Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/06
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 June 2013
Could you tell me anything about Dossena, he was the youngest student to attend your school 72.228.22.102 15:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure. This is not a forum for general requests. "Categories for discussion" is meant to discuss the names of categories or the legal status of the media contained therein. As to your specific question, you might want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this category created by mistake. Galazan (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. You don't need to state a discussion here to delete an unused, misnamed category, just tag it for speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
this category is empty, and it has no files, it need to be deleted Duque Santiago (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 06:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
this category is emplty, it has no files, it need to be deleted!! Duque Santiago (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
empty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 06:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Mud volcanoes (alternate capitalization) Beland (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 06:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
emty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 06:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
wrong name, and moved to Category:Sun Yat-sen University Paifang 乌拉跨氪 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Sun Yat-sen University Paifang. --rimshottalk 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to delete Category:Flintstone. It seems to be a duplicate of Category:Flint. Passerose (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not yet move the files. In case of consensus I plan to ask for a bot doing this. --Passerose (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Redirect it to Category:Flint if there is no opposition within one week. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion: as so many people used Category:Flintstone, I choosed to make it a Category redirect in the first step. --Passerose (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
either rename "Zen Buddhists", or merge to Category:Zen teachers Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment i'm fine with the rename (& deeply embarrassed about the spelling error!). i think it makes more sense to differentiate zen buddhists (in general) from zen teachers; rather than merging. obviously not all zen buddhists are zen teachers (in any "practical" sense); & it's probably worth noting the ones who are notable as teachers, as a sub-group. Lx 121 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- & done, with a category redirect Lx 121 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Already fixed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Imho, this category is useless: it is about a researcher who was awarded a prize by the German government, but who has only published 3 articles ([1]), so his notability is not obvious. Moreover, there is only one picture in this category. BrightRaven (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agree per nom. Kind regards, DASonnenfeld (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I initialized an article about Tonni in the english written Wikipedia to help, please read the summary there ... --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Valid category. Existing article of Tonni Kurniawan on en wiki. --High Contrast (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
A lot of photos from "Extra" Magazine (or is it Television shot) photo shoots are dumped in this category which is a convenience store in Mexico. I'm not sure what the title of a new category should be, but a new category should be created. Mjrmtg (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting. Cleaned up. Such a category name is good to attract anything. --Foroa (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tiendas Extra. --rimshottalk 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Panoramics of Boston, Massachusetts. --rimshottalk 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Wrongly named category Ercsaba74 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- The correct name of this institute is Reformed College of Debrecen. See here! The category should be renamed. Ercsaba74 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Have initiated the move at COM:CDC. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
|
This category and all associated categories and templates should be moved from Bishop Museum (Hawaii) to Bishop Museum. There is only one institution in the world called "Bishop Museum." There are maybe some Bishop's Museum (none being called that in any official nomenclature) like Bischöfliches Dom-und Diözesanmuseum in Trier, which can go under the name of Museum of the Diocese of Trier if we ever have anything upload from this museum or any other. Also one other Bishop's Museum in Sion, Switzerland. Again there is no images or content on the commons from any of these "Bishop's Museum." The only other "Bishop Museum," without an apostrophe and a s, is Bishop Museum & Historical Society, which isn't even a museum; it is however a historical society that operates a museum called "Laws Railroad Museum" in Bishop, California. I have to really dig to find this one. I mean if there is or ever will be another Bishop Museum on the wiki commons a see also link or something along that line will suffice. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose There are many Bishop museums in the world, here on Commons we have the Billy Bishop museum and the Bishop's museum in Trier. Why the full official "Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum" name is used on many wikipedias. See also en:Bishop (disambiguation) --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is en:Bishop (disambiguation) suppose to show? Not a single museum is mentioned on that page unless you are arguing that every person, place and term on that page has the potential of having a museum named after them. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Billy Bishop Heritage Museum but the link Category:Bishop Museum ignores this fact currently already by redirecting to Bishop Museum (Hawaii) instead of going to disambiguation page. And Bishop's Museum in Trier doesn't have a category and it's probably better known as Bishops Palace museum or by its German name. Regardless of this, none of these museums or any other for that matter are known exclusively as "Bishop Museum". The most common usage of Bishop Museum is for the one in Honolulu. To argue against this is like saying we should move Abraham Lincoln to Abraham Lincoln (president) if someone in the future were to name themselves Abraham Lincoln and gain some minor degree of fame and were to have pictures on this site.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a move back to Bernice P. Bishop Museum but I don't want the name Bishop Museum (Hawaii) as it is now.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there going to be another opinion besides Foroa who was the initial person to oppose me on the CommonsDelinker page? If not I am going to repose this if it gets closed until I get some results.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can we just move it to Category:Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and be done with it? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Or just back to the original Category:Bernice P. Bishop Museum. I would still like to see it move to Category:Bishop Museum but I accept Category:Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honestly why is there absolutely no one else responding. How depopulated is wiki commons anyway on the English wiki it seems every random editors would add a comment or so.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is the most common usage of the full name - Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum or Bernice P. Bishop Museum? Can you point to a website or something showing that the institution uses the initial instead of Pauahi. Commons is not depopulated - we just do not feel the need to engage in massive battles over issues such as this which can usually be resolved among a small group.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The institution use the full name. I think I will change my mind for a move to Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is the most common usage of the full name - Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum or Bernice P. Bishop Museum? Can you point to a website or something showing that the institution uses the initial instead of Pauahi. Commons is not depopulated - we just do not feel the need to engage in massive battles over issues such as this which can usually be resolved among a small group.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Or just back to the original Category:Bernice P. Bishop Museum. I would still like to see it move to Category:Bishop Museum but I accept Category:Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honestly why is there absolutely no one else responding. How depopulated is wiki commons anyway on the English wiki it seems every random editors would add a comment or so.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- More than a month and no objections, so moved to Category:Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this category supposed to be called "Lion's Bridge"? Shouldn't in be "Lion bridges", or "Bridges featuring lion statues"? The category appears to have started off as a quasi-disambiguation page for bridges named "Lion's Bridge", but has morphed into a (more useful) category about bridges featuring lion artworks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that a category "Lion bridges" is needed indeed (or will reappear under another name) see Category:Bridges by name. "Bridges featuring statues of lions" is fine with me but Statues of lions on bridges could work too. --Foroa (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But category names like "lion bridges" and "dragon bridges" are problematic because it is unclear whether the category is intended for bridges with x in the name, or for bridges featuring x. I think something along the lines of Category:Ships named Tiger (i.e. "Bridges named Lion" or "Bridges named lion") might be better.
I like Statues of lions on bridges. Much better than my suggestions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But category names like "lion bridges" and "dragon bridges" are problematic because it is unclear whether the category is intended for bridges with x in the name, or for bridges featuring x. I think something along the lines of Category:Ships named Tiger (i.e. "Bridges named Lion" or "Bridges named lion") might be better.
- No concerns were expressed in over a month, so change implemented. This category is now a DAB cat. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The category should be renamed to Category:Tilinga Mandir, Tinsukia as Tinsukia and not Tinisukia is the correct spelling of the city. See the en.wiki page on the city and the district to confirm. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, It was a typing mistake. So, I agree with the new name. Bishnu_Saikia (Talk) 19:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 19:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Rocky cliffs and other type photos are put in this category when this category is about the movie character. Not sure what new category name should be created for photos with rocky landscapes. Mjrmtg (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Needs to disappear, can attract anything, see en:Rocky (disambiguation). Created Category:Rocky (1976 film). Category:Rocky landscapes sounds fine to me. --Foroa (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Created Category:Rocky landscapes with a redirect from Category:Rocky. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rocky landscapes to avoid miscategorization. --rimshottalk 19:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This should be upmerged to Category:Bikeways. Bikeways and bicycle paths are the same (Wikipedia articles on the topic redirect to the same subsection in w:Cycling infrastructure). Also merge Category:Bicycle paths by country to Category:Bikeways by country, Category:Bicycle paths in Germany to Category:Bikeways in Germany and Category:Bicycle paths in Australia to category:Bikeways in Australia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've never seen the term "bikeway" used in Australia, so this change won't help people navigate to the category. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support We need to pick a consistent name and use it. Regardless of what we pick, there will be some corner in the world where another name is more common. Leave existing categories as redirects, and that should allow everyone to navigate to the proper category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Done as per nom and left redirects. --rimshottalk 20:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
empty category, duplicate of Category:K.S.K. Beveren LordSuprachris (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest using
{{category redirect|K.S.K. Beveren}}instead of just deleting the category, as it would seems more apparent, that people would search type "K-S-K" and not "K-.-S-.-K-." when using the HotCat. Froztbyte (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:K.S.K. Beveren. --rimshottalk 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Spelling Error Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:French empire imperial shields. Just use {{Bad name}} next time, it will go much quicker. --rimshottalk 20:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Guiseppe Canella Louperivois Ψ @ 11:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Guiseppe Canella and Creator:Guiseppe Canella both spell the first name incorrectly and should be deleted. As an aside, note that Saur uses the year of birth to distinguish this artist from Category:Giuseppe Canella (1837), while Benezit's Dictionary of Artists (Gründ, 2006) lists them as "the Elder" and "the Younger", giving an alternative for naming these categories. There is no apparent reason to give either artist priority in the name, so Category:Giuseppe Canella should probably not be created. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Another alternative might be to use Category:Giuseppe Canella (I) and Category:Giuseppe Canella (II), following the example of Category:Gerard ter Borch (I) and Category:Gerard ter Borch (II), however, I do not have any source which supports using this style of name. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Giuseppe Canella could also be a category for disambiguation. For examples, see: Category:Giulio Quaglio and Category:Hendrik Hondius --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead with fixing the spelling errors and creating the disambig Category:Giuseppe Canella. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Giuseppe Canella could also be a category for disambiguation. For examples, see: Category:Giulio Quaglio and Category:Hendrik Hondius --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Another alternative might be to use Category:Giuseppe Canella (I) and Category:Giuseppe Canella (II), following the example of Category:Gerard ter Borch (I) and Category:Gerard ter Borch (II), however, I do not have any source which supports using this style of name. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguated, which should clear things up. --rimshottalk 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is unclear what should be sorted into this category. In the moment, it includes some photographs of coordinate markers at real places, some figures about coordinate systems and some figures about Lorentz transformation. Torsch (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. All files moved to the more specific Category:Coordinate systems. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 | An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion. The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it. |
I don't believe that ISO 8601 is an appropriate category to contain category:Days by day - which is the only contents. category:Days by day contains subcategories that are named following ISO 8601 convention (yyy-mm-dd), but the contents of the categories have nothing to do with the standard itself. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
OOOOK, so how exactly do you propose to "interface" the ISO standard 8601 with the categories which are organized using it?
also: how exactly would you "demonstrate" the standard, other than by using it for datecodes?
or fit all of the above into the schema for ISO standards?
Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- i would also like to note, politely, that the user proposing to delete this category has made a grand total of 14 edits @ commons in their entire time working on the project (2010-2013) [2]. i would therefore like to respectfully submit that the user might not be very experienced or familiar with commons' categorization schema. Lx 121 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't the essence of the hierarchical category structure such that every file/image illustrates or exemplifies or relates to the category (or categories) in which it is placed directly, but also the categories in which it exists indirectly by virtue of the direct category being in more abstract categories in the hierarchy? Ie if a low-level category did not exist, the file/image could be categorised (would illustrate or exemplify or relate to) the next highest category?
- Eg a picture of Albert Einsten is a Category:Portraits of Albert Einstein, but it also illustrates/exemplifies/relates to each of (working up through the a category hierarchy), Category:Albert Einstein, Category:Physicists from Germany, Category:Natural scientists from Germany, Category:Scientists from Germany, etc
- And thus every image I find under a category, and it's sub-categories should illustrate or exemplify or relate to (more specifically for lower level sub-categories, less specifically for high level categories) that category?
- AND... what about an image of some piece of apparatus used by einstein? some place he lived? an illustration of some theory he authored? etc...? Lx 121 (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- So how does File:Almudena Alcalá-Galiano con Rocio y Carlo.JPG - the first file/image I find when I drill down through the first sub-categories of Category:ISO 8601 - illustrate ISO 8601? Or how does any of the images in Category:Battle of Trafalgar or Category:First Flight, Kitty Hawk 1903 or Category:Battle of Taranto (taking the first three sub-categories of Category:Days by day)?
- BECAUSE they fall into the intermediate category of "materials organized by date, according to ISO 8601 date encoding". Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't the point of categorisation to allow me to find files/images to illustrate the category - in this case ISO 8601? (Finding intermediate categories such as Category:1805-10-21 is just a means to an end.)
- If there any actual images that illustrate ISO 8601, then put them into (and thus keep) Category:ISO 8601 - and remove the subcategory "Days by day" - but otherwise, this category does not appear to be useful and should be deleted.
- If the category is useful ... According to Help:Categories "The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons" (my emphasis) - so please explain to me how I use this category to find files/images that illustrate ISO 8601. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some of the images in Category:Calendar date - Date format by country.svg, Date upd1.PNG, Date.png, Date.svg - might possibly be categorised as "ISO 8601". File:Date.png, File:Date upd1.PNG are the best examples, because they includes hyphen separators, but none of them actually mention 8601. If one were to categorise them as ISO 8601, it might be wise to actually mention that standard in the description.
- If we put those files into the ISO 8601 category, then it would obviously be reasonable to keep the category. However, I still think that the sub-category Category:Days by day is not appropriate as a member of Category:ISO 8601, because the images under Category:Days by day do not illustrate the standard. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- i'm going to reply to your 2 posts here, as that's easier
- 1. no, with respect, you are taking the assumption of "heirarchical relatedness" FAR too literally & far too NARROWLY.
- according to your logic: 'what would a painting of a landscape be doing in a subcategory "drilled down" from category:People by name?' & yet, it follows logically that the painting by an artist, is in a subcategory of works by the artist, is a subcategory of the artist, is a subcategory of people by name...
- if it really bothers you, then by all means create a "hidden" intermediate category: "categories organized by date, using iso 8601" -- you can figure out how to word the title, so that it's less obtuse. BUT the failure of you position is to suggest that "categories which are organized USING the ISO 8601 date-format SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH the category for the ISO 8601 date-format" OR "that we shouldn't have a category for ISO 8601". we cover ISO standards, therefore we should have a category for this one, & if we have other materials organized using ISO 8601 (which is, after all, THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD), then the materials so-organized ought to be classified as "organized according to ISO 8601 date-coding", & THAT CATEGORY belongs as a sub-cat of ISO 8601. if it makes you happier to "hide" it as an "administrative category", then i have no objection. eventually, we will need to get all the files organized with a standardized date coding, & ISO 8601 would seem to be the best choice.
- as for the files you identified as exemplifying the standard, by all means add them to the ctegory and/or create a suitable sub-cat.
- I'm pretty experienced and familiar with Commons' categorization, and I'm pretty sure Category:ISO 8601 would be interpreted as media about an ISO standard, not media about specific days. For that matter, I've never heard of anyone proposing before that "Category:Days by day" should actually be populated with very small categories in the first place, let alone that there is consensus for it. It's very common to categorize down to the month+year if the media's date is know that specificially (i.e. subcategories of Category:Months by year). A few days that have a very large number of images or are particularly notable might qualify for a category. Also, some holidays and celebrations are categorized by year, but those categories are for media related to the holiday observance, not the specific date. Would categorization by an insignificant date really be useful? As recently as a couple of years ago, there were still some editors who were telling me that even categorizing non-event images by year and place was overcategorization. (They may still have that opinion but just given up.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- hello; see above, for my response to the first part of your comment; for the part re: "files organized by day", i shall respond here.
- with respect, if you cannot see the reasons for organizing ALL FILES by date, then you're not thinking of commons' collection as-a-whole, or as an ARCHIVE.
- also, try & remember how utterly wretched the search funtion is in media-wiki; AND that categorization is the PRIMARY (& very nearly EXCLUSIVE) system we have, for organizing files. we don't have hashtags, the search-tool is crap; when it comes to finding things, categories are ALL WE HAVE.
- so, aside from simple organizational "tidiness" of having the files neatly grouped according to date of (original) creation, & date of the subject depicted, & date of upload, etc., try & imagine this from the perspective of an end-user (doing reasearch for the ever-sacred EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, of course):
- IF/when we actually had all the files organized by date of the subject depicted, then a researcher would be able to select a date, & see EVERYTHING we have for that day. it might be an "important" day, such as 1941-12-07, or 1963-11-22, or it might be "just an ordinary day", OR it might be a date that's important/notable for some people, & not for others. IT DOESNT MATTER HOW "IMPORTANT" THE DATE IS, if we have material that depicts that day, then it should be categorized FOR that day.
- (& i DO NOT want to create a situation @ commons where we are actually having debates about the "notability" of particular calendar datea; THAT would be an intractable mess... )
- as for the point about "overcategorization", they haven't "given up", they LOST.
- we have OVER 16 MILLION FILES @ COMMONS, eventually we will have many times that number, & barring the collapse of wikimedia or the "end-of-time", we will continue" to add new files "ad infinitum".
- UNLESS we completely re-work the system we use to organize our materials, "overcategorization" is a non-sequitur; one can ask "how useful is this category?", one can ask "how could this be organized better?", but "we have too many categories!" is a statement for a smaller, closed world, with a far more limited "collection"... ;p
- Lx 121, I think the fundamental point on which we differ is that I believe that an image should be placed into categories - both directly, and indirectly into higher level categories - based only on the image or the meta-data attached to the image. Whereas you are categorising (into ISO 8601) based only on the naming convention of an intermediate category (eg Category:1805-10-21).
- The difference is that I believe that an image belongs in a higher-level category even if the intermediate category were removed. Eg a picture of Albert Einsten is in Category:Portraits of Albert Einstein, then working up through the category hierarchy, Category:Albert Einstein, Category:Physicists from Germany, Category:Natural scientists from Germany, Category:Scientists from Germany, etc. If we deleted the intermediate categories Portraits of Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein, Physicists from Germany, Natural scientists from Germany, that picture would still belong in the next category up, ie Scientists from Germany. This would be true for deleting any arbitrary intermediate category and moving its contents up to the next level. Referring to your comment about "an image of some piece of apparatus used by einstein ... etc", it would also be true that an image of a piece of equipment used by Einstein, if appropriately categorised under Einstein would now appropriately be categorised as "a piece of equipment used by a scientist from Germany", etc. And yes, using your "painting of a landscape" example, the painting can be in the "People by name" category (including if all intermediate categories were deleted) because it was painted by a person (independently of how we categorise it).
- However, the images under sub-categories of Category:ISO 8601 only appear in that category because of an intermediate category, not because of anything in the file contents or the file's meta-data. If we deleted any of the categories yyyy-mm-dd and moved their contents up one level in the hierarchy they would no longer belong in the ISO 8601 category.
