Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/07
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 |
| 2025 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive July 2014
Rename to Category:People of Botoșani (change of diacritic) per parent Category:Botoșani. --Fayenatic london (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:People of Botoșani as per nom. Apparently, the ş was a replacement for ș before computer systems could display the letter correctly. --rimshottalk 11:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This category is in Polish, with the meaning "Professional", as in "Professional musician". It carries only one file, which has an additional - and more meaningful - category. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to keep this category. Rsteen (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --JuTa 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
These categories are named in Japanese. 関東地方在住のウィキメディアン means "Category:Wikimedians in Kantō region". This category will be empty and unnecessary because I fixed related templates such as [1]. So I think this category should be deteted. --本日晴天 (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC) added link to English wikipedia --本日晴天 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. You might consider adding a reference to Category:Users in Japan to those templates instead, which seems common in similar templates. --rimshottalk 11:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
|
These categories are named in Japanese. 千葉県在住のウィキメディアン means "Category:Wikimedians in Chiba Prefecture". This category is empty and will be unnecessary because I fixed related templates such as [2]. So I think this category should be deteted. --本日晴天 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. You might consider adding a reference to Category:Users in Japan to those templates instead, which seems common in similar templates. --rimshottalk 11:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty, wrong language, no obvious target for category redirect Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently moved to Category:Saint Adalbert cemetery in Poznań. --rimshottalk 12:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I don´t really understand Spanish - but this might either be a copyvio from https://soundcloud.com/domenico-falsetto (the text as well as the image) or a fake (an artist born in 1655 would most probably not include jukeboxes in his paintings) or at least be out of scope (album cover of non-notable band) Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete one picture category and includes out of scope textMotopark (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted the image as out of scope and questionable copyright-wise. It's a collage of File:Antoine Watteau - 'La gamme d'amour' (The Love Song) - WGA25457.jpg and possibly copyrighted works. Deleted the category as empty and out of scope. --rimshottalk 13:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty user category. The user is blocked as well. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom: empty user category that will stay that way because the user is indef blocked. --rimshottalk 16:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty, obviously abandoned for Category:DÜWAG GT8S in Poznań Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. Also, the new spelling is more in line with the parent category Category:DÜWAG trams. --rimshottalk 16:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
empty category Alan Liefting (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I request deletion--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 13:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty, unspecific category. (We´ve got Category:Fisheye images and [:Category:Fisheye lenses]]) Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguated so that it does not get re-created. --rimshottalk 17:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Creator of the category moved files to a new cat and requested deletion Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Im the creator (and destroyer! :-) of this category. The name was simply a mistake. It was difficult and confusing to find the proper name and I ended up relying on my memory as a citizen living close-by. However the right name is Folkestedet and all images have now been moved there. There has never been a place called Folkets Hus in Aarhus, and the name Folkets Hus has never been related to Folkestedet. This category can now be deleted. RhinoMind (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name as per RhinoMind. --rimshottalk 17:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, special character at the end of category name Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 17:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Created five months ago, but (still) empty. Should be re-created if and when files are available Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Notations: Hyper-Cubism is presently performed by a select group of artists, including Nathan Coppedge, Peter Daverington, and Paolo Mascatelli, with some imitation sporadically outside the group. There is also a cinematographer named Gabriel Shalom who has written a manifesto. NCoppedge (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
I had assumed that artists would submit images individually. However, perhaps a faster pace is desired than that.NCoppedge (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
Of course, patrons of the arts could submit images that have been photographed in their own homes. But I'm afraid this will be very slow going, not only because of their reluctance to distribute the images, but because of the relative scarcity of Hyper-Cubism compared to other styles. However, there are over 300 works distributed in the New Haven area, and I know some of Daverington's patrons in Australia and perhaps elsewhere (or perhaps Daverington himself) would not mind sharing the work. NCoppedge (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
