Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/10
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 October 2013
Up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
They've been deleted. ghouston (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Images have been deleted. ghouston (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Typo: created in error. Real category exists --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete, correct name is Category:June 2008 in Lincolnshire. I requested speedydelete. --Passerose (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Has been deleted and is empty. Cfd closed. --Passerose (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Empty. Not used. --Jarash (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted, --rimshottalk 23:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted 4 weeks ago. Still empty. → closed. --Passerose (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted 4 weeks ago. Still empty. → closed. --Passerose (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Should be moved to Cycling in East Sussex - "the" is redundant Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
misnamed, artist is at Category:Frank Xavier Leyendecker Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to full name. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
we already have Category:Books by topic, and this one is unpopulated. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed (deleted as empty cat).-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Needs to be renamed Category:Books in the Walters Art Museum (a la "Paris in the the spring") Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree that is a clear typo. I renamed it. --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This category seems to be about everything to do with sexual reproduction. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about sexuality, it redirects to en:Human sexuality. Wouldn't it be more consistent if the contents of this category were merged into Category:Sexual reproduction?, which is little used at present? ghouston (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support Right idea, thanks for noticing this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No. The term "sexuality" deals with a well-observed, broad social, behavioral, physiological, cultural, evolutionary and psychological infrastructure in organisms that serves the goal of reproduction. The entry about "sexual reproduction" is a bio-genetic niche which probably shouldn't be crossed with the casual, social-science discourse definition of sexuality. It might be valid, though, to suggest containing Sexuality under Sexual reproduction, guaranteeing that it continues speaking to the cultural / psychological pillars of sexuality and not sinks into being a biological cat. Orrlingtalk 01:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Category:Sexual reproduction should be a bio-genetic niche, it should be a very broad category that has all of the current contents of the Sexuality category within its scope. Any bio-genetic niche categories should be subcategories of Sexual reproduction. You are right that Category:Sexuality could be retained as a subcategory of Sexual reproduction. It would help if it had a description explaining exactly what was in scope, since definitions of "sexuality" vary in different sources. I'm not sure that some of its subcategories, namely Asexuality, Castration, and X chromosome, belong there. ghouston (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with some principles here and there you see now, we already have a well-elaborated Category:Reproduction where "sexuality" is contained already, as suggested above. I guess you checked the category yesterday and didn't see the Reproduction parent on it, as someone had opted it out just a couple of days earlier; I now restored it and I'd like to know if you think the structure is basically OK. Why is this "Sexual reproduction" needed when it can't potentially manifest any tangible distinction from just "Reproduction" which we already have? You're proposing "sexual reproduction" be kind of intermediative between reproduction and sexuality. I, however, would eliminate that skim-dup altogether but I might be wrong. Orrlingtalk 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexual reproduction would include some things that are not covered by sexuality, such as sexual reproduction in plants and biological processes at the cellular level. I did originally suggest a single category, named "sexual reproduction", which avoids the extra level of grouping categories, the question is, how important is it to have a category named "sexuality"? ghouston (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- However, a general sexual reproduction category also has problems. Category:Animal reproduction doesn't fit into it, because some animals can reproduce asexually. Perhaps separating the sexual aspects alone isn't a bad idea. ghouston (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexual reproduction would include some things that are not covered by sexuality, such as sexual reproduction in plants and biological processes at the cellular level. I did originally suggest a single category, named "sexual reproduction", which avoids the extra level of grouping categories, the question is, how important is it to have a category named "sexuality"? ghouston (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with some principles here and there you see now, we already have a well-elaborated Category:Reproduction where "sexuality" is contained already, as suggested above. I guess you checked the category yesterday and didn't see the Reproduction parent on it, as someone had opted it out just a couple of days earlier; I now restored it and I'd like to know if you think the structure is basically OK. Why is this "Sexual reproduction" needed when it can't potentially manifest any tangible distinction from just "Reproduction" which we already have? You're proposing "sexual reproduction" be kind of intermediative between reproduction and sexuality. I, however, would eliminate that skim-dup altogether but I might be wrong. Orrlingtalk 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, aren't Category:Sexuality and Category:Animal sexuality the same thing, if I'm not mistaken that sexuality only applies to animals?. ghouston (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexuality applies to animals incl humans and we typically classify humans under mammals > animals, which is more than acceptable but "human"-categories still ideally parallel "animal"-categories at a same level notwithstanding. As to the rigor to eliminate our "sexuality" category – in this case by moving much of its content elsewhere - unfortunately I'm not convinced there's even a slight reason to accept such an idea, as sexuality is dealt as a social-science matter and held universally (including on Commons) as a network of cultural and psychological ties and notions away from the immediate biochemistry cause of splitting cells, a proposal to repress or dismantle Category:Sexuality can't even be sustained to the slightest. Orrlingtalk 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I accept that Sexuality is a meaningful category. Classifying humans outside animals seems rather odd, what are we supposed to be, plants, minerals? The categories Sexuality and Sexuality in animals are duplicates, which isn't right. My solution would be to delete the Sexuality in animals category and move its contents to Sexuality. Alternatively, one could have Sexuality in animals and Sexuality in humans if it's essential to keep humans separate from other animals. ghouston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Humans are not classified outside animals, and as I just pointed out in a previous comment - Humans categories regularly get Animals as one of their parent cats: please review some plenty of the "X in animals" and "X in humans" here on Commons and see how well and fine and logically they are interrelated in this project's tools. If there's anything to improve, come back here. I could see some point in merging animal sexuality into sexuality but this will need to be very careful and not blindly as sexuality is a BROADER notion than any of its given beneficiary organisms at any time. This is a topic which is observed APART from its narrow biological end. Orrlingtalk 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone has objections to merging Category:Animal sexuality into Category:Sexuality? Orrlingtalk 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I don't really see the point of doing that... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think they are duplicates? ghouston (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well no. Sexuality = human sexuality + animal sexuality. Therefore it's a surcategory of both human and animal sexuality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I think I get it ! You say that sexuality only concerns animals (not vegetals) and since humans are animals, either "sexuality" is the same thing as "animal sexuality" or "human sexuality" would be a subcat of "animal sexuality". Am I right ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's it. ghouston (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- In that case I see no objection. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's it. ghouston (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think they are duplicates? ghouston (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I don't really see the point of doing that... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone has objections to merging Category:Animal sexuality into Category:Sexuality? Orrlingtalk 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Humans are not classified outside animals, and as I just pointed out in a previous comment - Humans categories regularly get Animals as one of their parent cats: please review some plenty of the "X in animals" and "X in humans" here on Commons and see how well and fine and logically they are interrelated in this project's tools. If there's anything to improve, come back here. I could see some point in merging animal sexuality into sexuality but this will need to be very careful and not blindly as sexuality is a BROADER notion than any of its given beneficiary organisms at any time. This is a topic which is observed APART from its narrow biological end. Orrlingtalk 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I accept that Sexuality is a meaningful category. Classifying humans outside animals seems rather odd, what are we supposed to be, plants, minerals? The categories Sexuality and Sexuality in animals are duplicates, which isn't right. My solution would be to delete the Sexuality in animals category and move its contents to Sexuality. Alternatively, one could have Sexuality in animals and Sexuality in humans if it's essential to keep humans separate from other animals. ghouston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sexuality applies to animals incl humans and we typically classify humans under mammals > animals, which is more than acceptable but "human"-categories still ideally parallel "animal"-categories at a same level notwithstanding. As to the rigor to eliminate our "sexuality" category – in this case by moving much of its content elsewhere - unfortunately I'm not convinced there's even a slight reason to accept such an idea, as sexuality is dealt as a social-science matter and held universally (including on Commons) as a network of cultural and psychological ties and notions away from the immediate biochemistry cause of splitting cells, a proposal to repress or dismantle Category:Sexuality can't even be sustained to the slightest. Orrlingtalk 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a different question. Orrling and I had recently had a debate about the meaning of "Sex" on Commons. According to Orrling, sex is linked to "having sex" and should be (as it is now) a subcat of "Sexuality" ; while I think it should be the contrary as on English Wikipedia, where "Sex" is taken as a larger concept that includes 'Sexuality". I have been said that the present contents of the categories are more compatible to Orrling's POV. I can accept that affirmation but... in this case is there really a difference between "Sex" and "Sexuality" ? And if there's none, shouldn't we merge those cat - and later be able to recreate or reuse the "Sex" category as it is used on WP ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems that Commons Category:Sex in humans corresponds to en:Wikipedia w:Category:Sexual acts. Maybe the Commons sex categories should be renamed to be more specific. I don't think there's any benefit in naming this category "sex" instead of "sexuality" though. Would "sex" mean the same as "sexual reproduction"? ghouston (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Engaging oneself in pursuing congruence of the Commons categories' logic with English Wikipedia is not the right thing to do in any event. On Wikipedia we write text articles, while here we store and manage media files. "Sex" might have different meanings in many sources, maby even within the Wiki projects, because these are different projects from one another. So "sex" here on Commons means what it is in the more casual discourse, and not some equivalent of "Gender" because "gender" already has its own category on Commons, while Sexuality is even more simple - and can't be interpreted any longer in a variety of wishful ways than the way clarified and agreed in multiple venues already. If the hindrance is now about the question whether we thus continue to keep the term Sexuality as it normally is taken and understood or as it's rather interpreted by possible individuals, then I suggest we heartily refrain from indulging this occurrence of unreasonable caprices and keep evolving the category constructively. At this point we might benefit if we know whether we can or not carry out the merger of Category:Animal sexuality with Category:Sexuality. No point even in trying to explain to adult persons why sexuality (emotions, attraction) is broader than sex (coitus). Orrlingtalk 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have moved the sex-related categories from Category:Reproduction to Category:Sexual reproduction. The status quo is that the category exists, therefore it should be used. But if you think that it's unnecessary, I'd suggest starting a discussion on that category and asking for its deletion. ghouston (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Engaging oneself in pursuing congruence of the Commons categories' logic with English Wikipedia is not the right thing to do in any event. On Wikipedia we write text articles, while here we store and manage media files. "Sex" might have different meanings in many sources, maby even within the Wiki projects, because these are different projects from one another. So "sex" here on Commons means what it is in the more casual discourse, and not some equivalent of "Gender" because "gender" already has its own category on Commons, while Sexuality is even more simple - and can't be interpreted any longer in a variety of wishful ways than the way clarified and agreed in multiple venues already. If the hindrance is now about the question whether we thus continue to keep the term Sexuality as it normally is taken and understood or as it's rather interpreted by possible individuals, then I suggest we heartily refrain from indulging this occurrence of unreasonable caprices and keep evolving the category constructively. At this point we might benefit if we know whether we can or not carry out the merger of Category:Animal sexuality with Category:Sexuality. No point even in trying to explain to adult persons why sexuality (emotions, attraction) is broader than sex (coitus). Orrlingtalk 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing, the conclusion was that Category:Sexuality should be retained, and Category:Animal sexuality was merged into it. ghouston (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Category:Cow parade in Tijuana is a valid category where FOP means we can host these images. russavia (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- So what about outside Mexico? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed, they've been deleted where FoP doesn't apply. ghouston (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed, most have been deleted. ghouston (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unneeded: now split into Category:Beach signs in California and Category:Park signs in California — hike395 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thumbs up - thanks for this. It was the only state to have this combined category. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- support perfectly logical.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- support — Glad to see the change. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 04:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete, name of category is too vague, created new cat.: Masná burza Brno RomanM82 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Bad name, all files have been moved. --Uacs451 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently created category should be changed to Eternal Flames in the United States. Who abbreviates any United States categories to USA? Mjrmtg (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just do it. -- Дар Ветер (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support the move. I know many people who abbreviate the United States of America to USA. You'll hear it chanted a lot during the next Olympics. But, if you mean, here on Commons, no. It's preferred to use "United States" to "USA" in every situation I've ever seen. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Created category of Category:Eternal flames in the United States of America and moved all photos to new category :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Already moved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this category should be taken out of the tobacco category, and should be for all smokeable materials. I think we should create Category:Tobacco smoking, for all the categories and images specific to tobacco smoking. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think that "Smoking" as a category name is too generic, period. Fires smoke, volcanos smoke, signs indicate smoking is or is not allowed, etc. If this is about Tobacco, then Category:Tobacco smoking, Category:Cigarette smoking, Category:Pipe smoking, or something along that line makes more sense to me. The category of Category:Smoking could become a meta category that collects all the different types of smoking things together to help people find the correct one to sort into. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)- Comment Agree with Will, although I actually think Category:Smoking should be a DAB page. I think it would be one awkward meta category that includes both cigarette smoking and smoking volcanoes as one overall subject, and technically it wouldn't actually be a proper meta category. Apologies if I have read Will's comments too literally.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not too literally in my opinion. :-) I'm glad that you see my point. It probably even gets worse when we start trying to translate "smoking" into other languages. There probably are cases where the different meanings of smoking have different words. I'm not sure how DABs in categories work here on Commons, but pretty much anything that points people to the correct more-specific category would be fine with me. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 10:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here is an example. When categorizing using hotcat, if a contributor enters in the name of the DAB category, hotcat immediately shows the category options instead of allowing the contributor to place the image in the DAB cat.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment great ideas, cant argue with them. Im not sure whats best, a DAB or a generic category, but we need a better definition of Smoking as a category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- No objections, so done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete: empty cat, inadequate name. --Passerose (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like it has been created accidentally. --rimshottalk 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
̪Speedy delete please. Replaced by Category:CGR Fairlie 0-6-6-0 since Fairlies were not designated 0-6-0+0-6-0 André Kritzinger (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support, --Passerose (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:CGR Fairlie 0-6-6-0. --rimshottalk 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This category has no clear subject. BrightRaven (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete empty and meaningless (well thats a sad way to put it...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
empty category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
rename to Category:Codornices Creek, per correct spelling. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Codornices Creek. --rimshottalk 18:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
rename to Category:Meyer Sound Laboratories, error Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Meyer Sound Laboratories. --rimshottalk 18:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
rename to Category:Shannon Wheeler, people creating categories in berkeley cant spell (they need a university there to teachg spellling) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, given the way you spell the words "teachg" and "spellling", or how you can't seem to capitalize proper nouns. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The creator of this category made an honest mistake; it happens to the best of us. Let's not argue and just change the name. --Judithcomm (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- If changing the name of a category is still done manually, i will try to do some of the changes i have proposed. I thought there was some automated process, i think i was wrong.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Shannon Wheeler. For such simple cases, there is no need to start a discussion, just use {{Bad name}}. It will work much quicker. --rimshottalk 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
should be "Mobile radio transmitters" Cqeme (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Most likely a spelling mistake. The Yeti 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Agree. You don't have to ask, just change it. Cheers. --Chetvorno (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Mobile radio transmitters. --rimshottalk 20:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe Commons maintains "hot chick" categories, especially ones containing obviously underage children. BanyanTree 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Having just recently read the guidelines and policies about user galleries and user categories, I am certain that I read that something similar to this category was used as an example. In that example, it stated that making a gallery like this in your own userspace was acceptable, but making it a category, even a user category, was not. Delete it. And, yes, the whole underage thing is really creepy, too, but I'm just quoting the guidelines I'm familiar with. I'd hope that the underage thing also is a policy, but I've never needed to look that one up. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Beyond the creepy factor, there is nothing gained from having this category, and it would be better off deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Empty, already have Category:Universities and colleges in Algeria Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, --Passerose (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
there is another cat named "Faculté de médecine de Montpellier". This cat is not usefull. Sammyday (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Faculté de médecine de Montpellier as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge Telephone 706 and GPO Telephone 706. I don't care which, but this duplication is pointless Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- keep.The 706 style telephone was also produced for non GPO subscribers by many of the same manufacturers that produced telephones for the GPO. These telephones can be identified by having no "706" reference on the underside and will usually have the manufacturer's own reference instead. Whilst most of these phones were superficially similar to the GPO 706 many had different internal parts including "tropicalised" versions for counties with high humidity or potential insect ingress. See w:GPO telephones.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to plausible sounding objections. --rimshottalk 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge to GPO Telephone 746. Pointless duplication Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep.The 746 style telephone was also produced for non GPO subscribers by many of the same manufacturers that produced telephones for the GPO. These telephones can be identified by having no "746" reference on the underside and will usually have the manufacturer's own reference instead. See w:GPO telephones--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to plausible sounding objections. --rimshottalk 21:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
BROSSARD WHAT CATEGORIE? 24.48.6.65 15:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- A hidden category for maintenance purposes. I made it hidden right now.--Havang(nl) (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep, as this is part of a whole cat tree Category:Coats of arms to be classified. We don't want to delete them all, as they indeed are useful as maintenance categories. We'd want them to be all hidden, though. Is there a bot that could do that for us? --PanchoS (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete empty, user recreated it with a better name Category:Rue Poissonnerie, Bayonne Traumrune (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support, --Passerose (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
nixon letters 65.49.160.130 18:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replaced bei cat Im Keuper, cat Im Keuper (Stuttgart) should be deleted Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, Category:Im Keuper (Stuttgart) is more distinct than Category:Im Keuper. --Passerose (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The correspondent German Wikipedia article is "Im Keuper" and I would like to name the Commons cat and the wikipedia article the same. When I had tried to name the article "Im Keuper (Stuttgart)" there would have been certainly some people to oppose it because "im Keuper" is UNIQUE without the extension "(Stuttgart)".--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Im Keuper, as per nom. "Im Keuper" seems quite distinct enough.--rimshottalk 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Empty, unneeded category: now split into Category:Ancient Roman civil amphitheatre (Aquincum) and Category:Ancient Roman military amphitheatre (Aquincum) --Fekist (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I created the category and since now it is split into two more, there is no reason to keep it. Go ahead, and place a {{speedy|Empty page}} mark. Love. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, --Passerose (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
empty category, very unlikely to be needed in future. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support, --Passerose (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
empty category, no images of her found here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
empty category, no files found with this subject Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Mistake, please delete. Liamdavies (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Mistake, sorry, please delete. Liamdavies (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Mistake, are actually NGT8D trams, please delete. Liamdavies (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Vide. A supprimer. Sammyday (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
An oddly named category, which seems like an attempt by one editor to avoid COM:OVERCAT. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is indeed an attempt to avoid OVERCAT, since the editor above objected that my original category structure violated that guideline. The category in question is not "Buildings in Burlington, Vermont", which would be a general category, it's a catchall category for all buildings which are not in the education, church and historic building categories. There is no requirement that there be a "Buildings" category, and we should make a category structure which is most useful to the reader. Mine puts "Churches", "Education", "Historic" and "Other" on the main page, making it easy for the reader to choose which category to look in. The other category puts "Buildings" on the front page, making it necessary for the reader to click through in order to get to "Churches" and "Historic". My structure, which is non-overlapping and does not violate guidelines, is easier and cleaner.