- I concede that it might be useful to categorise images by date, but I'm not necessarily in favour of or against that.
- You suggested that it might be a appropriate to have a hidden / administrative / non-topical category indicating that these images are categorised using ISO 8601 (as opposed to the images themselves having anything to do with ISO 8601). However, if it were useful to categorise by date, then logically (and as you suggested) one should categorise all images by date - using the same category naming scheme of yyyy-mm-dd - which would imply that all images would fall into the ISO 8601 category. Such a category would be redundant, and linking from a Wikipedia article to (or even having) a category that contains all images would be as useful as linking to Category:CommonsRoot, ie not. (The addition of such a link was what triggered my interest in this category. As you may deduce, I intend to remove that link if the ISO 8601 category is deleted, or if it is hidden, but I'll wait until the outcome of this CFD.)
- Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Support I support Mitch Ames view that this category is unnecessary, and should be deleted. I suggest that adding a note to all of the category pages that are formatted in ISO 8601 format, linking to the Wikipedia article, might not be a bad idea (although I'm not sure it is necessary). I agree with Lx 121 that it would be a Good Thing to have all the date lines in {{Information}} populate categories (we would probably want to use {{ISOdate}} and a bot to create the category pages -- make a request at Commons:Bots/Work requests). As this CfD has been open for more than two months, and the only one supporting the category is the original creator, I suggest that it be closed as supported, and the category removed. JesseW (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- respectfully, 2:1 is not "concensus". i'd say the lack-of-interest is more of an indication of lack-of-support (or at least that the overwhelming majority of commons users DON'T CARE; even those interested in categorization, and/or debating). also, this does not address the matter of the files that are (or willmay in future be) in the category directly. are you seriously suggesting that "we don't need a category for this ISO standard, AT ALL"?
- tangentially, as regards the question of including the date-cats as subcats (hidden or otherwise) of "iso 8601", which is what started this whole matter up in the first place, i'd like to point out (to address a "theoretical point" raised earlier in the conversation, by mitchames) that not ALL the files @ commons would in fact be "included" in this category (EVER). part of the USEFULNESS of this (as a maintenence distinction) is to be able to differentiate between files on commons which do/don't have dates & have/have-not been sorted in accord with the format; & that being the case, it reasonably makes sense to create an association between materials/data which have been sorted in accord with iso 8601 dates & the standard itself Lx 121 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- as an after-thought, i'd note to note that, for the date lines in {{Information}} to become useful (for populating chronological categories, among other things), we desperately need to DISAMBIGUATE the dates being inputted.
- tangentially, as regards the question of including the date-cats as subcats (hidden or otherwise) of "iso 8601", which is what started this whole matter up in the first place, i'd like to point out (to address a "theoretical point" raised earlier in the conversation, by mitchames) that not ALL the files @ commons would in fact be "included" in this category (EVER). part of the USEFULNESS of this (as a maintenence distinction) is to be able to differentiate between files on commons which do/don't have dates & have/have-not been sorted in accord with the format; & that being the case, it reasonably makes sense to create an association between materials/data which have been sorted in accord with iso 8601 dates & the standard itself Lx 121 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- right now, the date inserted (usually @ upload) could be 'date of file "creation"', which could mean {"date of image/audio capture", "date of editing", "date of upload", date of publication", "date of event depicted", etc., etc. etc... }, it could be 'what day is it today?' (to the uploader), god only knows what else it could be interpreted as (i.e.: life/reign/florit of subject?), and it could be ignored completely. the point being that we need to make it CLEAR (@ upload, & subsequently) what "date" the date-line is actually referring to.
- AND we can only automatically read some of the date-formats being used, thus far. AND we have not really got anything set up to deal with date approximations... etc.
Clarifying my position:
- We should remove Category:Days by day from Category:ISO 8601 because (in general) the files/images sub-categories under Category:Days by day do not belong under Category:ISO 8601 - the files/images do not illustrate, exemplify or otherwise have anything to with the standard. (As per my previous posts, the determining characteristic is whether the files would belong in the top category (Category:ISO 8601) if the intermediate categories (eg Category:yyyy-mm-dd) were deleted.)
- We should keep Category:ISO 8601. It contains images eg "date format by country" which I think reasonably belong in that category.
- I don't think it's necessary, but I have no objection to the creation of a hidden / administrative / non-topical category, eg "files that have been categorized by ISO 8601 date format" to hold category:Days by day. That hidden category should not contain Category:ISO 8601 (because Category:ISO 8601 itself is not categorized by date format) nor be contained by Category:ISO 8601 (because introducing another intermediate category would not solve the problem of many files appearing under ISO 8601 even though they don't belong). Ie hidden categorization for administrative purposes should be separate from categorization based on topic.
As you can see, I have created an RFC, to see if we can get a better consensus than "2:1". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just for reference, I also agree with the above. Hopefully we can eventually get a few more editors to sign on, and get this done. JesseW (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Responding to a comment on the talk page to the effect that the discussion has fizzled out....
I still assert that Category:Days by day should be removed from Category:ISO 8601, but that Category:ISO 8601 remains with its existing other contents (currently three files). Does Lx 121 continue to disagree with that? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given the lack of any feedback for a while, I've gone ahead and made the changes: [3] and also [4]. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lx 121 evidently still disagrees, and has reverted my changes. One hopes for continued rational discussion here ... Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Regarding this reversion) Could Lx 121 - or someone else - explain why Category:ISO 8601 is a subcategory of Category:Years (etc)? How is an ISO standard a type of year?
- Also we currently seem to have Category:Days by day as a subcategory of Category:ISO 8601 and vice-versa. Is this correct? It would appear to be direct violation of Help:Category#Category_structure_in_Wikimedia_Commons which says "There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)", because ISO 8601 contains Days by day, which in turn contains ISO 8601. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- hello, yes i still object. there is not a "time limit" rule on holding one's opinions, & no rule about assuming that not replying in a stale (& somewhat repetitive) discussion means "i've changed my mind".
- days by date uses iso 8601 format dates, therefore it belongs as a subcat of that. as i've said, i have no objection to making a maintenance category along the lines of "files organized into categories by date using iso8601-format".
- it's an obviously-useful tool for file-organization (i.e.: differentiating material that has & has-not been sorted in this manner), it's a logical way to integrate/cross-index.
- the above user's actions agruements about the purpose & structure of categorization are flawed & show a lack of understanding of how categorization is used @ commons. he argues that every file in a subcat must necessarily also belong in any/all parent-cats, all the way up the "tree". he admits exceptions to this, without admitting that they are exceptions. the only entirely consistent part of the user's arguement is his wanting to remove the association between iso 8601 & the date categories organized using iso 8601.
- finally, his actions today in editing date cats have demonstrated pretty clearly that he does not understand how to edit date cats...
- the user has slightly increased their editing activity at commons, but STILL spends no significant amount of time working on categorization (aside from today's messy encounter).
- i, the undersigned, remain
Lx 121 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- > ... a maintenance category along the lines of "files organized into categories by date using iso8601-format" ... for file-organization
- I suggest that we may need two separate categories:
- The existing Category:ISO 8601 for hold files/media related to (the standard) ISO 8601
- A new (possibly hidden/administrative/non-topical category) called "files/categories organized into categories by date using iso8601-format" or similar, whose contents does not depend on the the subject of the media/files, only on how they are categorised.
- That would separate the subject matter from the file organization. (Neither of these categories should be subcategories of the other. Category:ISO 8601 is not itself categorized by date, and the new category would contain Category:Days by day, which includes categories that do not comply with ISO 8601, and files that do not represent ISO 8601. Likewise Category:Years etc would not be a subcat of Category:ISO 8601 nor vice-versa, for the same reasons.)
- I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the new hidden category, but perhaps there is a tool that shows all files that are not in that category - which would be useful for finding the files that have not yet been date-categorised. (I agree that date categorisation in general is useful.) Do you plan to categorize by dates other than ISO 8601 format as well? If not, it might be more sensible to call the new hidden category "files organized by date", which is simpler, and resolves the problem of those files that are in categories that are not 8601 compliant, for example Category:29-11-24.
- > days by date uses iso 8601 format dates
- That is demonstrably not the case. Category:Days by day includes Category:29-11-24, which is not 8601 format (which requires at least 4 digits for the year). Hence it may be better if the new hidden cat is simply "files organized by date", without reference to 8601 at all.
- > ... user's actions agruements ... show a lack of understanding of how categorization is used @ commons
- I'm happy to admit that I don't understand how the data categorization scheme works. I'm hoping you and others can explain it to me. It would help if your posts occasionally referred to and/or quoted the relevant parts of the specific Commons documentation, policies etc (eg COM:Cat) that apply, and when you refer to templates (eg here) you mentioned specifically which templates you were talking about. It would also be helpful if the templates themselves all had some documentation.
- Also could you please answer the specific questions below:
- If a file belongs in a category, does it necessarily belong in that category's parent, grand-parent etc. I think it does - that's implied by a "heirachy" and strongly suggested by these quotes from COM:Cat:
- > The category structure should reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific
- > To find appropriate categories ... you should navigate the category structure starting from a generic category. Narrow your search down to subcategories until you find the most specific category ...
- > ... all yellow circles are circles
- Currently Category:ISO 8601 contains Category:Days by day, and Category:Days by day contains Category:ISO 8601. Is this a violation of Help:Categories#Category structure in Wikimedia Commons, which says "There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)."?