I can submit more images if so desired, but the number cannot be dozens or hundreds, without infringing on my copyright. A number of my images can be made freely available. However, sometimes the style is expressive rather than hyperbolic, meaning it may be desirable to distinguish the sub-styles of the movementNCoppedge (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
I have 14 or so sub-styles of Hyper-Cubism in my own (Nathan Coppedge's) work, including the Ornate, Chink / Cubist, Corruscated, Extruded, Platform, Interface, Iterative, Archetypal, Zazzy, Lambent, Piecewise, Bezel, Horned, and Escher styles. More information at http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Art_Identification.html. NCoppedge (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
- Hi NCoppedge, right now the category is empty and there´s no objection against re-creating it as soon as some pictures have been uploaded. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the category be re-named or replaced with Hyper-Cubism, because Hyper-Cubist is unsearchable on Wikipedia. If a highly specific category such as drawings is desirable, I can understand that from a research point of view. However, there is not likely to be room for many categories of Hyper-Cubism if few works are visible. Meanwhile, I have uploaded a number of files, and categorized them as Hyper-Cubism, which is more searchable. Pending discussion I can revise as necessary. NCoppedge (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)NCoppedge
Deleted in favor of the more general Category:Hyper-Cubism, which is not empty. --rimshottalk 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Capitalized, non-english category name. The only file in the category has been moved to Category:Private schools in Mexico Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, page blanked by creator Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kawasaki Super Sherpa. --rimshottalk 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Misspelling and presumably duplicate of Category:Interior of the Schwarzman Building of the New York Public Library; empty. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. עדירל (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Correcting misspelling to Photographs by Fjellanger Widerøe. Humatiel (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot see there is a need for a long discussion; if it`s ok with you Humatiel I can use cat-a-lot to move all the files to Category:Photographs by Fjellanger Widerøe and put the template speedy-delete to the category here. Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine by me. I started the discussion more because of administrators have the hability to move categories and also to see if there was any objection against it (which I think there won't be). I'm ok with any way that corrects it. Regards, Humatiel (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ok and thank you! Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Photographs by Fjellanger Widerøe, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty and "Blanked as dubiously notable" (see history) - should either be deleted or categorized Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In time I would see this as being the parent category of the following nature reserves:
- Long Herdon and Grange Meadows, Buckinghamshire
- Munsary Peatlands, Caithness
- Cae Blaen-dyffryn, Carmarthenshire
- Greena Moor, Cornwall
- Augill Pasture, Cumbria
- Deep Dale, Derbyshire
- Ryewater Farm, Dorset
- Caeau Tan y Bwlch, Gwynedd
- Davies Meadows, Herefordshire
- Joan's Hill Farm, Herefordshire
- The Lugg Meadows, Herefordshire
- Moaney and Crawyn's Meadows, Isle of Man
- Queendown Warren, Kent
- Ranscombe Farm, Kent
- Thompson Meadow, North Yorkshire
- Winskill Stones, North Yorkshire
- Seaton Meadows, Rutland
- Skylark Meadows, Somerset
- Side Farm Meadows, Staffordshire
- Winks Meadow, Suffolk
- Furnace Meadow and Brick Kiln Rough, West Sussex
- Stockwood Meadows, Worcestershire
- Upton Ham, Worcestershire
The gives details of their notability but commons is not en:wiki. As for parent cats- I have added Nature reserves in England --ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I questioned this category as it only had one file in it. As an editor is now working on providing content I withdraw my comment and support it being kept. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the category is now categorized, has content and found a maintainer, I withdraw my DR (and would close the DR if I knew how). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept, in use now. --rimshottalk 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This category contains images of species that are endemic in the area of Tauglgries. But non of the images of birds and plants was taken there. So this category is misleading. We should not put an image of a bird to each area where it might live, but only to the area the image was taken. Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Die Kategurie habe ich angelegt, damit man einige Bilder aus dem Artikel rausnehmen kann --Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Das ist klar, das Problem ist, dass du Bilder von Fotos aus aller Herren Länder in einer Kategorie zusammenfasst, die du unter Salzburg kategorisierst. Was z.B. dieses File aus Finnland in Salzburg zu tun hat, erschließt sich mir nicht. Entweder Finnland oder Salzburg. Du kannst aber natürlich gerne eine Galerie dieser Bilder anlegen. Galerie hat keine Semantik. Was hältst du davon? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Dazu kommt, dass es eh schon eine Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries gibt. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Besides the content, this is a duplicate category of Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries (I now marked it as such). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Den Duplicate tag habe ich entfernt. Macht keinen Sinn solange noch Bilderchen drin sind. Kann nach klar Schiff fix geloescht werden. @Herzi Pinki: Kannst Du die Kategorie leeren, ich loesche danach sofort, falls gewuenscht. Oder besser eine Weiterleitung erstellen? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo, dann alle Bilder bei Tauglgries in die Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries und dann verknüpfen--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