Further, I object to the editor above edit-warring to restore his preferred structure. Apparently, he thinks that being an admin gives him a special privilege to do so. I've asked him to stop, and he has continued. This nomination appears to be in the way of retribution for my not agreeing with him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we would deviate from our normal category structure (i.e. having a buildings subcategory), and then delete/redirect Category:Buildings in Burlington, Vermont in favour of having an unusually named category with arbitrary inclusion criteria (for which one has to read the description to understand what it is intended to include - people using hotcat would be out of luck), simply because one editor is trying to avoid COM:OVERCAT and is willing to depopulate the buildings category of subcats pertaining to buildings (e.g. churches, historic buildings, etc.) in order to do so. As for the odd accusations in the last paragraph, I initiated a CFD to be helpful, not as "retribution". And I haven't used any admin powers or claimed any "privileges". I will take that up with him on his talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Okay, apparently that editor is not interested in having a discussion. Therefore, I would simply recommend deleting this category and moving the content back to Category:Buildings in Burlington, Vermont. As stated above, Category:Other buildings in Burlington, Vermont is inconsistent with the rest of the category tree and the manner in which we handle buildings subcats for other locales and has arbitrary inclusion criteria (all buildings that are not churches, historic sites or connected to education). It was created simply to avoid a COM:OVERCAT problem, on the questionable premise that users are better served by having some buildings in Category:Buildings in Burlington, Vermont and other buildings out. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The introductory nomination seems unclear, and may be unfair. The intent of User:Beyond My Ken seems to have only one level of categorization inside Category:Burlington, Vermont, namely: "Churches", "Education", "Historic buildings", "Other buildings", "Breakwater", "Ben & Jerry's", etc. Perhaps this is correlated with the fact that User:Beyond My Ken is loading a series of picture in this category and is interrested with an optimal ergonomy. On the other hand, User:Skeezix1000 seems to have never ever uploaded anything in Category:Burlington, Vermont, but nevertheless seems thinking he knows better how to organize the files. Pldx1 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Um, excuse me? Your tone and comments about people's motives are unnecessary (and, frankly, untrue as I have done a lot of work on Vermont categories over the years). I would ask that you review COM:AGF.
In any event, this has nothing to do with thinking I "know better", but rather avoiding awkward category names and structures, and keeping this category consistent both its parent Vermont categories and the category structure we use elsewhere for virtually every other locale. The reason we follow standard category practices, and look to maintain consistency in a category tree, is to avoid having individuals (Ken, you, me, or anyone else) coming up with their own creative and subjective "optimal ergonomy" for every category. It remains unclear why people looking for images of buildings wouldn't look to Category:Buildings in Burlington, Vermont as they do for every other locale, and why a category that contains images of some buildings, but not others, isn't more confusing. There is a reason we don't have an "Other buildings" category tree for this state or others. Remember that users will come at the Burlington buildings images not just via the Category:Cities in Vermont category tree, but also via the Category:Buildings in Vermont tree and also via the search function, and they expect to find all the images of Burlington buildings when they come across the buildings category for this town.
I think it's great that Ken has uploaded new images, but that doesn't give him an entitlement (as you seem to think) to organize the category in a manner that please him, but otherwise violates COM:OVERCAT and/or is inconsistent with the category tree.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Um, excuse me? Your tone and comments about people's motives are unnecessary (and, frankly, untrue as I have done a lot of work on Vermont categories over the years). I would ask that you review COM:AGF.
As often, ignorance of past discussions may be preventing me from understanding why anyone has reason to be upset about this question. My failure to understand the reasoning behind this category may have a similar cause. A quick search shows Category:Other quartz and Category:Other roads whose contents and connections do not inspire confidence in their usefulness. Such a search has not shown me how the present "Other" category fits a widely used pattern or precedent in categories dedicated to miscellany. There are occasions when we cat wranglers ought to set rather than follow precedent, but I don't see why this is such a case. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Skeezix1000, this cat serves no real purpose other than needlessly disambiguationg the "other" buildings from historic or church buildings. It's just not needed, all the contents of this cat are buildings that are in fact in Burlington, hence the category Category:Buildings in Burlington, Vermont is the logical home for them. Liamdavies (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- We haven't heard from many commentators, so the question is, have we enough to declare a consensus, or must we seek more in hopes of getting either more arguments in defense of the category or a clearer consensus? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There appears to me to be a consensus here. We have one editor who wants buildings in Burlington categorized in a way that is different from the rest of Commons, and several editors, including me, who think that is silly. I have moved all the files and cats and deleted this cat. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
routine cleanup, contents moved to correct title, Category:A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Mistyped the year when creating the category, the right one is here: Category:Grimus (Waves Vienna 2013, Flex Café). --Tsui (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope, commons are not wikipedia, same type of category has been deleted before Motopark (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. This is a gallery that has been deleted before set up as a sub-page of a category. Categories do not have sub-pages on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1398291963341?ref=hl 78.187.50.167 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done no reason given. --rimshottalk 21:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Denominación incorrecta. Hay otra categoría con la denominación correcta: Public services of Castile and León Raimundo Pastor (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Si tiene mal el nombre estoy de acuerdo.--Sebasweee (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant category to be deleted. Category:Train stations on Tølløsebanen should be used instead. Beethoven9 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Useless category. The correct one is Category:Igreja dos Agostinhos Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied down the discussion at the main category - People with black skin, and suggest others do so too. Orrlingtalk 18:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied down the discussion at the main category - People with black skin, and suggest others do so too. Orrlingtalk 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
same arguments as at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
shoud be deleted, has been replaced by cat Lyrische Stationen Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
should be deleted, replaced by cat Lyrikstationen Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
we have no images related to margaret hodges on the commons. the gallery is empty. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
there doesnt appear to be a fairy tale with this name, and all the images at the commons with this phrase are not A fairy tale (one is of the millers daughter from rumplestiltskin) , unless its Battle of the Oranges Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
merged items into more descriptive categories Thelmadatter (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please delete: duplication of Barcombe railway station. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Poorly named category now located at Category:Refugees from Africa in Lampedusa, should be deleted. Sorry for the inconvenience, PanchoS (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This category has no clear subject. BrightRaven (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's not let this discussion linger as some CFDs do. I can move the content to the consensus rename once there is agreement. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I originally renamed this to "Category:Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada" because when I looked up the website of the Library on Google the description was "Home page of the Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada ..." However, I note that this name does not actually appear on the home page of the website, so I have no objection if the category is renamed "Category:Great Library (Osgoode Hall)" as suggested by Skeezix1000. In any case, I feel that category needs renaming because "Great Library" is not sufficiently specific. For instance, "en:Great Library" redirects to the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Moved to a subcategory and changed to a dissambiguation. --ŠJů (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oy vey. Did you read the discussion? You moved it to the wrong name.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)- Ignore me. Spent my morning yelling with opposing parties on the phone at work, and it's made me unnecessarily combative. Thank you for trying to resolve this discussion. If anyone was at fault, it was me for so rudely forgetting about the discussion and not responding to Jacklee. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing since it has already been resolved. --ghouston (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This should be plural: "Doctors' offices", since "Doctor's offices" is the offices of one doctor. It's like if we had a category for "Category:Child's museums" instead of "Category:Children's museums". The category concept is great, and there's no way that it should be deleted; the name is the only problem whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- If the problem is slightly wrong name, then use {{move|Better name|Better name|2013-11-17}}. Pozdrawiam. --Starscream (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll rename it. --ghouston (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This category should be renamed Category:Wikimedia barnstars, with the content of Category:Actual barnstars moved here, and "actual barnstars" deleted. since when do we have internal categories trump reality? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support (mostly) — I totally agree that moving the real life barnstars into this category is a must. Moving the awards out of this category also is a must. I think that Barnstar awards might be a better name than Wikimedia barnstars, since the barnstars are used across multiple projects, and some may even be used outside of WMF projects (independent wikis using Wikimedia Commons as their shared multimedia repository. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I like barnstar awards, esp. since the images can be used anywhere, as they dont have wikipedia/wikimedia graphics in them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support The architectural meaning has clear primacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closing this in favour of real life having first claim to the mainspace, wikimedia barnstars will all be moved there, however because there are so many wikimedia barnstars, rather than a straight move and swap, the wikimedia barnstars will be diffused into sub-categories with wikimedia barnstars as the parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This category should be deleted, and content moved to Category:Barnstars, with that categories contents moved to a new category, Category:Wikimedia barnstars, as reality should get the main name, not our internal award procedures. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support mostly — See my reasoning above. In a nutshell, I support the moves, except I would recommend something like Category:Barnstar awards as the destination for those. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Barnstar awards is better than my idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closing this in favour of real life having first claim to the mainspace, wikimedia barnstars will all be moved there, however because there are so many wikimedia barnstars, rather than a straight move and swap, the wikimedia barnstars will be diffused into sub-categories with wikimedia barnstars as the parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems unclear how to exactly differentiate this relatively new category from its superior Category:Topics on the one hand, resulting in several subcategories being double categorized, and from Category:Objects on the other hand; the latter part of the problem has become manifest in a conflict upon the question, if organisms should be categorized as objects. The category description, although given in four languages, is not really instructive either. --Abderitestatos (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose any implied proposal to move this category anywhere, it's superfine. Regards Orrlingtalk 12:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not fine at all: If no comprehensible definition can be given, this category is not sustainable. I do agree, though, that renaming it would not do any good. --Abderitestatos (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose Orrling wants us to guess the meaning of the category. The category names Subjects and Topics don't give much clue: they are synonyms as far as I know. I'd say that since Category:Things has been redirected there, that it's supposed to refer to the subset of Topics that somehow relate to "things". He also wants objects restricted to inanimate objects, so "things" includes organisms and objects and certain concepts, but not concepts which are left in the parent category of Category:Topics. But comparing Category:Categories by topic and Category:Categories by subject, it's hard to see a pattern in it. ghouston (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not fine at all: If no comprehensible definition can be given, this category is not sustainable. I do agree, though, that renaming it would not do any good. --Abderitestatos (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with the nominator and ghouston -- the distinction attempting to be drawn is not helpful for Commons. JesseW (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was not quite wanting us to guess the meaning of anything, we have long had the scheme of "topics" that yielded "Categories by topic", and "Subjects" in turn assembles the sub-topics that are at the head of our very-elaborate and well-established "Categories by subject", so if you thoughtfully insight that the current "Categories by topic" and those "by subject" are not distinct from one another this is a different matter than the agenda of the user in creating this CFD and obviously trying to mix the "Objects" issue in here is a dash odd and unwelcome; try to tell whether you simply propose the merger of Categories by subject and Categories by topic (though I wouldn't do it on this page but in a forum that can be taken more seriously) and my support will then be garanteed. Orrlingtalk 06:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so Categories by topic and subject is indeed a usage where topic and subject are synonyms. Perhaps it would be convenient to combine them into a Category:Categories by subject/topic so that they are all in one place, even if there's no good reason to rename half of them. But why use the name "Subjects" for this category instead of "Things"? And I still don't understand how you distinguish what belongs in this "Things" category vs what remains in "Topics". It doesn't help that some categories like Objects and Belief appear in both. ghouston (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is an environment where things are constantly in progress and construction. So "Why I haven't completed arranging just ALL the right topics that may fit in the Subjects category" is maybe not the most constructive question. In the past 6 months I was doing lots of various edits away from my inherent contriblist, so now that I was back in the account I can address any topic in need, and everyone other than I can equally set the entries in or out from the Topic-father. –not surprisingly, more than half of the current residents in Subjects, which I'm happy with, were categorized in there by other editors, which could be you too. Generally speaking, "topics" being a WikiCommons root container may be understood as higher in scope than "subjects", and I welcome any argument that suggests it need to be vice-versa. In the same way I'd be more than OK if "Categories by topic" merge down with "Categories by subject" and this will allow to observe Subjects as a redirect to Topics and save the branching from it. Orrlingtalk 08:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Given that Category:Categories by subject (flat list) already contains topic and subject entries, it'd be consistent to move the contents of Category:Categories by topic into Category:Categories by subject. There's a mix of names, and we also have large categories like Category:Topics by year, but it's not a big deal if topic and subject are recognised as synonyms, and Category:Subjects can redirect to Category:Topics. ghouston (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is an environment where things are constantly in progress and construction. So "Why I haven't completed arranging just ALL the right topics that may fit in the Subjects category" is maybe not the most constructive question. In the past 6 months I was doing lots of various edits away from my inherent contriblist, so now that I was back in the account I can address any topic in need, and everyone other than I can equally set the entries in or out from the Topic-father. –not surprisingly, more than half of the current residents in Subjects, which I'm happy with, were categorized in there by other editors, which could be you too. Generally speaking, "topics" being a WikiCommons root container may be understood as higher in scope than "subjects", and I welcome any argument that suggests it need to be vice-versa. In the same way I'd be more than OK if "Categories by topic" merge down with "Categories by subject" and this will allow to observe Subjects as a redirect to Topics and save the branching from it. Orrlingtalk 08:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so Categories by topic and subject is indeed a usage where topic and subject are synonyms. Perhaps it would be convenient to combine them into a Category:Categories by subject/topic so that they are all in one place, even if there's no good reason to rename half of them. But why use the name "Subjects" for this category instead of "Things"? And I still don't understand how you distinguish what belongs in this "Things" category vs what remains in "Topics". It doesn't help that some categories like Objects and Belief appear in both. ghouston (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was not quite wanting us to guess the meaning of anything, we have long had the scheme of "topics" that yielded "Categories by topic", and "Subjects" in turn assembles the sub-topics that are at the head of our very-elaborate and well-established "Categories by subject", so if you thoughtfully insight that the current "Categories by topic" and those "by subject" are not distinct from one another this is a different matter than the agenda of the user in creating this CFD and obviously trying to mix the "Objects" issue in here is a dash odd and unwelcome; try to tell whether you simply propose the merger of Categories by subject and Categories by topic (though I wouldn't do it on this page but in a forum that can be taken more seriously) and my support will then be garanteed. Orrlingtalk 06:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Topics as a nearly exact synonym in this case. We seem to tend to use "by topic" a little more than "by subject", not sure why, but it seems like a fine decision. not every English word needs to be used as a category name. we have to make choices here, we definitely dont need both. I cant quite follow the discussion of "categories by topic", "categories by subject", and the flat list category. im not sure what value they serve, but more importantly, im not sure if they are relevant to this specific discussion. new top level categories should really be discussed first, before being created.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it would be possible to rename the flat list category from subject to topic simply by creating the new category and editing Template:ByCat to populate it. That would mean "topic" could be used throughout. ghouston (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, the "Topics" will migrate to "Category:Subjects", the same way as "Categories by topic" merge down to "Categories by subject" with no opposition on the village pump topic we've now had for a week run. You may still send forth your objections on that discussion, as pointed above, this page here is of no meaning Orrlingtalk 12:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this discussion going any further, or does everybody agree now with making Category:Subjects a redirect to Category:Topics? --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think everyone wants them merged, but Orrling wants Topics to be redirected to Subjects. The village pump discussions are here and here. --ghouston (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think they should be merged to Category:Topics. If anybody wants to propose later that Topics should be renamed to Subjects, that can be handled separately. --ghouston (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Merging into Category:Topics, since there were no objections. --ghouston (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
delete category - wrong translation, new category created, see: Category:Evangelický kostel (Klášter nad Dědinou) RomanM82 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- How is this the wrong translation? What is the correct translation, given the use English rule at COM:CAT? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The translation seems to be good (see [1]), the English name of the category is consistent with other categories of Category:Churches of Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren in Královéhradecký seniorát, the Czech name of the category is not conform with Commons language policy, the category with English name was created earlier than the category with Czech name. --ŠJů (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept, as per ŠJů. --rimshottalk 06:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with the rationale given. Don't know about those SuperDragons, but the Buddy Bears are heavy sculptures that usually have remained at a place for years. German law requires that sculptures are permanently placed in the public space. Permanently is defined by the absence of an obvious intent to move it out of public space after a period of time. Moving it somewhere else in public space is fine, changing mind is fine, too. Even taking it in by night should be fine, as long as it is not obvious that it wouldn't be placed out again. Finally the key idea is that the existence of a photograph shouldn't lend the object more permanence than intended by the creator.
So the Wrapped Reichstag wasn't covered by the Freedom of panorama because a destruction date was given in advance. On the other hand, if the desctruction of the cover foil had been a later decision, photos taken earlier would have been okay.