- Comment, without weighing in on the usefulness of this particular category: clearly it is not the case that "If a file belongs in a category... it necessarily belong[s] in that category's parent, grand-parent etc." Consider Category:Work, which contains many things that are precisely not work, but are related: Category:Breaks in work, Category:Rest, Category:Strikes. Also, many categories exist only to organize other categories, e.g. we have "by country" categories such as Category:Construction cranes by country. None of the cranes depicted is a "crane by country," it's just a "crane". - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Meta categories such as Category:X by Y exist purely to sort or group categories (X), and never hold files themselves, so for the purposes of the heirachy one can effectivly ignore the criterion (Y). Ie all of the files under Category:Construction cranes by country or subcategories thereof are construction cranes.
- Category:Work and subcategories Category:Breaks in work etc, are more interesting. It is true that "breaks in work" and "rests" are not "work" as such, but they are related. Now suppose we decided to delete the subcategories Category:Breaks in work and Category:Rest. Would the categories and files currently in those subcategories be appropriate to move up into Category:Work? Generally I would expect the answer to be "yes", because the categories and subjects of the files are related to work (slightly more abstractly than they are to breaks in work, or rest), even if they are not-work. And likewise they could be moved up into the parent categories Activities, Economics, Society, because they are related to them - increasingly more abstractly as we go up the heirachy.
- Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:ISO 8601 is basically a metacategory. The fact that there are three images directly in the category doesn't change that; they could easily be put in a separate subcat Category:Maps related to ISO 8601, if it's worth creating a category for three images. I can't immediately think of another example of a metacategory with a few images like this, but I know I've seen them (often things like Venn diagrams or pie charts). - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jmabel is right. There isn't any particular rule for the relationship between categories and their subcategories, it's done on an adhoc basis. Here's another example: Category:Jean-Baptiste Colbert is a subcategory of Category:Burials at Église Saint-Eustache, Paris, but that doesn't mean that the contents of Category:Jean-Baptiste Colbert would belong in Category:Église Saint-Eustache de Paris. --ghouston (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- There isn't any particular rule for the relationship between categories and their subcategories, ...
There are some principles, listed in Help:Categories#Principles, Hierarchy being the first of them. - In the absence of Category:Burials at Église Saint-Eustache, Paris, then it is reasonable that Jean-Baptiste Colbert would belong in Église Saint-Eustache de Paris (and other categories obviously). There's a clear connection - he's buried there.
- There isn't any particular rule for the relationship between categories and their subcategories, ...
- Would Jmabel and ghouston care to comment on the specific ISO 8601 issues? Eg the current circular link between Category:Days by day and Category:ISO 8601, and the proposal to create a new meta-category "files/categories organized into categories by date" to hold the existing Category:Days by day (replacing Category:ISO 8601) - ie separate categories for the media contents vs how we format the date for categorization, because the two are basically independent. (Per Selectivity principle) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I find Category:Days by day to be oddly named. Maybe something like Category:Calendar dates would be better. There shouldn't be loops in the category heirarchy. I can see why Days by day has been added to Category:ISO 8601, because the dates are in ISO 8601 format, but I don't understand why ISO 8601 should be a subcategory of Days by Days, Years by day, Years by month or Years. If it seems strange that Days by day is a subcategory of ISO 8601, it would be possible to create a category such as Category:Category names using ISO 8601, which should perhaps be a hidden maintanence category. --ghouston (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- > I can see why Days by day has been added to Category:ISO 8601, because the dates are in ISO 8601 format,
Except of course that they are not all ISO 8601 format, eg Category:29-11-24. Unless we explicitly intend to:- have Category:Days by day comply with ISO 8601, and
- have categories named by dates in formats other than ISO 8601
- I think it would be better not to mention 8601 in the meta-cat name, eg call it "files/categories organized into categories by date". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, I thought ISO 8601 allowed 2-digit years as an option, but it turns out it was revised in 2004 and it's no longer allowed. Given that, and also that it's probably of little interest which category names use ISO 8601, I'd say you are right. I have no idea whether "files/categories organized into categories by date" would be useful or not. --ghouston (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Although I'd also suggest that any categories named with 2-digit years should be renamed. --ghouston (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the only ones with 2-digit years are actually from the first century, such as Category:29-11-24. I'd have to see the full current standard to know whether this is proper ISO 8601 or not, since it's not a truncation. However, note also that ISO 8601 specifies the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar, and old dates are more likely to be in the Julian calendar, so it may still not be valid ISO 8601. --ghouston (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have a copy of ISO 8601:2004 and it does mandate 4-digit years. (wikipedia:ISO 8601#Years is an accurate description.) The standard does allow for years before 1582, and even before 0000 (by mutual agreement, which we can probably safely assume here). Note that years before 0000 are expressed as negative, not "BC". I did previously suggest (User talk:Lx 121#why not four digit years for 33-09-12 etc) that perhaps the categories should follow ISO 8601, but Lx 121 disagrees. I don't intend to debate that point - but as they do not follow ISO 8601 I don't believe we should mention 8601 in the meta-category that holds them. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- > I can see why Days by day has been added to Category:ISO 8601, because the dates are in ISO 8601 format,
- I prefaced my remark above with "without weighing in on the usefulness of this particular category": I don't see how I could have been clearer about that. I was not commenting on any other aspect of this and have no interest in doing so. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I early proposed a new category "files/categories organized into categories by date" or similiar. In fact we already have it - Category:Categories by time, and sub-categories "by date" etc, which includes (via Category:Categories by day) Category:Days by day . Thus - given all of the above discussion - I propose:
- Removing ISO 8601 from Category:Years, Category:Days by day, etc
- Removing Category:Days by day from Category:ISO 8601
This will solve both the current problems that
- the categorization scheme does not follow ISO 8601, so the two ought to be independent of each other
- there is a circular link from Days by day to ISO 8601
The existing cats, Categories by time, Days by day, Years, Years by day etc will remain unchanged. The existing date categorization scheme - with no leading zeros and BC instead of negative years - will remain unchanged. The only change is the removal of the references to ISO 8601 from the date categorization scheme - because it clearly does not follow that standard.
Any objections? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seems fine. --ghouston (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:Days by day, etc. have been removed from Category:ISO 8601. —SamB (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems a duplicate of Category:Jean Cotelle, le jeune. Moreover, fr:Jean Cotelle l'Aîné and the French Ministry of Culture introduces confusion, using "the Young" and "the Elder" for the same person, even if Larousse presents a clear distinction between them. Louperivois Ψ @ 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Yes those are duplicates and I merged the two categories into Category:Jean Cotelle (II) as a more international name. --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Jean Cotelle (II). --rimshottalk 22:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Capparis spinosa in Ukraine.
All other categories use "in Ukraine", not "in the Ukraine", see subcategories at Category:Ukraine. This is the most common English usage, "the Ukraine" is considered offensive to some, and discouraged by the country's government—see Ukraine. --—innotata 16:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Done ages ago, discussion was never closed. --Pitke (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, long ago, like Pitke says. --rimshottalk 20:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native copper, and have images of other minerals aside from native copper removed from the category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good, someone went ahead and did this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Native copper (as per nom., I suppose). --rimshottalk 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native silver Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. "Native metal" is a common phrase in English. Mindat.org has a terminology entry for it. 71.234.215.133 02:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't agree, because we need both categories. I have already partially corrected the category "Silver (minerals)", that means I have added the new category "Native silver" for really specimens with nativ silver and added other mineral categories with silver minerals like Acanthite, Chlorargyrite, Freieslebenite and so on. There are (or were) also some pictures in this category, that are neither native silver nor special silver minerals, so have to stay in the common category silver minerals or in the above category silver. -- Ra'ike T C 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think when i proposed this, all we had was native silver here. in any case, i agree, we need both native silver and silver minerals. i created Category:Silver minerals as the correct name, and moved the content there from here. this was always an oddly named category, why the parentheses?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, you're right, the category name doesn't realy need parentheses. "Category:Silver minerals" is the better name and should substitute "Category:Silver (minerals)", thank you for moving :-) Greetings -- Ra'ike T C 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept, (Renamed and left as category redirect) The files have already been moved to Category:Native silver, so we can consider this closed. Ed (Edgar181) 10:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Info Category redirect was wrong, I have corrected it to Category:Silver minerals. -- Ra'ike T C 22:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native gold Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK --JMCC1 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- hey, this was already done, so we can close this now. thanks to jmcc1 for commenting, not enough attention given to these cfds.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK --JMCC1 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Native gold (as per nom., I suppose). --rimshottalk 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Telluric iron Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Iron (native) includes 'telluric iron' and 'meteoric iron', 'iron (minerals)' is ok for me. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also don't agree, it's the same problem like in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:Silver (minerals). -- Ra'ike T C 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. i somehhow overlooked that. I still dont like the style of the name, but at least its correct, if oddly phrased. WithdrawMercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have (like in the categories of silver) created now the Category:Iron minerals to substitute the old category with parentheses, and the new Category:Native iron. Pictures and sub categories are moved in the new order. Greetings -- Ra'ike T C 21:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept, but renamed to Category:Native iron Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Info Category redirect was wrong, I have corrected it to Category:Iron minerals. -- Ra'ike T C 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This category can't exist, as native aluminium doesn't exist. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's wrong. Native Aluminium exists and is an approved mineral by the IMA/CNMNC, see IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names; Febr. 2013 (PDF 1,8 MB; Aluminium on page 6). You also can find mineral datas, localities and pictures of Aluminium on mindat.org. So it's a needed category. -- Ra'ike T C 09:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused. Aluminum is a (metal) element that doesn't exist naturally on earth, or so I thought. Bauxite may be the most common ore/mineral. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#History , 1825 was the first time the 'metal' existed on earth. Pliny claims a Roman may have refined it in early A.D. but Tiberius killed him, his family, and his factory; thus destroying all evidence of it. He was worried that the value of his gold would plummet. Soon after 1825 metal (elemental) aluminum was actually worth more than gold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ra'ike is technically correct (which i just checked into, dont mind being corrected), but we have very few images of the mineral, as it exists in only very extreme situations. from the Wikipedia article on the metal:
- Because of its strong affinity to oxygen, it is almost never found in the elemental state; instead it is found in oxides or silicates. Feldspars, the most common group of minerals in the Earth's crust, are aluminosilicates. Native aluminium metal can only be found as a minor phase in low oxygen fugacity environments, such as the interiors of certain volcanoes.[16] Native aluminium has been reported in cold seeps in the northeastern continental slope of the South China Sea and Chen et al. (2011)[17] have proposed a theory of its origin as resulting by reduction from tetrahydroxoaluminate Al(OH)4– to metallic aluminium by bacteria.[17]
- So do we really need the category, if we dont have any images of it at the commons?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. If we do get images of it then we could re-create the category. We could also keep it, but empty for now. If anyone ever gets an image of native aluminum at least they would have a category to put it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- depopulated the category, as none of the images are of the mineral. redirected to Category:Aluminium. if anyone ever posts an image, or file related to the very rare native form, we can recreate this category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. If we do get images of it then we could re-create the category. We could also keep it, but empty for now. If anyone ever gets an image of native aluminum at least they would have a category to put it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ra'ike is technically correct (which i just checked into, dont mind being corrected), but we have very few images of the mineral, as it exists in only very extreme situations. from the Wikipedia article on the metal:
- I am confused. Aluminum is a (metal) element that doesn't exist naturally on earth, or so I thought. Bauxite may be the most common ore/mineral. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#History , 1825 was the first time the 'metal' existed on earth. Pliny claims a Roman may have refined it in early A.D. but Tiberius killed him, his family, and his factory; thus destroying all evidence of it. He was worried that the value of his gold would plummet. Soon after 1825 metal (elemental) aluminum was actually worth more than gold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Aluminium, empty. --rimshottalk 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native mercury (wow, didnt know that existed) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Either rename all subcats in Category: Native element minerals, or leave it as is. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, but renamed Category:Native mercury. Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This category shouldnt exist, as native silicon, in mineral form, doesnt exist. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's wrong. Native Silicon exists and is an approved mineral by the IMA/CNMNC, see IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names; Febr. 2013 (PDF 1,8 MB; Silicon on page 154). You also can find mineral datas and localities on mindat.org. So it's a needed category. -- Ra'ike T C 09:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- well, it doesnt exist in nature, but more importantly, we have no images here of mineral samples of silicon, only images of laboratory grade pure silicon, so the category would be empty if correctly used.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, The category is unused. Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native platinum Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- as there was no discussion, and its a trivial move, i created native platinum, moved appropriate files out of this cat, and made it a redirect. the only reason to not do this would be if we also had extraterrestrial samples of platinum. which we do not. yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Native platinum after no reply in almost a year. --rimshottalk 23:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we create a category for the one image of native selenium, File:Selenium native.jpg, Category:Native selenium, and move this category out of the native mineral category? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
No consensus 72.244.200.121 01:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed Category:Native bismuth Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, and renamed to Category:Native bismuth for consistency with related Categories for discussion decisions.Ed (Edgar181) 10:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
An existing category Category:Tora Kham, Afghanistan was unilaterally redirected to Category:Torkham. The category system has some terrible weaknesses, in how it is generally used -- all categories should have a brief paragraph explaining what does and doesn't belong in it. The earlier category did have that expository paragraph -- this one doesn't. Further it was included in 5 parent categories, while the current category is only included in two parent categories. There are several possible names for this category, and I am not strongly tied to any of them. But I think a discussion should have preceded a change as to which names were redirections and which one was the main category. Additionally, if the decision was made to change the name an administrator should have moved the old category to the new name -- becuse it had a meaningful amount of expository text -- enough to trigger the right to attribution. Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Torkham is the correct name. "Tora Kham" is wrong, and there is a smaller "Torkham" inside Pakistan so for that we could make another category, naming it "Torkham, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa".--Officer (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but isn't it true that -- unlike Chinese -- there is no standard transliteration scheme for Pashtun and Dari, isn't that so?
- A year or two ago, a category I started about an Afghan river had all its elements removed, when someone created a new category, with a similar name, which they insisted was correct. Google searches found multiple transliterations. In the end I suggested we use the transliteration used on the government of Afghanistan website. Can we agree to do that here?
- In my opinion it is generally a mistake to take an existing category, and strip it of its contents, to put in another category, without a discussion. First, there might be a good reason the original category had its original name, and, if there is no discussion, then there is no opportunity for the original reason to be put forward. Second, this is a project that relies on volunteer labor. It pisses people off, and erodes the feelings of good faith and trust we should all aim for here. So -- even if the second name will prove superior, the person who picked the original inferior name should be informed of interest in renaming before it happens, rather than later. Third, if the original contributor who chose the original name is invited to participate in a civil discussion of renaming, prior to it happening, they might learn a lesson, and not make similar mistakes on future occasions. Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of arguing over this you should just google Torkham. The United States military (English speakers) who are stationed in Torkham spell it as Torkham [7] so we should do the same here.--Officer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I am going to repeat my suggestion that it is a mistake to recategorize all the elements in an existing category, putting them in a new category, without any prior discussion. Please don't dismiss this suggestion, without giving any acknowledgement that you read it. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of arguing over this you should just google Torkham. The United States military (English speakers) who are stationed in Torkham spell it as Torkham [7] so we should do the same here.--Officer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- comment -- well, whatever the "most correct" name i'd prefer to keep the " -, Afghanistan" part. we've already established that there are 2 places sharing this name (apparently on oppopsite sides of the border?) there is quite a good probability of other "torkham"s as well; tork-ham sounds like some place in england.
- btw: if you check on wikipedia (en), it has both "torkam" & "towr khan", with a merge proposed btwn them, & a discussion about how many like-named places that are actually involved here. i think we should co-ordinate with wp:en on this one, & clearly we ALL need to go over the facts very carefully, to sort out what's "real". xD
- We could create 2 categories: Category:Torkham, Nangarhar Province and Category:Torkham, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. There may be other places in Afghanistan and Pakistan called by the same or similar names.--Officer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, first Category:Torkham, Afghanistan was started in May 2009, and redirected to Category:Tora Kham, Afghanistan in October 2011. (I didn't call for a discussion then because I was the one who added all the elements to the first category...)
- Second, the time to create Category:Torkham, Pakistan would be when we had an image from the Pakistani Torkham to put in it. We don't have any images of Torkham, Pakistan do we? When we do I suggest Category:Torkham, Pakistan would be preferable to Category:Torkham, Khyber Agency or Category:Torkham, Pashtunistan or Category:Torkham, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Similarly, Category:Torkham, Afghanistan is preferable to Category:Torkham, Nangarhar as people are more likely to know where Pakistan and Afghanistan are. If we find multiple Torkhams in multiple provinces in Afghanistan they would be Category:Torkham, Nangarhar, Afghanistan and Category:Torkham, Kunar, Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Torkham is a Pashto name, and this town is inhabited by the native Pashtun people. They don't call it Tora Kham and we also don't call it that, Towr Kham is a Persian pronounciation of Torkham. Suppose Chinese pronounce it as Tir-Khom do we change the name to that?--Officer (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The town is situated inside Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. It is preferrable to use provinces in this case. As I said, there may be other places inside Afghanistan and Pakistan by the same name or similar name.--Officer (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think we are all prepared to defer to your local knowledge, and use "Torkham", not "Towr Kham".
However, your argument for disambiguating with the names of the provinces -- not the names of the countries, is inconsistent with standard practice. Standard practice is, I believe, to use no unnecessary disambiguation. Many contributors would assert it is irrelevant whether other towns named Torkham exist, that, so long as we only have images from one town named Torkham, the category for those images requires no disambiguation.
You have ignored a key question I asked you, so I will repeat it. Isn't it true we currently have no images of the Torkham in Pakistan? Since empty categories are usually deleted as soon as an administrator notices them what value are you suggesting there is in creating an empty category for nonexistent images of the Pakistani Torkham? Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misread me somewhere, I didn't call for creating an empty category. Also, I'm not arguing over the province/country. I'm suggesting that we use provincial names instead of countries because I believe this is the standard practice. We are dealing with a very small town that is located inside a province and the province is located in a country. It is wise to use "town, province" because this prevents us from going back in the future and doing unnecessary renaming, recategoring, and moving. It is unlikely for another town with the same name to be within that province. I hope now you get my point.--Officer (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to the assertion that Torkham is how Pashtun people pronounce the name -- there are a few languages, like Chinese, where there is a coherent, reliable, unambiguous transliteration scheme. Chinese has several, the Pinyin system, now universally used, replaces the Wade-Giles and earlier systems. Pashtun doesn't have a transliteration scheme. I think it is a huge mistake to overlook that Torkham and Towr Kham are two alternate transliterations. No information has been offered here that Torkham is a more valid transliteration than Towr Kham.