So, habe alle Bilder aus Category:Tauglgries entfernt, die Bilder gehören weder dorthin noch nach Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries. Oder wird jetzt jedes Bild von jedem Vogel überall dort kategorisisiert, wo der Vogel vorkommt? WL macht bei einer gestern angelegten, duplicate category wenig Sinn, bestenfalls als Alternativname, wenn Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries als zu sperrig empfunden wird. Vielleicht ist das hier gut, auch weil Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries nicht ganz den Sprachkonventionen entspricht.
Ich habe den DR gestellt, weil diese Kategorie den Zweck verfehlen muss, für den sie geschaffen wurde, nämlich die Bilder aus dem Artikel rauszubekommmen. Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries habe ich erst später gesehen. Sorry, Bilder entfernen hätte ich schon gestern selbst machen können. Ich habe dann mal, 
I withdraw my nomination hier keine administrative Aktion mehr nötig. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Europaschutzgebiet Tauglgries as per discussion. --rimshottalk 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-specific category containing images the creator (or someone) considers as looking strange Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- This was a user category until this edit. We could revert it to that state instead of deleting. --rimshottalk 19:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Rimshot, that´s fine for me; DR withdrawn. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Reverted to a user category. --rimshottalk 09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Typos. Please delete Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Empty category and should be in Category:Districts of Hsinchu City. Formosania (Chat) 14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Districts of Hsinchu City. --Holdek (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Districts of Hsinchu City. --rimshottalk 20:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No contempt. Exists already under Maifeld-Radweg Bronstein (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the category existed for several months I´d prefer a redirect to Category:Maifeld-Radweg instead of a deletion. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Maifeld-Radweg, as per Rudolph Buch. --rimshottalk 19:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
this category is empty, it not has a file related to the topic, it must be deleted!! Duque Santiago (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after the corresponding files have been deleted. --rimshottalk 20:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Border signs |
I think there should be some coordination or clarification between some of the categories listed below. They overlap, or have images which would be better placed in other categories. --Evrik (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Category:City limit signs
- Category:Community border signs
- Category:Settlement border signs
- Category:Neighborhood border signs
- Category:Border signs
- Category:Municipal border signs
- Category:Town border signs
- Category:Welcome signs
- From my POV you can suggest a better structure on the talk page, wait one second for feedback, and then start to implement it slowly. Folks will scream if they disagree. No action needed here (CfD page) at the moment. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would but I'm having difficulty imagining the tree. Evrik (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The name means nothing - how many Hanuman temples exist in the World? Stegop (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, badly named duplicate of Category:Hanuman temples: singular and and missing a space. --rimshottalk 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete category. It was a temporary holding category but all images are now categorized. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
misspelled category, all images now at Category:Toilet bowls Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 10:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Abortions are a common procedure carried out by the patients themselves or physicians. I don't think they are refered to as "abortionists" in common reliable sources. Also, Josef Mengele and Thomas Cream is--Holdek (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) on here? Come on... Holdek (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nowhere is said that "patients themselves" are refered to as "abortionists". So, nice strawman from you. Re: Mengele, read here; Re: Thomas Cream, read here. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has en:Category:Abortion providers. That is common usage by reliable sources, neutral in tone, and satisfies en:WP:LEAST. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- en:Category:Abortion providers says that, "This category lists notable physicians, clinics, and organizations whose primary practice is or was in the provision of abortion." I would be fine with renaming this category to "Abortion providers," provided a similar description was included and the people included would be restricted to those that fit that description (e.g. Mengele wouldn't be included). This way we avoid the category being used as a means to make a political point with loaded, non-standard language and inclusion of notorious subjects with only a minor relationship to the category criteria. --Holdek (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. That seems sensible to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- en:Category:Abortion providers says that, "This category lists notable physicians, clinics, and organizations whose primary practice is or was in the provision of abortion." I would be fine with renaming this category to "Abortion providers," provided a similar description was included and the people included would be restricted to those that fit that description (e.g. Mengele wouldn't be included). This way we avoid the category being used as a means to make a political point with loaded, non-standard language and inclusion of notorious subjects with only a minor relationship to the category criteria. --Holdek (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's been no further activity in this discussion for over three weeks. I'm going to close it as a rename to Category:Abortion providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdek (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a duplicate of category:Faschine. Merge or add note on the 2 categories to distinguish what each is for. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Both categories are for the same concept and should be merged. Category names are supposed to be in English and plural, therefore I propose a merge to Category:Fascines. --rimshottalk 11:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Both cats were merged into Category:Fascines -–moogsi (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
merge to Category:Jeju-do Alan Liefting (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Ankry (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
should be deleted, replaced by Category:Ear (term in art) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, intended private photo album, out of scope Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replaced by category:Ear (term of art) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Unsuitable category name using a term that is not established and has no distinctive quality. All images were by a single uploader and are gathered in Category:Single line drawings as well Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
useless, empty Jakub Kaja (✉) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Promotional claim. Museum is already categorized under it´s proper name in Category:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak - Tychy Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Promotional claim and wrong language. Museum is already categorized under it´s proper name in Category:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak - Tychy. Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Uncategorized and empty. (Looks like the only "airline" that used the planes was the US Navy, see Category:Martin Mars) Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Category name is not in English. I don't know how to translate this, but there's a similar redlinked category, Category:2014年5月新竹維基人聚會 that probably needs the same translation. Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- And another one: Category:2014年6月新竹維基人聚會. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Files in both categories moved to categories with (hopefully) more appropriate names Category:December 2013 Wikimedia meetup in Hsinchu and Category:June 2014 Wikimedia meetup in Hsinchu. Feel free to request rename again if not. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this category is useful: Looks like a mix-up betwenn category and gallery page. As a category it´s empty and rightfully so: There seems to be no such thing as "official" paintings at the NGOA. Half of the pictures shown on the page are not paintings but photographs. And they are not at the NGOA. Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty. Category:Bloomers already exists, no need for a category redirect from a longer category with parentheses to the shorter one. Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Australia is part of Oceania Alan Liefting (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep because of systematic need: This category was created because of existency both Category:Australia and Oceania (25 wikis) and Category:Oceania (143 wikis) on various wikis. So now can be easily linked correct single category on commons (no need for linking two categories, better for Wikidata linking). JAn Dudík (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think exactness is of far greater importance than a "systematic need". Categories should not exist because of a need for Wikidata linking. Also, this Cfd does not affect Category:Oceania. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem helpful to have a category called something like "A and B", where the only things in the category are the individual categories for each of those two things. In addition, Australia is part of Oceania, so this is similar to having a category named something like "France and Europe". I agree that categories shouldn't exist just to match something on Wikidata. I say delete. Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Argument something like A and B is not good. There exist many categories which merges two different subjects together like Towns AND villages in XYZ or Catles in XY (While castle means both Čeština: hrad a zámekor {{de|Burg und Schloss}).