So keep this category tree as it will generally hold valid Public Domain photos, maybe with a few exceptions that need to be taken care of individually. --PanchoS (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty and reasons where given why it might stay that way. Nominate individual files for deletion that you think are not free. --88.74.45.224 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The Superlambanana at File:Superlambanana - DSC00898.JPG is a permanent installation. See [2] Rept0n1x (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the remaining Superlambananas were permanent. They've been around for years. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty and reasons where given why it might stay that way. Nominate individual files for deletion that you think are not free. --rimshottalk 10:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Former schools; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Category:Schoolhouses is for a specific kind of school, one-room schools, so former schoolhouses are very different from other former schools. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Broadly in line with Nyttend - schoolhouses can also be quite separate places (although often on the same site) where a teacher is accommodated Orderinchaos (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to opposition. --rimshottalk 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Former schools in the United States; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools in the United States --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Category:Schoolhouses and its children are meant for one-room schools. These are former one-room-schools, and nowhere near the same as buildings such as this apartment building. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Broadly in line with Nyttend - schoolhouses can also be quite separate places (although often on the same site) where a teacher is accommodated Orderinchaos (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to opposition. --rimshottalk 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Former schools in Germany; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools in Germany --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a duplicate, as a schoolhouse and a school are two different things. (One is lived in by the school teacher or head, the other is where students are taught.) Orderinchaos (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to opposition. --rimshottalk 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
this category type is now Category:Italian Wikisource, but this particular category holds a category that itself serves no purpose Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Italian Wikisource. --rimshottalk 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
category name implies its another version of Category:Typographic ornaments, and its use is as a holding category for another unsual category, which itself holds a redundant cat. deletion is appropriate. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
should be renamed to Category:Immagine & Poesia, its the name of an arts movement, in italian, thus the capitalization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Immagine & Poesia as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Should be Category:Gertie's Sun Flower, as its the name of a children's book Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gertie's Sun Flower as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Book title, should be Category:The Adventures of Akbar Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:The Adventures of Akbar as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this category? The files in it do not appear to have anything to do with Heinz-Christian Strache. darkweasel94 09:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Obvious troll category, ought to have been deleted for more than a year by now. → «« Man77 »» [de] 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, out of scope. --rimshottalk 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"books from junin" is a misnomer. its a book about junin. already in other adequate categories, this layer will never develop. alternately, rename to "books about junin", still very unlikely Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, it is not clear. They can be books published in Junín (regardless of the subject) and also books about Junín (regardless of place of publication). Both types of categories exist in Commons: by place of publication: "Books published in Lisbon" or "Books from Verona", both included in "Books by city" category. And by subject, for example "Books about Rennes" included in "Culture of Rennes" category. The only image in the "Books from Junín" category is a book titled "History of Junín" so the topic is about that city and the book was also published in Junín, therefore I do not know which of the two criteria could be used. I would prefer to changed to "Books about Junín" regardless of the place of publication, as the example of Rennes. Thank you very much. --Germanramos (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, ive seen this problem. I am now in favor of much more specificity on what a book is about, so i would be happy to see "Books about Junín". (this has changed in the weeks since i proposed this, i now feel we dont categories books by subject well enough).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am moving it to "Books about Junín" which is much more clear, as all of us agree.--Jordiferrer (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted --JuTa 01:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, this should move to Category:Photos by Eric Koch. Am I right? PanchoS (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eric Koch was a photographer. The only images we will upload here are photographs, so don't you think it is unnecessary? We can adjust it when time comes. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- We set every photographer's category to hidden. Easily done by {hiddencat}. So I've done that. Grashoofd (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This was already closed by someone else. Btw there is no need to hide the category –moogsi (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this should move to Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of animal welfare, as there won't probably ever be demonstrations against animal welfare. PanchoS (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Accordingly, Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to animal welfare in Spain should move to Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of animal welfare in Spain, or if you have a better idea, that would be fine. --PanchoS (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- No objection to the proposal. I guess if it does turn out that there are demonstrations and protests against animal welfare (by people who support animal testing or hunting, perhaps?) then we can resurrect this category and make the "against" and "in support of" categories subcategories of this category. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can’t imagine protests against animal welfare per se, but there are certainly some that occur in reaction to regulations that purport to promote animal welfare, or as counter-demonstrations to advocacy efforts. For recent examples there have been public protests in Canada against other countries’ anti-sealing measures (trade restrictions, boycotts, &c.), and IIANM in the UK against their own anti-fox-hunting laws (which weren‘t just about AW, but also property rights and so on). But I don’t know whether we have any relevant media, and the more specific name is probably better—assuming it suits all the category’s present contents.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly there are lots of people with different views and even counter-demonstrators. However they would object to this being about animal welfare per se. They would rather be against the "chaotes" or for bull fights, hunting, cheap meat, animal testing etc. If a bit more philosophical, then they might argue with either of technological progress, cultural heritage or homocentrism, depending on the topic. But certainly not against animal welfare. :) --PanchoS (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, "related to animal welfare" (objective) instead of "relating to animal welfare" (subjective) would cover these counterprotests as well, as it is slightly less specific and gets away from how the protesters decide to word their protest. It might even be a good improvement for the whole category tree. How do you think about it? --PanchoS (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think that would be an improvement.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I struggle a little to see the difference between related and relating and am not sure one necessarily indicates objectivity while the other subjectivity, but have no problem if someone wishes to undertake the task of renaming all the relevant categories. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- See the difference between related and relating:
Slightly simplified, the former simply means be connected, while the latter tends to mean: identify with. In many other fields we usually use related, and in fact it seems to be the better choice. --PanchoS (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- See the difference between related and relating:
- I struggle a little to see the difference between related and relating and am not sure one necessarily indicates objectivity while the other subjectivity, but have no problem if someone wishes to undertake the task of renaming all the relevant categories. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think that would be an improvement.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, "related to animal welfare" (objective) instead of "relating to animal welfare" (subjective) would cover these counterprotests as well, as it is slightly less specific and gets away from how the protesters decide to word their protest. It might even be a good improvement for the whole category tree. How do you think about it? --PanchoS (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly there are lots of people with different views and even counter-demonstrators. However they would object to this being about animal welfare per se. They would rather be against the "chaotes" or for bull fights, hunting, cheap meat, animal testing etc. If a bit more philosophical, then they might argue with either of technological progress, cultural heritage or homocentrism, depending on the topic. But certainly not against animal welfare. :) --PanchoS (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can’t imagine protests against animal welfare per se, but there are certainly some that occur in reaction to regulations that purport to promote animal welfare, or as counter-demonstrations to advocacy efforts. For recent examples there have been public protests in Canada against other countries’ anti-sealing measures (trade restrictions, boycotts, &c.), and IIANM in the UK against their own anti-fox-hunting laws (which weren‘t just about AW, but also property rights and so on). But I don’t know whether we have any relevant media, and the more specific name is probably better—assuming it suits all the category’s present contents.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
No support for "in support of"; if all protests relating to animal welfare are in support of it, where is the need to be more specific? The difference between related and relating seems somewhat academic, and again there is no harm in being more general here. In any case no-one seems to have a very strong feeling either way –moogsi (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Should be Category:Child's Picture Book, as its contents of a specific book. nevermind that wikisource didnt properly capitalize it either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, given the text on the cover, shouldn't it be The Child's Picture Book? --rimshottalk 07:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Rimshot: Your suggestion makes good sense, and there has been no opposition to a move in over two years. Moving category. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
this, and Category:poetry reading, appear to be exactly the same thing Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in two years. Merging with Category:Poetry reading to Category:Poetry readings. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
this, and Category:Poetry recitals, appear to be exactly the same. not sure which name is better, I am more familiar with the phrase "poetry readings". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, should be merged. Man vyi (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in two years. The category is for poetry readings, not just anyone reading poetry, so it makes sense to use a plural "readings". Merging with Category:Poetry recitals into Category:Poetry readings. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
This category name doesnt make sense, if its specific to argentina and/or mexico. content should be merged with unions and social movements categories, or organizations in argentina Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Content moved to appropriate categories, including the newly created Category:Trade unionism in Mexico. Category and sub-category Category:Unions (sindicatos) and social movements in Mexico tagged with {{Bad name}} for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
book title, should be Category:Ten Little Niggers (i made sure it was in a category for racist caricatures) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that's better feel free to start a rename (Commons:Rename a category). -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, I think I knew that this was a manual operation, and thus bringing it here is sort of pointless. for this essentially trivial change, i will get around to it myself and not expect someone else to do this. sorry about the bother.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Out of an abundance of caution, might it be better to move it to Category:Ten Little Niggers (book) - it might be a little less shocking when one comes across it in a parent category such as Children's books, as adding the disambiguation simply clarifies that it's a book title, not merely a category with a racial epithet as a name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed with skeezix regarding adding (book). Orderinchaos (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, I think I knew that this was a manual operation, and thus bringing it here is sort of pointless. for this essentially trivial change, i will get around to it myself and not expect someone else to do this. sorry about the bother.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The cover says The Ten Little Niggers, which would make Category:The Ten Little Niggers. I don't think we need to add "(book)" in that case, as it should be clearly recognizable as a title. --rimshottalk 07:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:The Ten Little Niggers as per book title. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