Seven or eight years ago, over on en.wiki, I had linked to half a dozen transliterations of Mazari Sharif. Dozens of different DoD documents had transliterated the name half a dozen different ways. Another contributor asserted that Mazari Sharif was how the Karzai government transliterated the name. So I agreed that the basename should be at Mazari Sharif. I argued that when the link was in a quote it should be left at its original spelling, and we should rely on redirection, rather than a piped link.
Returning to Towr Kham or Torkham -- it was a mistake for the new category to have replaced the earlier category without discussion; it was a mistake to ignore the explanatory text and parent categories in the earlier category to be ignored. The explanatory text in the original category is long enough it requires attribution, and so, if the result of this discussion is to choose a different name that original category should be renamed, preserving the original contribution history. Cutting and pasting that text would be a violation of my right to have my intellectual contributions attributed to me. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think we are all prepared to defer to your local knowledge, and use "Torkham", not "Towr Kham".
- We could create 2 categories: Category:Torkham, Nangarhar Province and Category:Torkham, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. There may be other places in Afghanistan and Pakistan called by the same or similar names.--Officer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Time for a solution
Comment: Hello, the arabic name convention at the german language wikipedia said Torkham for Pakistan and Torchham for Afganistan, see here. There was a discussion about ch <--> kh, the result is about the base of DMG-->en:DIN_31635. "Torcham" for Afghanistan and Torkham for Pakistan.
Anyway the result is here, I think the category name Category:Torkham, Federally Administered Tribal Areas
should be shorter. Maybe Category:Torkham, Pakistan. Or the german language solution Category:Torkham for Pakistan and Category:Torcham for Afganistan. I think it´s time for a solution. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It has been said that the UDR for this category was closed after a "a rather unfair "barrage" of criticism, almost entirely from admins who work in deletions" so I'll put a page here for ALL editors to discuss the issue if they so desire. --Penyulap ☏ 01:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I think this category would simply create trouble. It assumes that closures without a comment are a bad thing, that need to be monitored. While it is certainly true that some of us occasionally close DRs without comment when a comment would be good, the vast majority of these are valid closes:
- Duplicates that are fully documented
- Unused personal pictures
- DRs when the nom has fully and correctly set forth the case for deletion, often when the nom is an experienced editor.
- Logos above the TOO
A large number of the 2,661,115 deletions that have been made on Commons as of this moment would belong in this category. A recent day's log shows that 79% of the DRs were closed without comment. While not all deletions are DRs, these numbers would give us a category with more than a hundred thousand items. How can that possibly be useful for anything? How can it be populated?
The answer is that it would be populated selectively -- in cases where the editor had a grudge against an Admin -- and would then be used to "prove" that the Admin was a problem. "Just look at all the DRs he has in Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment".
It would also provide a subtle pressure to provide comments where none are necessary. I type about twenty words per minute. To add a five word comment to a close takes me around 15 seconds. As I said in the original discussion, I've probably closed more than 10,000 DRs without comment. That's 150,000 seconds for me to have added comments -- 42 hours. Do we really have that much Admin time to spare?
I think that those who would like to have comments on every close totally fail to understand the situation on Commons. We get about 8,000 new images every day. About 2,000 of those must be deleted. Many are {{Speedy}}, but a large fraction are DRs. Ten Admins do 70% of this work and are not keeping ahead of the avalanche. We certainly do not do a perfect job, but we're all Commons has. If somehow we could round up another ten Admins who would be willing to put in the same number of hours, we could do a much better job, but I doubt that that will happen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Jim. Presence of this category does only have disadvantage. We would better not recreate it. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, could you explain why you capitalize "Admin"? --80.114.178.7 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I use "Administrator" (and, therefore, "Admin") to distinguish those who have the specific administrator permission from the generic word "administrator", which includes rollbackers, patrolers, bureaucrats, checkusers, and all others who perform administrative tasks here. This is the same usage as many legal documents which capitalize defined terms to show that the word has a special meaning and not its ordinary meaning. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Instead of logging out and attacking Sinnamon (from 2600:1013:B000::/40), those Admins could challenge Sinnamon to do a better job. --80.114.178.7 12:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I use "Administrator" (and, therefore, "Admin") to distinguish those who have the specific administrator permission from the generic word "administrator", which includes rollbackers, patrolers, bureaucrats, checkusers, and all others who perform administrative tasks here. This is the same usage as many legal documents which capitalize defined terms to show that the word has a special meaning and not its ordinary meaning. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really see any use for this category. A lot of requests are closed without any comment, but in those cases, the reason for the closure was stated by someone else a few lines further up. I could see the use of a category for deletion requests where the reason for the closure is unknown, but that's obviously not the same thing as being closed without a comment. This could be the case, for example, if neither the nominator nor the closing admin stated any reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Colourblind people don't see a reason for Category:Blue, Category:Red, Category:Green, and so on. They don't oppose those categories. --80.114.178.7 21:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where an advantage of such a color category is perfectly thinkable (e.g. for someone who wants to decorate his room with mainly green images), the category under investigation is close to made for abuse. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's no problem that you can't think certain ideas, just like it's no problem that colourblind people can't see certain colours. It is a problem though, that you choose to repeatedly show off your orthodoxy. Just like it would be a problem if a colourblind contributor would keep telling that Category:Green &c. were useless. Unlike you, most colourblind people don't want to delete categories which are useless to them, instead they add to categories which are usefull for them. --80.114.178.7 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's hilarious that you don't want to spit out the purpose for the category, rather just want to belittle other people trying to gently explain what I think you already know very well, that you'd use the category for harassment. This page was created just to try to find, and give supporters the opportunity, to find or invent ideas on why the category has an actual function. You should have come to my talkpage or emailed me and asked me to make up bullshit ideas about it that would sound almost valid, but just playing coy and other games like this shows that hey, they were all correct after all, that the sole purpose of the category is harassment. Slam dunk man.
- Jcb isn't the one meant to think up reasons why the category should be kept, that's the job of the people who WANT it kept. Teasing the opposers for not being able to think up ideas why it should be kept, god that's hilarious. Penyulap ☏ 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let me quote from your .sig: "text-shadow:#c5C3e3" "text-shadow:green" --80.114.178.7 23:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's no problem that you can't think certain ideas, just like it's no problem that colourblind people can't see certain colours. It is a problem though, that you choose to repeatedly show off your orthodoxy. Just like it would be a problem if a colourblind contributor would keep telling that Category:Green &c. were useless. Unlike you, most colourblind people don't want to delete categories which are useless to them, instead they add to categories which are usefull for them. --80.114.178.7 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where an advantage of such a color category is perfectly thinkable (e.g. for someone who wants to decorate his room with mainly green images), the category under investigation is close to made for abuse. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Colourblind people don't see a reason for Category:Blue, Category:Red, Category:Green, and so on. They don't oppose those categories. --80.114.178.7 21:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wise words indeed. The discussion has ended, but I think it should be left open, there was that movie with all the robots, where one of them got trapped underwater, but because it was a bot it was still there tens of thousands of years later when aliens landed and excavated, and they brought it back to life and re-animated some of the people it knew. Those aliens just put their hands on each others shoulder and then high-speed video flashed across their skins as a means to communicate in broadband. So I think we can leave this discussion open forever in the hope that aliens who type at 500,000 words per minute or more who can populate the category can use it for not trolling. HEY! why are you all looking at me like that ? it could happen, there could be alie- WELL, you can't PROVE there are no aliens ! can you ????? NO, you can't. So I say leave the discussion open because maybe they can find a good reason to keep the category where mere mortals have failed. There is always reason for hope. I like aliens too. So long as they keep their tentacles to themselves that is. Penyulap ☏ 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are no aliens in en:A.I. Artificial Intelligence - Jcb (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's the movie, yeah, right at the end there are these aliens, or I thought they were aliens, and then they find the little guy in front of the blue fairy and bring him back to life, and revive a kind of projection of his adoptive mother and all that. That's definitely the right movie. I thought they were aliens. Penyulap ☏ 00:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Robots eh ? PALZ9000 would be pleased. Well, that is like something that was mentioned already, using robots or automation to populate the category. It would be cool if they were mecca, mecca can look pretty good, course, they'd have to be like ones that can type ok, like in I. Robot where they have delicate little fingers, not the bodyguard for Janus in Judge Dredd, that was a cool robot I wish I had one of those, but no way that thing could type at all. How long before we can get some robots like in I. Robot you think ? They are pretty far along with walking and the Japanese make heaps of androids all the time, can't be long. Actually if they come up with that bodyguard robot first, then I think this category is absolutely mandatory, to keep those robots busy while we think of a way to defeat them, they can be like pecking away at keyboards with those way oversized hands and we can use helicopters with concrete to dump on them like at Chernobyl. The category is useful that way, you might not see it now, but at a time like that if it ever comes, you'll be like so totally thankful you can't believe it. Penyulap ☏ 01:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an outrage, a robot closes the discussion ? this is unacceptable, he doesn't even have a bot flag on the projects he works on and he certainly never had one on commons and he tried to kill me on en.wiki, this is an outrage !!!!! (Penyulap runs off from the computer, scared for their life) Penyulap ☏ 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
i'm MORE' than a little outraged, that the "discussion" was closed after barely 2 days, & before i had ANY opportunity to comment.
i would like to see this discussion re-opened.
as for why i Support this category, i refer you to my comments in [8]
basically, that it allows us to track patterns on activity on the wiki, & find (& backtrace) problems.
i disagree about the dangers of it becoming a "shitlist"; the goal isn't to harass individual admins, it's to study "the whole situation". nobody should be "worried" here, unless they're doing a bad job; in which case, this would make it easier to find.
the category should be automatically filled with ALL qualifying deletions; it's not nearly as useful as a data-set, otherwise.
i also support the suggestion made in the previous discussion, about dividing it into categories for "deletions closed without any comments in the discussion", & "deletions closed without a closing statement".
further, obvious subdivisions would be between media files & non-media file deletions; possibly types of media files; possibly topic-categories of the files.