- Geologically is Australia something else than Oceania, because of political and geographical are oftem connected together d:Q55643 uder name Oceania. 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- With categories for "towns and villages", there usually aren't two separate categories under the main one (that is, a category for towns and a category for villages). The individual towns and villages are listed under the main category. Also, villages, aren't always parts of towns, whereas Australia is part of Oceania, at least as they are defined here.
- My bottom line is this: either Australia is part of Oceania, or it isn't. If it is, it should be included under categories for Oceania, without "Australia" being part of the name. If it isn't, they should be completely separate categories. In neither case do we need a category whose name includes both. There may be political and geographical issues, there needs to be a consistent way of handling it. I believe this project has chosen to treat Australia as part of Oceania, so I favor the former solution. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom & Auntof6. INeverCry 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge with Category:PD-Taiwan. Humatiel (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- These categories are added by {{PD-Taiwan}} and {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. Both template are old, as are both categories. Also, the size of both categories is almost the same. I would support a merge to Category:PD-Taiwan, as the spelling with "-" seems to be ever so slightly more common in Category:Public domain. A merge in the other direction would be just as fine, though. --rimshottalk 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I just went ahead and moved the content into Category:PD-Taiwan –moogsi (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This category refers to an ill-defined group of distinct peoples by an obsolete and pejorative term. It has no reason to exist in the modern world, and I have moved the contents to more suitable categories. --Slashme (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There cannot possibly be anything to categorize directly here. All supermarkets belonging to ALDI Süd in Austria are called Hofer. darkweasel94 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
semetic scripture 2.97.109.86 09:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- No reason specified, clearly vandalism, obvious speedy keep. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept, the discussion was probably created accidentally. --rimshottalk 19:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Gigantosaurus is no longer considered a valid genus, and all material that has not be reassigned includes some vertebrae, a partial forelimb, and an osteoderm, which are not distinguishable from other genera. Simply put, the taxon is highly dubious. Reid,iain james (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, all images are now reclassified as Torneria, Barosaurus, or Janenschia. Reid,iain james (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Can´t see any notability that would require an individual category: No WP-article, no other images, no notable position Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The name means nothing. How many "big bells" are there in the world or even in Bakhtapur? Stegop (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
How many of the "big bells" have been identified as a cultural monument with a known ID? (See Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Bhaktapur, Nepal) for monuments in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Bhaktapur District):
|
This is a photo of a monument in Nepal identified by the ID NP-BT-53
|
Parabolooidal (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- And so what? You have a really serious problem of communication.... --Stegop (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary sub-category complicated by the fact that many locomotives were transferred between JR West and JR Freight during their careers. The logical sub-categories of "EF66" and "EF66 100" are more than adequate. DAJF (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty category for a 14 year old music producer Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Dupe. of Category:Photographs by Gage Skidmore. Josve05a (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, users request. Josve05a (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-specific category name; images have been re-categorized, now empty Rudolph Buch (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This category has served its purpose. Josve05a (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 19:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If this category is supposed to contain media files related to Rail service vehicles of ÖBB, it should also have this name, otherwise, there should be a more detailed description. FDMS 4 09:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Renamed as requested. Ankry (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment to deletion request: 95 out of 96 categories in Category:Train stations in Styria are in the German form. Are you sure you want to single that one out and change it to English? I´d rather prefer a regular deletion discussion instead of speedy. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I "choose" this one because not only the "Bahnhof" was German, but also the "Steiermark" disambig part. As a matter of policy category names should be in English (with exceptions), but, yes, it would be better if all train station categories used the same language and naming scheme. FDMS 4 10:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Australia is part of Oceania Alan Liefting (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep because of systematic need: This category was created because of existency both Category:Australia and Oceania (25 wikis) and Category:Oceania (143 wikis) on various wikis. So now can be easily linked correct single category on commons (no need for linking two categories, better for Wikidata linking). JAn Dudík (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think exactness is of far greater importance than a "systematic need". Categories should not exist because of a need for Wikidata linking. Also, this Cfd does not affect Category:Oceania. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem helpful to have a category called something like "A and B", where the only things in the category are the individual categories for each of those two things. In addition, Australia is part of Oceania, so this is similar to having a category named something like "France and Europe". I agree that categories shouldn't exist just to match something on Wikidata. I say delete. Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Argument something like A and B is not good. There exist many categories which merges two different subjects together like Towns AND villages in XYZ or Catles in XY (While castle means both Čeština: hrad a zámekor {{de|Burg und Schloss}).
