topic images across two categories.Oranjblud (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think, categories of trains can be subcategories of categories of rolling stock (every train consist of rolling stock but a piece of rolling stock can be depicted without a train). --ŠJů (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The category names of rolling stock and trains should be harmonized with categories of other types of vehicles. The word "company" is unspecific (manufacturers are also companies) - we should unify the category names to "by operator" (even if we keep the traditional term "Rail transport companies" in the parent categories). --ŠJů (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
ŠJů]'s suggestion of moving to "by operator" has been completed. @Orajblud: Do you have further comments, or was ŠJů's distinction between trains and rolling stock convincing to you? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No further comments. Moved to Category:Trains by operator and Category:Rail vehicles by operator. Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Indo-Persian weapons
- Category:Indo-Persian armour
- Category:Indo-Persian helmets
- Category:Indo-Persian horse armour
What's "Indo-Persian weapons" ? For example en:Khanda (sword) can be categorized as Indian weapons (see en:Category:Indian swords), but I cannot understand this category and its sources. I couldn't find such term in not only in English Wikipedia but also in Google Ngrams. I think that this category have not to be used in Commons. Takabeg (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do a search for "Indo-Persian weapons, you will find all of these weapons listed, many of these weapons are not exclusive to any one country or region and it is common to call Turkish, Indian, Persian etc weapons "Indo-Persian", this category makes it easier for anyone with an interest in these types of weapons to find them.
[Indo-Persian weapons] [Indo-Persian weapons] [Indo-Persian weapons] samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You shew us "Indo Persian Travels", etc. :) There are only two sample to prove the presence of the term "Indo-Persian weapon" in google books. It's very clear that this term is not so popular. We'd better use existing categories in English Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to wait for someone else to comment, you seem to have a POV. Adding this category does not take away any other categories, it just adds another category using a very common search term for Indian, Persian, Turkish, Ottoman etc weapons. samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some more common search terms [Indo-Persian flintlocks][Indo-Persian matchlocks] [Indo-Persian matchlocks] [Indo-Persian flintlocks]
samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is your problem with this category, Indo-Persian is an excepted term for this type of weapons and armor, many of these items were used by several countries and regions and this term encompasses this and I have provided abundant proof. The images I have added to this category still have their other categories, all I have done is added an umbrella category making it much easier to find these images by anyone who is interested in the subject. Indo-Persian armour search terms. [Indo-Persian armor in books] [Indo-Persian armour images] [Indo-Persian armour on the web].samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I could find the term "Indo-Persian helmet" in google books. However, when I searched this term with the term "Ottoman" ("Indo-Persian halmet" + "Ottoman"), there is no result except e-Bay (of course, e-Bay is not reliable sources). Takabeg (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Takabeg, are you by chance Turkish? Is your complaint based on some sort of nationalistic resentment about being labeled as Indo-Persian? Other wise I can not understand what you are complaining about. All the images in these categories still have their original national labels (armour of India, armour of Iran etc), if you do not like the category simply do not use it but having a common category for these images makes finding them much easier for anyone who would be looking for these types of images.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- A link to a wikipedia article on the Turkish-Persian connection.[Turko-Persian tradition], and a quote> ("In the sixteenth century arose the Turko-Persian empires of the Ottomans in Asia Minor, Safavids in Persia, and Mughals in India. Thus, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries the territories from Asia Minor to East Bengal were dominated by Turko-Persian dynasties"). All of these cultures were closely related as were their weapons and armor which is why the term "Indo-Persian" is used as a general term.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- OPPOSE DELETION, I have been doing research on the armours and weapons of the middle east and the term "Indo-Persian" is commonly used to describe armours and weapons from this area including India, Iran/Persia and Turkey, in the past terms such as "Eastern", "Oriental" and "Islamic" were used, now the current most popular term is "Indo-Persian". Samuraiantiqueworld has not removed other relevant categories and this/these category makes it much easier to view all the weapons/armours of this region in one category. Takabeg mentioned Ebay, and I have to add that Ebay is the worlds largest market place for the sale and purchase of weapons/armour from this region and in this instance Ebay is a reliable source as far as what terms are used, and on Ebay when weapons/armour from this region are bought and sold the term "Indo-Persian" is a commonly used term for Indian, Turkish and persian weapons/armour. This category harms nothing and will make it easier for users of images on commons to find these images.74.223.167.126 03:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- OPPOSE This discussion should be ended by now, the categories listed should be left alone, they tie a lot of related weapons and armor together making them easy to find.49.145.16.75 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- User:Samuraiantiqueworld is absolutely right. Same opinion. If someone ist intersted in this he will find it in Indo-Persian weapons, nowhere else. The term for the Cat. is correct because "Indo-persian " is the most common term for this weapons and armour. This type of armor is used not only in India. The same type of construction is used in India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey. If you categorise it in Indian Armor it is simply wrong. So for me it is a Keep the Cats.. The only answer to the deletion request. Away from the discussion. User:Samuraiantiqueworld is a real specialist for the theme. He knows what he is talking from. Greetings Lothar --MittlererWeg (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
This category isn't well defined. Its description says its scope is limited to buildings of 50-150 meters, so why is it full of subcategories like Category:220-meter high-rises? This gives a massive overlap with Category:Skyscrapers. But then it works the other way too with categories like Category:Skyscrapers in Auckland which are full of buildings less than 150 meters. But perhaps both category trees are unnecessary and all that's wanted is Category:Buildings by height, with subcategores like Category:220 meter buildings or Category:50-100 meter buildings in Auckland? ghouston (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ghouston. I made some of the categories (Category:Supertalls, Category:High-rises) some years ago. I used the known terms so people could find them easily.