Lx 121 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- for the record, i also strongly object to "comment-less" closes; for the same reasons that i object to US judges being allowed to render legal decisions without properly writing-up the legal reasons for their dicisions.
- IT REDUCES TRANSPARENCY -- it makes it MUCH harder for anyone BUT an admin to assess the quality of close-decisions. for closes where there is also no discussion, it's effectively IMPOSSIBLE to assess the quality of the decision, without being able to view the deleted file
- IT ENCOURAGES "LAZINESS" -- ANY admin doing a close is expected to put some mental effort into their decision-making. if we wanted automatic-deletions, we'd have bots doing them.
- it is not an unreasonable expectation for the closing admin to write a few words indicating their reasons for their decision.
- the main agruement against this amounts to: "it's too much work, & it slows me down too much when i'm deleting stuff." setting aside the above-mentioned point that admins are expected to THINK BEFORE DELETING, the arguement about "saving" the few precious seconds it takes to write a deletion rationale are at best disingenuous. the "precious moments" required to write ~6 words to explain why you are doing what you are doing WILL NOT bring commons to a crashing halt.
- almost all deletions are NOT URGENT; the only time-critical deletions are cases with immediate legal or malware "issues".
- if it's child porn, it needs to be deleted now
- if it's a DEFINITE copyvio, it needs to be deleted now
- if we get a legal notice, or we have federal agents crashing into the wmf offices, it needs to be dealt with now (which might or might not involve deletion)
- if it's malware, & it's infecting user's devices, or breaking mediawiki/our servers, it needs to be stopped (fortunately, this problem doesn't seem to come up very much)
- otherwise, IT'S NOT URGENT.
- take your time, think about it. & if you find that you can't adequately explain your closing decision (either way), THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE CLOSING IT
- </endrant>
Sorry LX 121. (about the premature closure of the discussion) Penyulap ☏ 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- aren't you basing a lot of the reasons FOR the category on the assumption that the DR's require a comment on close ? I would support DR's being classified, if and when a guide for classification is devised, but how can we say there is misbehaviour if it is based on an assumption that quite possibly only a minority of editors support ? Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- i agree that the 2 issues are related; they both have to do with keeping track of what's going on in deletions.
- & i would support & be willing to help codify a classification system for deletions. i mostly work on "sorting things" here; so why not that too?
- to respond to your final point, the logical reply is" how can we assess the quality of deletion decisions, when the close provides no information about the closing rationale? even for people who can go & look @ the deleted file, the lack of a closing rationale is a deficit. for those who lack this "super(user)power", it's like working blind.
- btw, this is just an afterthought, VERY much off-topic, & probably a rather obvious question; but do we have anything set up to REALLY delete the seriously illegal stuff (such as obvious child porn?), or does it just linger in our "limbo"? because if it's still "there" (even if it's not "there" for most users), that's not going to satisfy our legal obligations...
- also thanks for the "unclose" penyulap :) Lx 121 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- think nothing of it.
- also thanks for the "unclose" penyulap :) Lx 121 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem with this category is that people are trying to catch a Lion by the tongue rather than the tail. Instantly I can think that working with admins to make closes easier and categorised may assist both halves of the discussion. If for example, there was a javascript gadget that allowed a selection of responses and categories for a close, and no automated 'no comment close' then they'd rather come up with something rather than drop out to do it manually. Just a thought. Achieve both aims in one go. But doing it this way, starting with the wrong half of the Lion so to speak, well, it's going to snap at you. Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
@LX 121 -- I agree that this might be useful in a perfect world, a world where:
- we had enough Admins to do the job properly
- it was possible to deal intelligently with a Category with several hundred thousand items in it
- someone could explain why any of the following need a comment:
- Duplicates that are fully documented
- Unused personal pictures, correctly described as such by the nom
- other DRs when the nom has fully and correctly set forth the case for deletion, often when the nom is an experienced editor.
- and so forth.
Until we reach that point, though, then either
- this category would be only a tiny fraction of all DRs that belonged in it, and therefore not evidence or information about anything or
- this category would be useless because even cats with more than a few hundred items are hard to use -- I can't imagine what a few hundred thousand would be like.
Please remember that in my recent limited check, 79% of the DRs were closed without comment. As I looked through them, there were a few that I would have commented on, but not many. I'd argue that at least half of all DRs need no comment for the close to be perfectly clear. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Should be called Category:Lightboxes, or may also need to be clearly distinguished from Category:Light boxes. sort of a mess, i hope my efforts to clarify haven't made it any worse. i also created Category:Light tables. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Lightboxes (photography) might avoid the confusion. --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- + 1 --Svajcr (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Creating disambig at Category:Light boxes (with redirect from Category:Lightboxes). Creating to Category:Lightboxes (photography) and Category:Light boxes (signs) for clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All files in the category must be deleted, since they are not free at all. Betakiller (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Survivalcraft screenshots thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Close this request please, and delete the category/put a warning on it that it is non-free content. Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Survivalcraft screenshots. --rimshottalk 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this categories is too POV-pushing one. Even if in Chinese Wikipedia zh:Category:南京大屠杀参与者 (in English: Participants in the Nanking Massacre) is used and I recommended User:MtBell to use Category:Participants in the Nanking Massacre, Category:Victims of the Nanking Massacre etc... But the user couldn't suppress his/her own POV. Moreover, participants in the Nanking Massacre were not only Japanese people. The term "atrocities" narrows the usage of categories, because some commanders opposed and/or accused killing of POWs. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the word "atrocities" hurts someone's eyes. Nanjing Massacre is the atrocities committed by Japanese in WWII, which is a worldwide accepted historical fact but not a (biased) point of view. “Participant”is not a one-to-one translation for 参与者 and it is too ambiguous. One may wonder, what did the "participant" do in this event, did he participate for killing, for saving or for negotiating?
- I noted that Takabeg started a mass deletion request on photos showing atrocities by Japanees in Nanjing:
- Does this user really hold the neutral point of view regarding this massacre? --MtBell (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- DRs (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bodies of Chinese massacred and burned by Japanese troops in Nanjing (Murase Moriyasa's photo).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nanjing 1937 self-organized burial team.jpg) are irrelevant issues. But I can say with confidence that I requested for deletion with sources. Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your source which verifies thoese photos are public domain and free for use. lol --MtBell (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- DRs (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bodies of Chinese massacred and burned by Japanese troops in Nanjing (Murase Moriyasa's photo).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nanjing 1937 self-organized burial team.jpg) are irrelevant issues. But I can say with confidence that I requested for deletion with sources. Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I believe that we mustn't accept both Chinese POV and Japanese POV. Unfortunately the name of this category and usage of this category by User:MtBell is Chinese POV pushing one (I do not mean user's nationality and/or ethnicity, but user's point of view). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support rename to Category:Participants in the Nanjing Massacre. --Foroa (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose "Participant" is not an accurate word in this case. A participant in this massacre should have commited killing, raping or other atrocities by his own. For example, Toshiaki Mukai is a participant as he killed, in person, more than one hundred innocent men. But how about Iwane Matsui? Matsui didn't kill any Chinese civilians with his own hands, nor is there any direct evidence showing that he ever commanded so. But he was still convicted by the International Military Tribunal of being responsible for the massacre. Matsui was related to, or responsible for, the atrocities commited by IJA in Nanjing Massacre, but he had never been a direct participant in any specific atrocities. --MtBell (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- So a simple move to Category:People associated with the Nanjing Massacre should end all current and future discussions. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to prefer Category:People associated with the atrocities of the Nanjing Massacre for your proposed move. It is better that Category:People in connection to the Nanjing Massacre be used as a general category of all who involved in the massacre, including Category:Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, survivors of the Nanjing Massacre, Category:Japanese associated with the atrocities of the Nanjing Massacre and another category of those who had sheltered and offered help to Chinese people during the massacre. --MtBell (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- No need to emphasising massacres with the additional POV "atrocities" word. --Foroa (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Understating atrocities is quite inappropriate for a massacre. --MtBell (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No need to emphasising massacres with the additional POV "atrocities" word. --Foroa (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to prefer Category:People associated with the atrocities of the Nanjing Massacre for your proposed move. It is better that Category:People in connection to the Nanjing Massacre be used as a general category of all who involved in the massacre, including Category:Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, survivors of the Nanjing Massacre, Category:Japanese associated with the atrocities of the Nanjing Massacre and another category of those who had sheltered and offered help to Chinese people during the massacre. --MtBell (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- So a simple move to Category:People associated with the Nanjing Massacre should end all current and future discussions. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Category deleted as empty by User:INeverCry. BMacZero (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be no organization called "Bangkok Transportation Systems". It is probably a confusion with Bangkok Mass Transit System, aka BTS. There is already a category called Category:Skytrain of Bangkok (= BTS), and another called Category:Transport in Bangkok. BrightRaven (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Re-categorized the only file in the category, and added {{Bad name}} so it should be deleted soon. Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I created this category yesterday and put dozens of pictures in it; shortly afterward it was, along with several similar categories, re-emptyed and speedily deleted, referring to this discussion. I still think my categorization was perfectly in line with Commons:Categories#Over-categorization, casually stating that categories with hundreds or even thousands of pictures in it are not convenient, which is the case with Category:April 2012 in Switzerland and many others of that kind, so I should like to continue splitting them up into categories by day unhindered. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Hi, and @User:Abderitestatos: as 'usual' you do not 'come to the point of confusion', as all the category tree Category:Switzerland by day is imho disputed by User:Docu, me and partially by User:Morio — she/he created the template and Category:Switzerland by day — i contacted before directly, as you remarked.