- Geologically is Australia something else than Oceania, because of political and geographical are oftem connected together d:Q55643 uder name Oceania. 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- With categories for "towns and villages", there usually aren't two separate categories under the main one (that is, a category for towns and a category for villages). The individual towns and villages are listed under the main category. Also, villages, aren't always parts of towns, whereas Australia is part of Oceania, at least as they are defined here.
- My bottom line is this: either Australia is part of Oceania, or it isn't. If it is, it should be included under categories for Oceania, without "Australia" being part of the name. If it isn't, they should be completely separate categories. In neither case do we need a category whose name includes both. There may be political and geographical issues, there needs to be a consistent way of handling it. I believe this project has chosen to treat Australia as part of Oceania, so I favor the former solution. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom & Auntof6. INeverCry 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty and uncategorized, now Category:Est 141.740 → SNCF 1-141.TC.740 → SNCF 3-141.TD.740. I nominate it for deletion (instead of simply setting a category redirect) because a discussion about the general naming system of steam engine categories concerning defunct french rail companies might be in place (see Category:Steam locomotives of the Compagnie des chemins de fer du Nord as an example): To display the numbering changes in the category name, separated by an arrow symbol, leads to awkward names, sorting problems and an increased number of cat redirects. Wouldn´t it be simpler to make single-number-categories and assign several of these categories to an engine that changed its number along its lifetime? Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC) (Pinging User:Iain Bell and User:Altona to make them aware of this) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe someone who speaks Spanish can understand the rationale behind this category and find a suitable categorization - though I doubt it and suggest deleletion. Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Only containing an out-of-scope file. Empty soon. BrightRaven (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's pretty well filled now ... --rimshottalk 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- True. I withdraw my nomination BrightRaven (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- True.
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 22:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Category name seems not to be a widely-used term, nospecific criteria for categorization, cat contains only one picture Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- This would seem to be covered by Category:Tone-mapped HDR images. Most of the images in there, you can tell that they have been tone-mapped, that is, had a wider dynamic range mapped to a smaller one. It's possible to use this technique without it being obvious, for example correcting the exposure of an image, but if you are doing that it ceases to become remarkable. Remapping a very wide range makes all the detail in the image visible, giving it a 'hyper-real' quality, and I guess it counts as a technique. I'd draw an analogy with autotune, in that there are many instances in which you cannot tell it's being used, and it's only by overuse that it becomes noticeable or worth mentioning. So I'd go with Delete, in favour of Category:Tone-mapped HDR images –moogsi (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This person is unknown in France.
He tried to insert an article about a supposed society on french wikipedia project : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNDVS .
It's the reason why I discover he use wikimedia commons as a hosting place for his holidays photos.
WP:NOTHOSTING gpesenti (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
French article MVNDVS was deleted after discussion : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:MVNDVS/Suppression
Isaac Arnault alias user IxAdvisoryTalents was the author of this page. --gpesenti (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This Isaac Arnault, which is contemporary, must not be confused with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617).
This person has no elective functions, no politic funcitons, no diplomatic functions and is really unknown in France.
I think his contributions are to be interpreted as personnal branding.--gpesenti (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Official name is Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH (Hannover Airport). see
- The slash in Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport by year“ don´t looks good.
- I think "International" in the category name is unnecessary.
- And the category name of the city was renamed by a category discussion.