merged with Category:Decorated graves for Day of the Dead Thelmadatter (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirected (kind of) two years ago. Fixing redirect and closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I dont think a category of determiners should be used in this manner, with pictures of people pointing to objects, with the image title using the determinative word for the object indicated. this seems highly abstract and confusing Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- If the pictures are supported with an explanation, I don't see why they should be confusing. They were made to be used in wikibooks. Contrasting number and distance can be easily done with pictures. Much easier that explaining it with definitions. --Javier Carro (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Im sorry, i didnt realize they were being used in this fashion. i withdraw my nomination. they might need to be better categorized, so that its obvious what their use is, but that can be done w/o discussion here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn in 2013. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Should this category be Micmac, Mi'kmaq (or Micmac people/Mi'kmaq people)? Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd propose that it be the same as the title of the En Wikipedia article, Mi'kmaq people. Yworo (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with renaming this category to Category:Mi'kmaq. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Mi'kmaq with redirect. Including "people" might make it look like it's just for individuals, rather than for territory, art, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
how is "collaborative work" a subset of "magic squares"? if that phrase is used in this context, it surely needs a modifier, such as Category:Collaborative work (magic squares) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Collaborative work (magic squares) is fine for me. Since a few weeks I am involved at Wikidata. I got a notification about this discussion. d:user:לערי ריינהארט 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile it also seems to have attracted some other subcats under a general meaning (IMO because the original name was insufficiently descriptive). I suggest making a new cat specific to the magic-square game, categorized under this category, Magic squares, and probably somewhere under Games as well. It seems the time elapsed since this discussion stagnated has seen the cat outgrow its original intent, so we might as well accommodate that by finding a proper place for it. Either that or find better places for the contents.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"Collaborative" already refers to work. So "collaborative work" is kind of a pleonasm.--Flugaal (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:Collaborative work (magic squares) created and relevant images placed there. Otherwise, closed as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary layer, as all books not labelled as manuscripts are printed. upmerge to books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- No opposition in over two years, so I think we're okay to delete the category. Mercurywoodrose, do you feel like sorting the contained files before we delete, or do you really want to dump all these in Category:Books? This goes for Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:Early printed books too, of course. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- all sorted, and i will also sort the category in a second. IM confident that my categorizing is more than sufficient to make these files findableMercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleting category. Thanks to Mercurywoodrose for sorting the images and sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Controversial rename without a previous discussion. Jespinos (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
How is it even controversial. A region with the exact same English name exists in Venezuela. --Pitke (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)--Pitke (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)- Please could you provide links to articles about this supposed Venezuelan region. Jespinos (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, I'll retract what I said previously. I trusted what the category page said (last version before rename), but could find nothing on a quick search now. --Pitke (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please could you provide links to articles about this supposed Venezuelan region. Jespinos (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jespinos, Pitke: So, if there is no other O'Higgins Region, are we in agreement to move this category back to Category:O'Higgins Region and adjust a few of the sub-categories accordingly? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Please move this category to the shorter name. --Keysanger 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- RESULT: Moved, I have no idea why on earth this has taken 3 whole years to be closed ... but anyway I'm closing and moving it back to Category:O'Higgins Region. –Davey2010Talk 17:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This can either be patrolled, or simply renamed Category:People colored white. I think having a category for white people is just asking for trouble. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Opposition. White people are White people, this is a roof-racial definition (parallelling Black people, Asians, Latinos etc) widely-acceptable among most fields of social sciences and media today (this is what earlier in the 20th century was "Caucasians"). Such categories obviously don't deal with synthetic paint on body, but with the complexity of human society, which Wiki has no reason to escape. Orrlingtalk 00:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand patrolling it. however, the category should have about a half million images in it. we need to add at least a small fraction of them if kept as a racial classification. and we have to decide which half/3/4 white/1/4 white belong in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree partly. These are fair points. Maybe you should see this discussion, that is sort of similar, and have your take there too. Orrlingtalk 08:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand patrolling it. however, the category should have about a half million images in it. we need to add at least a small fraction of them if kept as a racial classification. and we have to decide which half/3/4 white/1/4 white belong in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I lift any previous opposition by me to dismantling this category. Now that we've settled Category:People with black skin by recategorizing its content into Category:Black Africans and the like I think that the White racial companion can be seen as unneeded too. Media relating to people that are artificially coloured white can be categorized into a new "Category:People colored white". Orrlingtalk 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Orrling: What the heck does "roof-racial" mean?--Brainy J (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Probably "root-racial", ive heard the phrase "root race" used by some theosophists, and may refer to the 3 races of man hypothesis (or 5 races, etc) popular in an earlier time. just speculation. PS there is no definition of white people. its a cultural term, with multiple meanings, but no agreed on scientific definition.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Turned into disambiguation page like Category:Black people, and contents moved to Category:People of European descent as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:People by colour. "White people of X" categories remain open for discussion - they may use the official terminology of the countries in question, I don't know. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The category is total nonsense: there might be no difference between empinening trash bins in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2015. Out of scope - away with it 178.7.227.93 15:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree! I created the category to match the names of the pictures being categorized, which seems the appropriate way to name a subcategory. There was no point in dumping them into a parent category. That would have overloaded that category with a series of 14 picures when only one of them would have been sufficient. That is what is nonsense. What do you propose? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think Secondarywaltz's solution, which was to hive these images off into their own category, was probably the best option given the circumstances. The real problem is that with all the new upload tools, too many people are uploading multiple images regardless of image quality, considerations or scope, or (as is the issue here) repetitiveness. Arguably, the collection of images shows the multiple stages of a garbage truck emptying a bin, but using that faulty logic I could upload more than a dozen photos of me, showing all the stages of me drinking a glass of water (reaching for the glass, first touching the glass, grabbing the glass, starting to lift the glass, moving the glass closer to my mouth, moving the glass even closer to my mouth, etc. etc.) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded these images. I strongly disagree with the nominator about "nonsense". I strongly disagree with Skeezix1000's analogy.
- Dumpsters, and the trucks that use them, are a relatively recent phenomenon. Their operation seems obvious now, but won't be at some point in the not to distant future, when dumpsters are no longer in use.
- Skeezix1000, we may never need a sequence showing the steps in drinking a glass of water. I suggest a sequence of images illustrating the use of a straight razor would fill a gap in our collection, and would be a fairer comparison to this sequence. We have 6 dozen images of straight razors, and only four showing them being used. There may be lots of historical movies that show straight razors being used -- but none of those images are "free". There are lots of images of dumpsters -- that aren't "free". With the exception of this sequence, is there a sequence showing one being emptied, that is "free"?
- "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." is what COM:SCOPE requires. It is pretty common to find quality contorl volunteers on WMF projects asserting that they can't imagine how something contributed by someone else could ever possibly be useful. In my experience this often merely reflects the limited imagination of the challenger, and not the innate utility of the contribution. I'd like to suggest, in the nicest way possible, that this sequence is educationally useful. Geo Swan (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to communicate in the "nicest way possible", or convince others of your views, I would recommend avoiding character attacks like "reflects the limited imagination of the challenger". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because George sincerely believes his contributions are all valid, and will fiercely defend them, I generally support his quality pictures and ignore the others. But these kind of personal attacks are inexcusable. Secondarywaltz (talk)
- If you want to communicate in the "nicest way possible", or convince others of your views, I would recommend avoiding character attacks like "reflects the limited imagination of the challenger". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that these images are useful, I have never personally seen one of these front-loading trucks in action, so I found the images educational. I think the reason that CfD was created is that the naming of this category strikes you as being a little odd, I would call it Category:Emptying a dumpster with a front-loading truck Oxyman (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Closing since the category has been renamed to Category:Dumpsters being emptied, which seems to resolve the original naming complaint. --ghouston (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
subjective category. all categories are in other reasonably narrow categories. the contents should then be upmerged to Category:Books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, it seems useful to be able to find pictures of books that looks old; for example for illustration purpose. This category could be a subcategory of Category:Books by condition if it seems more logical. But putting everything back into Category:Books would make things worse because it is already crowded. And what would append to the subcategories ? Lionel Allorge (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that our category tree system sometimes makes it hard to find collections of images with a similar (if subjective) theme all on one page. i dont like that, but its sort of inevitable given how many images we have. I can help in 3 ways: i have additionally categorized each of these images into other categories, such as 15th century books, and i have started a gallery, (renamed an earlier minor gallery), called Early books, and add some choice images to it from this category. Books by condition can also have a category added, Category:Worn-out books, for books with obvious signs of use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nomination. "Old" is subjective. We have a fairly well-developed category tree in which media related to books is categorized by century and (where numbers warrant) decade and year (for example, Category:1998 books). That is a far preferable approach. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Images in this and its sub-categories need to be checked for proper categorization, but then they need to be deleted, as per above. A gallery to display "old looking books" is great. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with User:Skeezix1000. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
rename to Category:Strawberry Creek, no other creeks of note with this name found Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As the original creator of the category, I have no objection to the proposed change. I was just following the naming conventions of the time to the extent that I knew them. If there is a consensus for it, go for it.
--Coro (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose — Unless there is a good reason not to include it, I find the secondary location name quite helpful. I've stumbled across several categories where there was nothing to distinguish to identically named topics, so two (or more) very different sets of photographs cohabitated in the same category. Sometimes it was humorous, usually just annoying. In this case, two creeks named Strawberry Creek might not be easily detected by sight, and the problem could linger on for years. I think it helps to add that extra level of identification, even if it's not immediately obvious that there's a likely conflict elsewhere in the world. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Given the generic name, I don't think this creek is famous enough to go without disambiguation. Move to Category:Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
unnecessary layer, upmerge to Category:Typographic ornaments Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. As a user of these typographic ornaments categories each time I do a book or magazine layer, to have classified by books is very useful, to know the source, the kind of works and the general tone of the ornaments.
- It also helps to document the evolution of typographic ornaments in the centuries and the specificities by countries.