- I got the (loose) definition from en:Skyscraper#Definition Quote: "...Also lacking an official definition, the term 'supertall' has arisen for the current generation of exceptionally tall buildings. High-rise buildings are considered shorter than skyscrapers...A loose convention of some in the United States and Europe draws the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 m or 490 ft.[17]...The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) defines "supertall" as a building over 300 m (980 ft) in height..."
- If you can make a better taxonomy, then please do. --Glenn (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, your original scheme was OK, you had three categories which were well-defined, although it doesn't seem like it has been followed very well. But if people are going to subcategorize as far a one-meter intervals, dividing it into two different names at the 150m boundary seems arbitrary. The supertalls category is basically unused, it's just a pointer to high-rises/skyscraper categories. I suppose it's also a problem that there is more than one method of measuring the height of a building, depending for example on whether pointy bits on the top are included, and the categories don't suggest which should be used. ghouston (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There is also a big overlap with Category:Towers by height. The towers category includes non-building structures also. ghouston (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who takes photographs of buildings and categorizes them before uploading, I have a personal interest in this discussion. Let's think about why people would want these pictures. I think the most common reason is that a person wants pictures of buildings in a particular place. They would go first to "Buildings in (location name)"; the height of the building is irrelevant. Another reason is a person wants a particular building- the building name or address can often be found with a text search. Another reason is architects/engineers looking for buildings that have particular technical challenges. That is a good reason to separate buildings by height, but in much fewer categories than exist at present. Another reason is 'low rise' (walkable, or up to 7 stories) versus 'high rise' (requires elevators). The low-rise buildings are often older and more historically interesting. A graphic artist might find this distinction useful.
- I think the current system of categorization is a great waste of time. Just because the height details can be found and can be specified doesn't mean they are useful. I propose three categories only: skyscrapers (over x feet), high-rise (over 7 stories or x feet), low-rise (7 stories or under). There could be other specialized categories like "office buildings with other former functions", etc.
- Whatever the final result, however, in my opinion EVERY category page that specifies building height (e.g., "High-rises in Singapore") should include a definition of "high-rise", "low-rise", etc., and a statement that these are somewhat arbitrary. If appropriate, a redirect to the main "high-rise" page with an expanded definition could be included. Downtowngal (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you: the categories of buildings by height when taken to single metre intervals are a waste of time. Secondly, the height categories desired depends on location. I don't think that we should be making up our own definitions for terms like "high-rise", however. Height intervals in metres would be fine at the lowest geographical level. However then there is a problem trying to define a tree based category system. Also the number of categories desired may vary in different locations. At a global level, perhaps the only height category that would be interesting is buildings over a few hundred metres, since there aren't many of them. ghouston (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since this is an open-edited site, I or you can't prescribe at the top of the category "please consolidate all 1-meter-different categories back into 50-meter units", and there are categorizers who will feel that makes their work unnecessary. If I could, I would prescribe an attitude of benign neglect toward excess categorization of these images: the most important categories being location, function, and the three height categories mentioned above.