- With Hyphen? (Hannover-Langenhagen). See Category:Berlin Schönefeld Airport by year, Category:Berlin Tegel Airport by year or Category:Berlin Tempelhof Airport by year
--Jean11 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposal
[edit]- Category:Hannover-Langenhagen Airport by year
- Category:Hannover Langenhagen Airport by year
- Category:Hannover Airport by year
- Support the third proposal listed above. The cat should reflect the official name and the name in Wikipedia ie Hannover Airport. However, it is pointless changing the by year cat alone and all other relevant cats should also be changed to using Hannover Airport, ie cat:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport, cat:Aircraft at Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport and all other sub-cats. Ardfern (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Ardfern. Hannover Airport per en:Hannover Airport is probably the best option. ––Apalsola t • c 17:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I had should better start the discussion at the mother cat Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport, should I start again? --Jean11 (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you could just add {{Move}} template to Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport. The discussion could take place on Category talk:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport. If no one objects in two weeks, then a category rename request can be added to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. {{Cfd}} really is not necessary for pure category renames – I think it suits better for discussion changes in category structure on removals. ––Apalsola t • c 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Simple clear category name is useful, 3:0 for a name change in Hannover Airport by year, when the voice of MB-one of here should take 4:0. --Jean11 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Official name is Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen (english: Hannover Airport). see, see also in the english Wikipedia en:Hannover Airport
- The slash in Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport“ don´t looks good.
- I think "International" in the category name is unnecessary.
- And the category name of the city was renamed by a category discussion.
- With Hyphen? (Hannover-Langenhagen). See Category:Berlin Schönefeld Airport by year, Category:Berlin Tegel Airport by year or Category:Berlin Tempelhof Airport by year --Jean11 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposal
[edit]- Category:Hannover-Langenhagen Airport
- Category:Hannover Langenhagen Airport
- Category:Hannover Airport
- Keep it simple. Category:Hannover Airport --MB-one (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fully agree with third proposal Hannover Airport (not least because it is consistent with en Wikipedia) Ardfern (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple clear category name is useful, 3:0 for a name change in Hannover Airport, when the voice of Apalsola of here should take 4:0. --Jean11 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Misuse of a Photographs category. Contents should be merged into Category:Road signs. --ghouston (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Another creation of Jermboy27. INeverCry 07:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll merge it (and its subcategories), since there was no objection. --ghouston (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category include all photos which are currently outside of Category:Views from trains? No, that wouldn't be very useful, therefore redirect to Category:Views from trains. FDMS 4 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion (confusing category names should not be redirects). FDMS 4 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a duplicate category of category:Feodora Gleichen. Looks like a merge required to one or other of the categories. Keith D (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I am not shure, which is the better name. Kersti (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirected by Kersti Nebelsiek in 2014. FDMS 4 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
What's the difference between this category and Category:Historical markers? Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, "Historical information signs" is for information boards only (no plaques, no stone signs, no pointers). --Kaganer (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I kind of suspected that historical markers were largely intended to cover plaques on pedestals, etc., while historical information signs was intended to cover information boards, etc. The problem is twofold:
1. First, the description at the top of Category:Historical markers is so broad that it encompasses all historical signage (including information boards). This presumably could be remedied (subject to comments below). The term "historical marker", however, is itself arguably broad.
2.The name of Category:Historical information signs, in plain language, encompasses all types of historical signs that convey information, including plaques, historical markers, etc. There is nothing in the title which suggests that it is limited to information boards. Confusingly, it is a subcat of Category:Historical markers, suggesting it is a type of historical marker. Arguably it should be the parent category.I am concerned that the terms "historical information signs" and "historical markers" are a bit imprecise (especially the former) and the current organization is muddled. To add to the confusion, we also have Category:Plaques, the contents of which are described as "A [sic] commemorative plaques, or simply plaques, are plates of metal, ceramic, stone, wood, or other material, typically attached to a wall, stone, or other vertical surface, and bearing text in memory of an important figure or event." Not sure what the difference is between a plaque and a historical marker. A historical marker would seem to be a type of plaque, but what other types of plaque exist that wouldn't also be historical markers? The description at Category:Plaques makes clear that it is not intended to cover machine signs (whatever that is), information tablets (the parent cat for Category:Historical information signs) and plaques in biology (good to know). Even though the contents of Category:Plaques are described as commemorative in nature, we also have Category:Commemorative plaques just to add to the fun. Unclear what makes Category:Commemorative plaques different from Category:Plaques.