- By book categories are so useful. --Dereckson (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I get that this is a useful sub cat for some, but what is it? are these typographic ornaments specific to books? it seems the other typographic ornaments are also used in books. the name is in italian (crude english translation "embellishments books"), but i cannot find a corresponding article on italy-specific book ornament forms with this name, or any other name. if someone can explain what these are, as distinctly separate from the other categories here, and give an appropriate english language name for them (unless they are a uniquely italian form, which they dont appear to be), then im ok with keep. Perhaps they can be under Category:Typographic elements of Italy, or Category:Typographic elements from books. we have Category:Embellishments of Books, which could be renamed IF its distinct from other "embellishments". Also, i am completely confused as to the categories its in (besides typgraphic ornaments): Category:Books on Dante Alighieri, Category:Del Vaglio d'Eratostene, Category:Le avventure di Pinocchio, Category:Editors from Italy, Category:It.Wikisource. how are these accurate categories for these elements? are they ALL used in the 3 books listed, and are they all found in various books about Dante? I know they are not images of italian editors, and It.Wikisource doesnt make sense to me either. it looks like this is a category designed specifically for the use of italian graphic designers, to source elements for their work as they have chosen to organize them, and not to organized images in an encyclopedic manner.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mercurywoodrose, for your many valid questions. I would like to propose moving to Category:Ornaments in Italian books to match Category:Ornaments in Polish books. -Themightyquill (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Redirected to Category:Ornaments in Italian books. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
shouldnt this be a hidden category? its in the line of featured, quality, valued, photochrome, black and white, etc. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images from the Save Outdoor Sculpture! survey and hidden. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This is too broad and too undefinable, and our current category structure allows for Category:Children's literature, which is adequate to contain baby books, childrens books, young adult books, etc. the two subcategories are not childrens picture books, which is presumably what this category is for. all the files and subcategories have adequate categorization aside from this category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral – If you are bothered by the mix of ages, maybe you can simply create a subcategories like Category:Children's picture books? – Editør (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Created Category:Children's picture books as a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrator User:High Contrast (1) created this category, earlier today; (2) replaced all instances of Category:Montrealais (ship, 1962), moored in Toronto with the new category; (3) then deleted the old category -- on the grounds it was empty. I asked administrator High Contrast to guide me to the discussion where the recategorizing was discussed. As I feared High Contrast acknowledged that he or she had both emptied the category on his or her sole judgment -- and then deleted the category as empty on his or her sole judgment. The way I see it, there are several questions here:
- Are administrators really authorized to remove all the elements from a category whose name triggers their concern -- and then to delete that now empty category on the ground it is no empty?
- Administrators aren't expected to act like their judgment is infallible, are they? Shouldn't they initiate discussions when a category name triggers their concern -- the same as everyone else?
- Aren't administrators supposed to change categories to redirections, when we decide there is a more optimal alternate name -- because simple deletion of a long-standing name can break URLs?
- In his or her response to my questions on their talk page High Contrast gave a vague hand-wave in the direction of COM:CAT, writing "categories should be assessed on the basis of their scope, not what happens to be in them at any given moment." Toronto is not a busy port. It has no container cranes. It is only visited by a couple of freighters per year. I have a good view of the port from my roof, and I try to capture some images of every new freighter to visit the port. Several times a year I happen to catch a vessel arriving or leaving the port. So, that is several dozen different vessels, with multiple images each, with well over one hundred images. I thought the most useful subcategories would be Category:Lake freighters in Toronto and Category:Seagoing freighters in Toronto. Within those two categories I thought the most useful criteria would be whether the vessels were or weren't moored.
- Even if, for the sake of argument, High Contrast had an argument for their concern that would convince everyone, if only they had articulated it, they did not articulate their reasoning. None of us are mind-readers. When we have a concern, when we think some good-faith contributor is making a mistake, we have an obligation to tell them, and to try to explain our concern to them. Neglecting to do so causes chaos. Good faith contributors, who are making some kind of mistake, will continue to make that mistake, unless those who think they recognize the mistake inform them.
- I found High Constrast's vague hand-waving in the general direction of COM:CAT unconvincing. If there is someone who thinks they understands and agrees with High Constrast's reasoning, cold they please explain it here? Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep nonsense nomination - this is a valid category, no reason for (re)moval --High Contrast (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- I won't call yours a nonsense defence. I will point out I could have offered exactly the same defence of Category:Montrealais (ship, 1962), moored in Toronto. Geo Swan (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this thing here can be closed. --High Contrast (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Stale discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Originally at Commons:Village pump#Palestinian flag: A flag-issue, it's been suggested to handle that matter on this venue. I support the existence of this category, as a just, equal self-standing flag-category among the nations, while my opponent is being insistent on turning it to redirect to a "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority", which can only be interpreted as a denial of the right of existence of National flag of Palestine as own cat on Commons altogether. The Flags of the Palestinian National Authority is, however, a somewhat-strange and slim "Flags of governments" category, that, if kept, belongs as a subset of National flag of Palestine or redirect to it, in my opinion. Orrlingtalk 02:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree I am not keen on describing others as "opponents". This is not a competition or a battle. Even in disagreement, everyone is working in good faith to achieve a solution that is best for the project.
Having said that, I see no reason why we would not call this category Category:National flag of Palestine and categorizing it in Category:National flags of countries. I appreciate the problems this causes, but as a project we cannot start taking sides in the Middle East debate. For almost a year now, Palestine has had "non-member observer state" at the UN (a status it gives non-member sovereign states) and the majority of UN members recognize the state of Palestine. For me, that's enough for the flag category to be treated the same as other national flags, in the name of category consistency on the Commons rather than in the name of any particular national cause. It does not mean that we, as a project, accept or deny any claims or positions of the Palestinian National Authority (or of any country for that matter). It simply recognizes, as stated in the en.wp article State of Palestine, that Palestine is a "a de jure sovereign state". We should take that at face value and move on. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- First off, "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority" was the older category name, before Orrling started trying to unilaterally change things, without consulting with anybody or listening to anybody. Second, the "National flag of Palestine" seems to be conspicuously and gratuitously taking one side of a disputed issue, in an unnecessarily overtly blatant manner. There's no Category:National flag of the United States, and I really fail to see how Palestine is supposedly more of a nation than the United States is. In fact, less than a dozen countries have "National flag of X" categories, and until Orrling can explain what the basis is for these countries (but no others) having such a category, maybe it would be better if he would leave Palestine alone... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think now that this CFD has been initiated, it's time to move on from who did what in the past.
Someone can just as easily say that not calling the category "National flag of Palestine" is conspicuously and gratuitously taking one side of a disputed issue. Therefore, we need an objective standard - I would have thought the UN and the majority of the countries in the world effectively recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state would be it.
As for the last point, I am not sure what would stop someone from creating Category:National flag of the United States today if they wanted to do so. The fact that we only have a dozen or so "National flag of X" categories has more to do with the fact that Commons is a work in progress than anything else. And I don't actually think that's particularly relevant - if someone has a problem with "National flag of X" categories, let them raise that as a CFD. There is no onus on Orrling to justify an existing, and seemingly non-controversial, category tree. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think now that this CFD has been initiated, it's time to move on from who did what in the past.
- However, Palestine is still not a full unqualified member of the United Nations, and lacks the full territorial control which is commonly considered to be one of necessary attributes of national sovereignty. So the insistence on creating a category of a type which doesn't exist for about 180 full members of the UN seems to smack of tendentiousness -- an impression which is reinforced by Orrling's past unilateralism and failure to consult with anybody or listen to anybody... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The point of a CFD is to find consensus with the input of others. Let's please move past the old battles over this category. Personally, I don't care what you or Orrling did last year.
Membership in the United Nations is not a pre-requisite to being a country or nation (otherwise Switzerland wasn't a country until 2002) and a number of countries today do not have full territorial control over their territory. Making category decisions based on subjective and debatable considerations of what constitutes attributes of national sovereignty is a surefire way to drag Commons into a quagmire over various international disputes, which is what I am trying to avoid. A majority of the world's countries recognize the state of Palestine. That's an objective standard. It doesn't mean that we agree or disagree with it, merely that we our category reflects the reality.
In any event, given my political views and support of Israel, I am the last person to be advocating for the Palestinian Authority. Nonetheless, I am simply trying to ensure that this decision over category name is as non-political and objective as possible. I've said my piece, and never intended to be the advocate here for the current status quo. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The point of a CFD is to find consensus with the input of others. Let's please move past the old battles over this category. Personally, I don't care what you or Orrling did last year.