- How would the number of categories desired vary in different locations? Except for perhaps Hong Kong, but there, even if there is a real-life distinction between 'small' and 'large' skyscrapers, what value is that distinction to the image user? I can imagine that what is a 'skyscraper' in, say, the Carribbean would be shorter than a 'skyscraper' in Dubai, but I think that fixed height limits on these definitions tell the user 'if you don't find it in skyscraper, look in high-rise'. So to sum up, I would consolidate everything into three hard-defined height categories. Otherwise the categories just proliferate and become obstacles to finding good images. Downtowngal (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Surely there is an even more important concern here. Category:High-rises is a subcategory of only Category:Towers, which is part of the Category:Structures category tree. A high-rise, however, is surely a Building, and should be a subcategory of Category:Buildings. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've added both High rises and Skyscrapers to buildings. I had added High rises previously, but for some reason that I don't remember, reverted the change. --ghouston (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Which got reverted, I suppose because Skyscrapers is a subcategory of High-rises (which it shouldn't be, according to the original 150m category scheme) which I also added to Buildings. --ghouston (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've added both High rises and Skyscrapers to buildings. I had added High rises previously, but for some reason that I don't remember, reverted the change. --ghouston (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Surely there is an even more important concern here. Category:High-rises is a subcategory of only Category:Towers, which is part of the Category:Structures category tree. A high-rise, however, is surely a Building, and should be a subcategory of Category:Buildings. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- How would the number of categories desired vary in different locations? Except for perhaps Hong Kong, but there, even if there is a real-life distinction between 'small' and 'large' skyscrapers, what value is that distinction to the image user? I can imagine that what is a 'skyscraper' in, say, the Carribbean would be shorter than a 'skyscraper' in Dubai, but I think that fixed height limits on these definitions tell the user 'if you don't find it in skyscraper, look in high-rise'. So to sum up, I would consolidate everything into three hard-defined height categories. Otherwise the categories just proliferate and become obstacles to finding good images. Downtowngal (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Just a thought - might it make sense to change the "High-rises by height" category tree to just "buildings by height" ? This could be sub-divided by characteristics, so as to include the pre-existing Category:Lighthouses by height and other category trees like Category:High-rise apartment buildings and Category:High-rise hospitals. The basic definition of highrise is "tall building" and we generally characterize things on commons with precise terms, not ambiguous ones like "big" or "small", or, in the case of skyscrapers, "very tall." Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That was actually my original suggestion, although I'd also like a parent categegory "Structures by height". I'd also suggest that the height be measured according to "height to structural or architectural top", but there are other options. --ghouston (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- However "buildings by height" is easy to propose, but what categories should be inside it? Considering that it will be subdivided by height, location and building type, and maybe all at once. --ghouston (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ghouston. I'd say sub-dividing by height, by location and height, and by function/type and height should be acceptable, just so long that "types" of buildings are not types characterized by height (high-rises, skyscrapers, etc). The first of these can go to extreme subdivision (by metre?) whereas the others could be sub-divided first into broader categories (e.g., Category:50-100m tall buildings in France, Category:100-150m tall hospitals, etc.), and only sub-divided further as the number of files demands. It would be the same as we (generally) do with dates of buildings: Category:Built in Year X but Category:Built in Country Y in the Xth century unless further sub-division is required. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, we already have Category:Towers by height and Category:Lighthouses by height, which are also using different height intervals. I think I'll create Category:Structures by height and also add Category:Buildings by height. However converting from "highrises" to specific height ranges would be a massive job, considering how many highrise subcategories there are and that you'd need to look up the height of each building. --ghouston (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, we've got all those categories like Category:220-meter high-rises which could just be renamed. --ghouston (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ghouston. I'd say sub-dividing by height, by location and height, and by function/type and height should be acceptable, just so long that "types" of buildings are not types characterized by height (high-rises, skyscrapers, etc). The first of these can go to extreme subdivision (by metre?) whereas the others could be sub-divided first into broader categories (e.g., Category:50-100m tall buildings in France, Category:100-150m tall hospitals, etc.), and only sub-divided further as the number of files demands. It would be the same as we (generally) do with dates of buildings: Category:Built in Year X but Category:Built in Country Y in the Xth century unless further sub-division is required. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, the height-specified high-rise categories can be renamed to "X-meter buildings" (or X-meter tall buildings?). If we can agree to delete the Category:High-rises category tree, I can slowly sort the sub-cats and files, but I think we need "consensus" of more than two. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think they'd need some reference to height, to distinguish from buildings of width or length X. So X-meter tall buildings, or Buildings of height X, etc. I guess our consensus is good if nobody objects in the next few weeks :) --ghouston (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm proposing we rename categories like Category:15-meter high-rises and Category:220 meters skyscrapers to categories like Category:15 meter tall buildings. Also, categories like Category:15-meters towers will be renamed to Category:15 meter tall structures. I've omitted hyphens and retained the US spelling of meters. These can all go direectly in Category:Buildings by height and Category:Structures by height. They can also go in Category:15 (number) etc. Then we can also add all the 23 meter and higher building categories to Category:High-rises and all the 100 meter and higher building categories to Category:Skyscrapers. Definitions vary, but these seem to be the usual minimums. Then the geographically restricted categories can do whatever they like. --ghouston (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, except I don't understand why you'd remove the hyphens. These are compound adjectives requiring hyphens. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I figured it would be easier to type, and grammar is sometimes a mystery to me. But after looking up compound adjectives, I'll put them back: Category:15-meter-tall buildings etc? --ghouston (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll start submitting renaming requests to User:CommonsDelinker, but I'll do it in batches and leave this discussion open for now in case of problems or in case there are any further details to consider. --ghouston (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I figured it would be easier to type, and grammar is sometimes a mystery to me. But after looking up compound adjectives, I'll put them back: Category:15-meter-tall buildings etc? --ghouston (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, except I don't understand why you'd remove the hyphens. These are compound adjectives requiring hyphens. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Categories like Category:High-rises less than 50 meters in Alabama bother me a bit. I could rename it to Category:0-49-meter-buildings in Alabama, but that changes the scope and invites anyone to add single-storey buildings. That's the same for Category:0-49-meter-tall buildings. There'd be nothing wrong with adding Category:3-meter-tall buildings as a subcategory, but it's messy when you have a lot of buildings where you don't know the exact height. Maybe buildings where the height isn't known simply shouldn't be categorised by height. --ghouston (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying Category:23-metre-and-taller buildings in New Zealand as a replacement for tall buildings / high-rises / skyscrapers. Categories like Category:0-49-meter-tall buildings can be metacats. --ghouston (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: To what end? If we sort things by height (when we know the height) that's clear. Since the definition of high-rise seems to vary dramatically, I don't see the point of trying to use it as a metric. But if we're going to use "high-rise" as a metric, why not just use Category:High rises (without specific height)? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think basically a lot of categories are "tall buildings in place", with high-rises, skyscrapers and even Tall buildings used interchangeably and sometimes in combination. But then the main complaint about these categories is that they don't have well-defined definitions, so there's no way to know what belongs in them. These renamed categories would be an alternative. However, I'm not proposing to rename every "high-rise" etc., category in Commons; it would take way too long, just trying out alternatives here and there. --ghouston (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Main goal is to replace Category:High-rises by height and Category:Skyscrapers by height with Category:Buildings by height. --ghouston (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're doing a great job with this, Ghouston. I think your plan has worked out very well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. If I'd realised how many of these height categories there were, I probably would have avoided it. There are still some to go in USA and Japan. Even once those are done, there will still be a mix of high-rise and skyscraper categories (without explicit heights) remaining, but I suppose it will have to stay that way. --ghouston (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're doing a great job with this, Ghouston. I think your plan has worked out very well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Main goal is to replace Category:High-rises by height and Category:Skyscrapers by height with Category:Buildings by height. --ghouston (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've renamed all the categories I could find with specific heights to be subcategories of Category:Buildings by height. Many high-rise and skyscraper categories still exist, and are used inconsistently, but at least there's a scheme for buildings by specific heights that can be used instead as desired. --ghouston (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Guitar amplifiers use general-purpose tubes designed for "plain" amplification: 12AX7, 6SN7, 6V6 etc. They are used in "plain" audio amps, and they were used in scores of non-audio applications. Certainly, some present-day resellers specifically target American guitar markets, but what makes a "guitar" Sovtek 12AX7 different from "plain" Brimar or Sylvania 12AX7? (Retired electrician (talk)) 15:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Technically you are right. Emotionally you are not. You should have a look at guitarist discussions how one tube generates a warmer or more "organic" sound than another. The musicians world is not a real engineering world. --Foroa (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It makes me think on the discussions of the monster cables that create so much happiness. --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is a technical question: a question of definitions. Where's the line between "guitar tubes" and "not guitar tubes"? Retired electrician (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is in en:Category:Guitar amplification tubes so unless we redirect and lock it, it will come back again and again. Lets wait a bit to see if the author comes back. --Foroa (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense at all to have a guitar category, because there are no guitar tubes. --Cqdx (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Stalled discussion - there is no technical difference between guitar amplification tubes and other amplification tubes, yet en:Category:Guitar amplification tubes exists so a parallel category makes sense. It's hard to reconcile these arguments. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Should be deleted as the Eurostar trains previously operated by SNCB are now operated by Eurostar International Limited. The information provided in the category seems strange: DB (Deutsche Bahn?) never operated a TGV TMST. Torsch (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- (Fr)Correction des catégorisation selon numérotation (confusion avec TGV PBKA)--Jossfc (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the fix, the main problem with this category remains, namely that the former SNCB takes are now operated by Eurostar International Limited and thus are no longer distinguishable from other Eurostar trains. And the category contains only two images, and in one image the train has a number of 32xx, which makes it a SNCF and thus not a SNCB take (see w:British_Rail_Class_373#Fleet_details for details).Torsch (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should differ between SNCB and Eurostar trains and with that keep that cat.--Sanandros (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the fix, the main problem with this category remains, namely that the former SNCB takes are now operated by Eurostar International Limited and thus are no longer distinguishable from other Eurostar trains. And the category contains only two images, and in one image the train has a number of 32xx, which makes it a SNCF and thus not a SNCB take (see w:British_Rail_Class_373#Fleet_details for details).Torsch (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Torsch, Jossfc, and Sanandros: : I don't understand the problem here. Has it been resolved? Is there a proposed solution? It would be great to close after 5+ years of discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I don't know I'm not a (belgum) train expert but would also like to see the closure of this discussion. So I still think that we keep the SNCB cat and make a new Eurostar cat for Eurostar trains.--Sanandros (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: Can you please do that? I'll close when you've signaled that everything is done. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let's ask first some experts because it looks like we have right now just Eurostar trains in the cat. So then we can delete the cat.--Sanandros (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- The units were belonging to SNCB when the pictures were taken, and they were Eurostart units. So, logically, the category can stay,but I personally would think, that subcategories under Category:British Rail Class 373s by operator, valid respectively for the ex-SNCF, ex-SNCB and ex-whatever-the-UK-toc-was-at-the-time-of-taking-the-picture. And, lo, the SNCB-subcategory is the only one missing.--Pcb (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let's ask first some experts because it looks like we have right now just Eurostar trains in the cat. So then we can delete the cat.--Sanandros (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: per pcb.--Sanandros (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Doubles Category:Sylvania Electric Products. Merge? Simplify to just Sylvania? Retired electrician (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, the Sylvania brand has been used by many companies, one of them being Category:Sylvania Electric Products that only existed till 1959. en:Sylvania needs clearly disambiguation or should not be used at all. --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then Category:Sylvania Electric Products should be subcategory of Category:Sylvania (brand)? IRetired electrician (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It all depends how you look at it; SEP used to own the brand, so is the parent (category) and maybe originator. But you could indeed argue that the companies are flying under the brand. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- off topic. I suspect that drawing the line at the 1959 takeover is incorrect. SEP continued as an independent division under its own name, and had quite a streak of innovation in the 60s - Sylvania beat Fairchild and TI with digital circuits, introduced TTL logic in 1963, memory ICs in 1966 etc. (see Thomas A. Longo, it's a shame that he's not in wikipedia). Retired electrician (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That will come eventually (I have some souvenirs working with Longo's PACE 1750A); one more reason to keep de categories separated. Why don't you expand the SEP article ? --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then Category:Sylvania Electric Products should be subcategory of Category:Sylvania (brand)? IRetired electrician (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus, with quick renomination being permitted as always. I strongly doubt we'll get any more input, since it's been 5+ years since this page was last edited. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Useless and vague category that disperses Commons content into a vague and useless container. What is the point of using this? The maps should be organized by century, or by decade if necessary, not by some random 70 year limit. And what the heck is this awkward Category:Maps of the history of cities in Portugal? That one is not created, but is proposed there. What the hell may be that? -- Darwin Ahoy! 02:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete useless category.--Avron (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Usefull category see Category:Old_maps_of_cities where exists these same category for the countries of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Morroco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Empire, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States or as simply saying that besides with the portuguese category there are 25 "useless" categories of old maps of cities by countries. Tm (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)- Delete I agree with Darwin that the category name is vague and subjective, the 70-year limit is arbitrary and means that eligible content is constantly changing, and it makes for difficult category maintenance (with hotcat, contributors add content to these categories without ever needing to check what is meant by "old"). Tm suggests that the category is useful on the basis the same naming convention has been used on other categories -- however, the fact that crappy category naming has been replicated elsewhere does not make it any less crappy. To the extent we want to organize maps to separate older ones from newer ones, they should be organized by century, decade or even year (depending on the number of files in the parent cat) - as is done for a few countries.