- As personal remark, that's not the first time such 'confusions' did occure involving User:Abderitestatos and me since ~2008.
- Back to the fact: As remarked by User:Abderitestatos, please refer to the whole 'discussion' starting in February 2013 and ended on June 6, 2013, by User:Abderitestatos.
- User:Abderitestatos contacted thereafter, on June 6, two Admins, please refer to User talk:INeverCry as of June 6 and User talk:KTo288 as of June 6.
- Thank you and best regards, Roland 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Considering the absence of further statements, these categories do not seem to bother anybody but you and Docu. --Abderitestatos (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that there are still no further replies, I deem this category and all of its kind as uncontoversial, and therefore intend to establish more of them, expecting henceforth everybody to refrain from deleting or emptying them. --Abderitestatos (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Abderitestatos, you cannot declare the issue resolved, when it does not appear to be. I myself wonder as to the value of categories like "16th April 2012 in Switzerland". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then do you see the value of categories like Category:April 2012 in Switzerland or not? --Abderitestatos (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not particularly. However, I have no desire to revisit the month category tree. I do, however, wonder as to the need for categories for each day. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would be inconsistent to prohibit categories by day and yet keep the categories by month, when many of them already contain a number of files that is „making it necessary to go through hundreds, or in this case more likely thousands of images to find the one you want. You probably won't find what you're looking for ...“, as is stated here in a slightly different context. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not inconsistent at all not to want to expand a less-than-useful month category tree into an even-less-useful day category tree. I find it hard to believe arbitrarily dividing images by day will help people find what they are looking for.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you deem the categories by month useless, please request their deletion, but do not covertly fight an accepted category tree by obstructing its consequent development; otherwise I shall not take further account of your opinion. --Abderitestatos (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not "covertly fighting" anything. You do not appear to understand the purpose of a CFD, which is for people to express their respective opinions and to consider whether or not to keep this category or not. It's up to the community to make a decision on it, not for you to decide whether or not you want to take opinions into account or not. You are not helping your cause. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- The community so far has not seemed to be inclined to make such a decision; how long is one supposed to wait before closing a discussion due to lack of interest? --Abderitestatos (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It can be frustrating watching CFD discussions linger. Another editor recently raised the exact same issue with me, in the context of a separate discussion, and it's a problem I am giving some thought to. I plan on raising the issue in a larger context soon, and I will let you know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing, since the discussion has been inactive for over 3 years, there's no consensus, and there's no action to be taken since the category doesn't exist. There's now a discussion for the whole category tree at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Switzerland by day. I don't think there's anything to stop somebody recreating this category if they wanted. --ghouston (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Contradictory name: Taksim_Gezi_Park and Bağdat_Caddesi are name of two loacations on two different continents. Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's not contradictory - the protests are related to Taksim Gezi Park, but they're in Bağdat Caddesi. By the way, I don't want to complain about having too many photos, but an awful lot of them are pretty similar and generically protesty. Podiaebba (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The protests started at Gez park but are not limited to. They are mostly related to basic rights and freedoms and genaral discomfort related to the way ruling AKP use/abuses it's power. "Demonstrations and protests against policies in Turkey 2013" better describes the situation. Protests can then be sub-classified according to time and location. Using two location names is confusing. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know the protests are mostly not about the Gezi Park - it was a spark, a symbol. But it's still the most unifying symbol, still widely used, and there's no need to use a generic and clumsy construction instead. And I don't think two location names is confusing, it's clear enough to anyone who's actually going to care. Sure, the categories may need renaming at some point if/when the protests start to lose the connection to Gezi - eg stop using Gezi in Twitter hashtags. But for now, it's fine. Podiaebba (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I propose "Taksim Gezi Park" be dropped from the category name unless the images are taken at the Gezi park itself. I propose the name Category:May - June 2013 Protests in Turkey as the root. Alternate titles I can suggest include Category:Gezi Park inspired protests in Turkey, Category:2013 Gezi Park inspired protests in Turkey, Category:Gezi Park inspired protests, Category:2013 Gezi Park inspired protests. While my favorite is Gezi Park inspired protests, I am open to other suggestions too. This really is not the right place to discuss this though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Gezi Park-inspired protests" may be OK... but technically, most of the protestors were inspired by the police crackdown on the environmental protestors. Making the name more precise risks introducing inaccuracies. Podiaebba (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I propose "Taksim Gezi Park" be dropped from the category name unless the images are taken at the Gezi park itself. I propose the name Category:May - June 2013 Protests in Turkey as the root. Alternate titles I can suggest include Category:Gezi Park inspired protests in Turkey, Category:2013 Gezi Park inspired protests in Turkey, Category:Gezi Park inspired protests, Category:2013 Gezi Park inspired protests. While my favorite is Gezi Park inspired protests, I am open to other suggestions too. This really is not the right place to discuss this though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know the protests are mostly not about the Gezi Park - it was a spark, a symbol. But it's still the most unifying symbol, still widely used, and there's no need to use a generic and clumsy construction instead. And I don't think two location names is confusing, it's clear enough to anyone who's actually going to care. Sure, the categories may need renaming at some point if/when the protests start to lose the connection to Gezi - eg stop using Gezi in Twitter hashtags. But for now, it's fine. Podiaebba (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The protests started at Gez park but are not limited to. They are mostly related to basic rights and freedoms and genaral discomfort related to the way ruling AKP use/abuses it's power. "Demonstrations and protests against policies in Turkey 2013" better describes the situation. Protests can then be sub-classified according to time and location. Using two location names is confusing. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Closing, since the discussion ended years ago and doesn't seem to have reached a consensus for change. en.Wikipedia has settled on "Gezi Park protests". There's also a whole tree of similar categories at Category:2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests by location, so it wouldn't make sense to rename just this one. --ghouston (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this category is not appropriate for Commons. There is no criteria for use to consider photos as propaganda. They look natural photographs: Japanese soldiers' shopping (File:Japanese soldier shopping in Nanking.jpg), Chinese childrens's smiling (File:Play with broken coach01.jpg), singing mymns in a church (File:Hymns in Nanking.jpg), Chinese men's cleaning File:Chinese clean up mess in Nanking.jpg are natural things. Possibly some historians claim that they are propaganda, but some historians claim that Bloody Saturday was created by Nationalist Party’s Propaganda Department. If we accept claims of both sides, we need create Category:Photos for Chinese propaganda during Nanking Massacre. Anyway, Asahigraph magazine was not published by Japanese government and/or political parties. That was published by a private company. Takabeg (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What should be the suggestion from user:takabeg for the name of this category? "Natural photographs taken by Japanese in Nanking"?
- Please read some comments from eye-witnesses about the Japanese news reports and photos on the post-battle Nanjing in 1937 and 1938.
- Diary of Minnie Vautrin (professor of the Women's University of Nanking) on Jan 20, 1938:
- "In the new newspaper that is being published called "Shin Shen Pao" in the January 8th number there is an article entitled "Japanese Troops Gently Seethe the Refugees (File:Japanese medical service in Nanking01.jpg). The Harmonious Atmosphere of Nanking City Develops Enjoyably (File:Japan-China friendship in Nanking01.jpg)." There are 25 sentences in the article, 4 sentences are true, one about the sun, the Drum Tower, military police and the position of the Japanese flag; one is half true, 19 are false and one is unkown to me. Not a very high score on a true-false test!"
- German merchant John Rabe (Chairman of the International Committee of Nanking Safety Zone)'s comment in his diary on Jan 8, 1938, on the report from Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun(东京日日新闻), 1937/12/17 , "Ordinary condition recovered! Chinese merchants ready for openning there new shops!" :
- "To be clarified that the ordinary condition is not recovered yet today. Refugees are still living in our safety zone and dare not go out, because their wives would be raped by Japanese soldiers who are wandering everywhere."
- American missionary John G. Magee wrote in his diary (1938/1/11) about the Japanese reports talking of well treatment to wounded Chinese soldiers (my translation from Chinese):
- "I think it is for propaganda in order to overcome the now prevailing ferocity which is too embarrassed (for the Japanese) to tell."
- American missionary George Fitch commented on the Japanese reports The army distributes pastry and cigarette; Nanking refugees cheers banzai to the Imperial Army soldiers", "Japanese offers medical care to Nanking patients". I offer my translation from the Chinese version as follows:
- "We read several articles from a Japanese newspaper published in Shanghai and two from Tokyo Mainichi Shimbun (東京每日新聞). We were told that: even as early as December 28, shops re-open, trading recovers, Japanese cooperate with us and provide food to the poor refugees, robbery is removed from the town area, peace and order shines all over the city. We would have laughed aloud, if things taking place in Nanking were not so miserable.
- Comments from 草森申一：
- “Only photos which passed the censorship were allowed to be published. (They are) merely photos for propaganda.“（《不許可寫真 1》, 每日新聞社, 1998）
- Diary of Minnie Vautrin (professor of the Women's University of Nanking) on Jan 20, 1938:
- More will come. --MtBell (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@Takabeg: Further thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No further input. Closing as stalled discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)