- That's nice -- as I'm sure you're aware, UN membership doesn't do much for already solidly-established states, but it plays a definite (though limited) role in bolstering the recognition and legitimacy of disputed and weak states, and the UN has chosen to withhold the full degree of this from Palestine. Given this, I really fail to see the putative burning urgency of the need to establish a category for Palestine which doesn't exist for about 180 full members of the UN. Meanwhile, Orrling's past actions have done much to convince me that he seems to be motivated more by a political agenda than a desire to improve Commons categorizations -- and right now, he's repeating his unilateral actions again, apparently out of a desire to be as annoying as possible... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not that anything is pressing, but it has now seemingly been an unchanged kinda 2-vs-1 support status prevailing here since October. I see right? From what I know no further steps are needed for finding it sufficient. Orrlingtalk 06:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Since part of the issue all along has been your always high-handed and sometimes rather ugly way of doing things, the fact that you transparently started in on this new round of your endless revert war in order to get some kind of revenge for my comments on other separate matters at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems again casts a somewhat unpleasant light on your working methods and personality characteristics. The fact that you got one (1) supporter, who did not really have cogent replies to certain relevant points, does not suggest an overwhelming consensus... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- What you're doing is inappropriate, editors other than I have expressed both in this late CfD and earlier in the cat itself their understanding that excluding the Palestinian flag from the line isn't a logical option. You have the right to believe I'm being politicized but - 1. this is incorrect (for what it worths) and 2. that hasn't proved to affect categories in a manner that contrast Wiki. I'm done with it. Orrlingtalk 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice -- if you had just changed "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority" or "territories" to "Flags of Palestine" that would not have caused any controversy, but instead you had to gild the lily, or go beyond the merely good into the doubleplusgood, by pulling in the "national flags" junk... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can you reference to any individual voice other than yours around here that maintains Palestine's recognized national flag shouldn't go in the National flags folder? Orrlingtalk 11:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice -- if you had just changed "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority" or "territories" to "Flags of Palestine" that would not have caused any controversy, but instead you had to gild the lily, or go beyond the merely good into the doubleplusgood, by pulling in the "national flags" junk... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Orrling, AnonMoos, and Skeezix1000: As this category no longer exists and no other category links to this discussion, closing this discussion and archiving. If there is another category that is relevant to this and further discussion is warranted, open a CfD on that category. Josh (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Creo que esta categoría debería cambiar su nombre a "Euskotren Tranbia (Bilbao)". ¿Sería posible? Laukatu (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
En todo caso, y siguiendo las políticas de Commons, debería renombrarse como Category:Euskotren tram, Bilbao o Category:Euskotren Tranbia tram, Bilbao si el nombre completo fuera «Euskotren Tranbia».--DPC (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) «Euskotren Tranbia» es el nombre del servicio de trasporte, por tanto no hace falta añadir tranvía (tram) a la categoría Category:Euskotren Tranbia, Bilbao. Lo que sí es preferible, por concordancia con las políticas de lengua en Commons, es poner «, Bilbao» en lugar de «(Bilbao)». --DPC (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)- Comment The category is now at Category:Euskotren Tranbia (Bilbao). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Laukatu, David Perez, and Themightyquill: Category has moved, so closing this and archiving. Josh (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Creo que esta categoría debería pasar a llamarse "Euskotren Tranbia (Vitoria-Gasteiz)" ¿Sería posible? Laukatu (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The category is now at Category:Euskotren Tranbia (Vitoria). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Laukatu and Themightyquill: Category has been redirected so closing and archiving this. Josh (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
imprecise layer, as early is not defined, and all books not described as manuscripts are printed. upmerge to books or sort as appropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Category:Incunabula is precise and should be kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mercurywoodrose and Themightyquill: No opposition, category to be upmerged, items to be sorted into better defined categories. Josh (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Should reflect the common use of the "BYU" abbreviation for Brigham Young University athletics, as wikipedia articles about university athletics use the BYU abbreviation. Another category on Commons is category:BYU Cougars men's basketball players Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd rather see the words written out than using the acronym. BYU might be common usage within that community, but it's not necessarily common knowledge. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Lpdrew: For Commons category names, it is preferable to spell something out unless there is a very specific and strong reason to use the abbreviation instead. Common use of the abbreviation is not such a reason, as Themightyquill (talk · contribs) noted. Is there some reason that using the full name is causing a problem? Josh (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Expanded acronym: per discussion. ℯxplicit 05:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Odd, uncustomary category title: it should be Four colors Orrlingtalk 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Moving the nomination from the mover-bot request list where I originally posted it: {{move cat|Four-color|Four colors|3=[[User:Orrling|<span style="color:orange;">Orrling</span>]][[User talk:Orrling|<span style="color:grey;">talk</span>]] 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)}}
- Four-color is consistent with sister cats Bicolor and Tricolor. --Pitke (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a very odd way to name categories honestly. Please see Category:Four people, Category:Three matching outfits, Category:Multiple flags. This category is simply meant to host files that consist of three colours, just as its current content manifests. It's not a case of Six-wheeled vehicles. I propose the rename of "Bicolor" and "Tricolor" to Two colors and Three colors; futhermore, if it was meant to be consistent with Bicolor and Tricolor then this cat would have needed to be Category:Quadricolor. Orrlingtalk 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let's take this to a proper CfD. Changing Bicolor and Tricolor would affect a whole bunch of subcats. --Pitke (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a very odd way to name categories honestly. Please see Category:Four people, Category:Three matching outfits, Category:Multiple flags. This category is simply meant to host files that consist of three colours, just as its current content manifests. It's not a case of Six-wheeled vehicles. I propose the rename of "Bicolor" and "Tricolor" to Two colors and Three colors; futhermore, if it was meant to be consistent with Bicolor and Tricolor then this cat would have needed to be Category:Quadricolor. Orrlingtalk 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
</End of copying>
Note: Category:Four-color was redirected to Category:Four colors in June 2014 before this discussion had any resolution, partly because the way Orrling (since permanently banned, btw) tried to add this to CfD didn't quite work, making the discussion largely invisble. So the category remains at Category:Four colors but everything else in Category:Color combinations has the previous style (e.g. Category:Five-color, Category:Six-color. I think we should choose a consistent way to name the categories here. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pitke and Themightyquill: Numeric representation is better than word-based representation of numbers, note the parent category Category:Groups of 4. Something like Category:Combinations of 4 colors or Category:Groups of 4 colors I think would be superior to having to hash out between "four-color", "four colors" or "quadricolor". Using "4" instead of "four" makes it that much easier to be precise and for non-English speakers to use. I would recommend applying this to all color combination categories. Also, if it makes more sense, we can close this discussion and open a CfD at the Category:Color combinations level to apply to the entire tree. Josh (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. I think Category:Combinations of 4 colors would be best. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Rename Category:Combinations of 4 colors. Same for other quantities. Josh (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It is absolutely meaningless to create categories by the date of the photo taken. Szilas (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. The whole "[building] photographed in [year]" category structure needs to be seriously examined. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't create these categories but I won't vandalize them like Szilas did with this edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ALibraries_in_the_United_States_photographed_in_2012&diff=107108685&oldid=93092125 If someone wants to bring them up for discussion, then fine, but don't vandalize templates, etc. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion should definitely include all sub-categories of Category:Buildings by year of photographing. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please elaborate on why these categories are meaningless? It seems to me that it's meaningful to have by-year categories for specific buildings, so that we can see how a building changed over time. If we have those, then it's reasonable to have Category:Buildings by year of photographing, although I would expect that category to contain things like Category:Buildings photographed in 2015. Is it when that's subdivided by type of building that it's an issue? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- These cats are meaningless if they hide files from view, and prevent allowing an overview. What is wrong with having one category and using file names with dates in them to see the evolution of a building over time. Actually just glancing at a badly labelled image in a group will allow an understanding of where the image lies in sequence. You cant do that if files are buried in multiple cats, with exceptionally narrow windows like years. The prime rule for catting should be KISS. I'm minimalist on this subject. I can see some reason for additional cats by century, and even decade, if we're talking about; say the White House but for not for the overwhelming numbers of other subjects. Actually catting by date is possibly only of any use for the mobile phone years, and I must say that if you visit a cat with more than 200 images in it which has already been diffused to the nth, there must be a strong case for saying Don't upload anything unless your image adds to the story or replaces something which doesn't. Catting by year (time) should never take the place of catting by subject. Apart from over diffusion, this is at best over enthusiasm or OCD behavior or at worst mis-using cat-a lot to build high scores without effort, for presumably self promotion. A photo of the white house in 1980 would have three additional cats. The white house in one century would have 111 cats added on. Some covering single images. Crazy! Who apart from one person is interested in "Libraries in the United States photographed in 2012", what use does such a cat serve? The waste of time and resource is phenomenal, people using tools are catting 1000's of images in meaningless unuseful places in a sitting, when their time would be better spent on the huge number of files we have awaiting identification and catting which are left ignored. Then there's all the files in the world we don't have and should. Oh, and one more thing I can tell you is that before the digital camera age I think you will find that the most common error with our files is that they have been dated incorrectly! You can bet that has not been looked at in this cat rush, and therefore there's a good case for calling it non qualitative filing. Broichmore (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: Establishing strict file name control over all images of buildings would be impossible to pull off so that solution is a non-starter. Josh (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep The time period depicted by an image is absolutely meaningfull toward an understanding of the topic. Seeing what a building looks like at different stages of its life, or what various examples of a type of building looked like at different points in history, may indeed be very educational. Being able to compare what some libraries in the US looked like in 2012 against what some libraries in the US looked like in 1912 might indeed be quite educational if one is studying libraries. I don't know that it is meaningful to separate out specifically photographs though. I think it would be fine to just have Category:Libraries in the United States in 2012 unless you had enough other types of media to warrant breaking it out by medium. Josh (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Splitting by date is the least helpful way of categorising images. If you want a specific date (and your eye is not enough to roughly ascertain it, you can use petscan or type in a specific year as a search keyword to narrow the results. Filing by year, is not usually maintained, once set up. Broichmore (talk)
Keep The only argument provided is that there are people who do not consider categorization by dates useful and want to deny it to those who are useful or consider it useful, so that they dedicate their time and efforts to what they consider useful. I do not know what this "collaborative" has. It is simply an attempt of imposition. (Sorry, I do not speak English, this is a Google translation). --JT Curses (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done: a broader discussion about the category tree would be required to take any action on its children categories. --ℯxplicit 00:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)