Having said all that, Tm is correct in pointing out that this naming is used elsewhere, and perhaps this discussion is best had on a wider basis. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- In order to encourage discussion on a wider basis, I've added tags to this CFD at Category:Old maps of cities, Category:Old maps of cities by country, and several well-used parallel categories for old maps of cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Spain, the United States, and Germany. If I may, I'd also like to draw people's attention to a related CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Maps by year. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep It is useful to group together old maps of a place, and to see them in sequence, rather than dispersing maps by date. There are very few cities where the set of old maps that we have is so large that it would justify them being broken out into further sub-categories. Jheald (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jheald: And how do you propose to define "old"?-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I'm quite happy with the current "more than 70 years ago". As a cut-off I find it works well. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, Delete for the category with that definition. To me, a category containing maps older than 70 y.o. is absolutely pointless. A map with 20 years in most situations is already quite old and inaccurate.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- In that case,
- @DarwIn: I'm quite happy with the current "more than 70 years ago". As a cut-off I find it works well. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jheald: And how do you propose to define "old"?-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept. This is an entire category tree, but the whole point of this nomination is opposition to the concept of the tree. This DR should have been limited to criticism of the specific category (e.g. "tiny and not likely to get more images"), with opposition to the concept going to the DR for the parent. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete, empty, uncommon category for only one coat of arms. Perhelion (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion about this: Same images of CoA must be in a separate category. There are two images (File:Coat of arms of Rupperswil.svg, File:Rupperswil-blason.png). This category can include more image. We have many CoA of every town.
- Your opinion are category like Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Aargau. This situation leads to nonsense stay when people cannot sort images.
- Skim (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then you want really create a own category for every CoA?!? That opinion makes the category system at nonsense. A PNG and a SVG version (file formats) of the same CoA is really not a reason for a category. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 12:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Only if number of CoA is >1 images.
- "That opinion makes the category system at nonsense." Why?
- Skim (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I really think you miss-understand here what is a category. A category should be help someone not complicate the work for all here. A category is intended to group related. I really mean we should not make for every village in the world a sub-category for CoA, so I prefer a DR here. Also - as we can see - someone has removed the previous cat. in meaning of COM:OVERCAT. So we can not see more images at once group. --
ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I really think you miss-understand here what is a category. A category should be help someone not complicate the work for all here. A category is intended to group related. I really mean we should not make for every village in the world a sub-category for CoA, so I prefer a DR here. Also - as we can see - someone has removed the previous cat. in meaning of COM:OVERCAT. So we can not see more images at once group. --
- Kept as no consensus. It's not particularly likely that we'll get a third participant in this discussion, the last vote having happened almost five years ago. Feel free to renominate if you want. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Paralympic competitors and similarly named subcategories
[edit]
|
Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country – the main discussion is taking place here. |
|
|
Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:2004 Summer Paralympics athletes |
The categories relating to the Olympic Games are entitled "Category:Olympic sportspeople", which is in line with the parent category "Category:Sportspeople". I propose that "Category:Paralympic competitors" and its subcategories be brought in line with these categories. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose "sportspeople" is far too broad. The "Olympic sportspeople" category is currently disputed. Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: thanks for drawing that discussion to my attention. Well, clearly the outcome of that discussion should govern the naming of this series of categories as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
As per discussion, "competitors" is more specific than sports people (which might include coaches, etc) and "athletes" is vague, possibly refering only the athletics competitors. Moved all sub-categories to "competitors" to match this main category. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country – the main discussion is taking place here. |
|
|
Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Paralympic competitors |
I propose that this category and the categories listed below be renamed in the form "Category:2004 Summer Paralympics sportspeople". The term athletes is unclear as it could either mean sportspeople generally (which I understand to be the preferred term here at the Commons), or track-and-field athletes. It is also in line with how categories dealing with sportspeople at the Summer Olympics are named: see, for example, "Category:2008 Summer Olympics sportspeople" and "Category:2012 Summer Olympics sportspeople". There isn't any good reason for Olympics and Paralympics categories to be differently named.
The other affected categories are:
- Category:2002 Winter Paralympics athletes
- Category:2006 Winter Paralympics athletes
- Category:2008 Summer Paralympics athletes
- Category:2010 Winter Paralympics athletes
- Category:2012 Summer Paralympics athletes
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Movedt to "competitors" as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Paralympic competitors. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)