I'm not saying we should merge all these categories or anything. Just that there is a lot of overlap, and the distinctions between them are less than crystal clear. It would be great to figure out a rationale schema that covers these categories so that someone with a photo of a historical sign has a better idea where it goes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have left notes referring to this discussion on the talk pages of all the categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- We also seem to have a category entitled Category:Historic plaques, the name of which suggests that it should contain files of plaques that themselves have historic value (i.e. really old plaques), but unfortunately the category just duplicates the other categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have left notes referring to this discussion on the talk pages of all the categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I kind of suspected that historical markers were largely intended to cover plaques on pedestals, etc., while historical information signs was intended to cover information boards, etc. The problem is twofold:
- Comment How about making Category:Historical markers and information signs or something? I mean, If there are two cats then visitors will commonly find images in one group split up, such as in File:Covered Bridge, Cedarburg, Wisconsin - sign.JPG and File:Covered Bridge, Cedarburg, Wisconsin - plaque.jpg. Plus, with complicated definitions and the diversity of the objects, users adding cats to images may get it wrong and this will cause an indefinite headache and perpetual mess. Case in point is File:Zhongshan Road sign - 01.jpg. It is at once a board, marker, and information sign. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to merge the categories maybe add a CfD note in Category:Historical markers, wait some months, and execute it. Alternatively, just add an intro in Category:Historical information signs explaining what it's supposed to be. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. We should consolidate these categories: if the purpose of having categories is so that people can find images, then having multiple categories that cover the exact same topic defeats this purpose. I am sure that many editors created categories for their images without first conducting an exhaustive search for extant categories that cover the topic. That means they were careless, and that what they did can be fixed by consolidation and then deletion of the extraneous categories. Is there a way to create a kind of redirect so that no one recreates a deleted category, thinking it doesn't exist and not knowing what else to search for? I am not sure there is, but I do feel that having multiple categories on the exact same topic ("fish that breathe water", "water-breathing fish", "fish requiring water to breathe", "fish of the water-breathing variety") is redundant and not useful. If you are looking for community consensus to take action on this, I think you may consider yourself to have it at this point (and oh, have you ever seen the bridges of Cedarburg?? I have!). KDS4444 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The COM:REDCAT shortcut is about category redirects. In simple cases it can be done manually, just update one parent category A for all files, galleries, and sub-categories of A to a new category B. After that A is empty, delete old CfD note in A (and B), and put {{Category redirect |1=B|reason=...}} in A. Finally close this CfD, ready. –Be..anyone 💩 01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. We should consolidate these categories: if the purpose of having categories is so that people can find images, then having multiple categories that cover the exact same topic defeats this purpose. I am sure that many editors created categories for their images without first conducting an exhaustive search for extant categories that cover the topic. That means they were careless, and that what they did can be fixed by consolidation and then deletion of the extraneous categories. Is there a way to create a kind of redirect so that no one recreates a deleted category, thinking it doesn't exist and not knowing what else to search for? I am not sure there is, but I do feel that having multiple categories on the exact same topic ("fish that breathe water", "water-breathing fish", "fish requiring water to breathe", "fish of the water-breathing variety") is redundant and not useful. If you are looking for community consensus to take action on this, I think you may consider yourself to have it at this point (and oh, have you ever seen the bridges of Cedarburg?? I have!). KDS4444 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to merge the categories maybe add a CfD note in Category:Historical markers, wait some months, and execute it. Alternatively, just add an intro in Category:Historical information signs explaining what it's supposed to be. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Per the above, I've moved and renamed and such and now we have Category:Historical markers and information signs where everything is. We also have two empty cats with blue box redirects Category:Historical markers and Category:Historical information signs. I hope this is all okay. If I've messed things up, please yell at me and I will undo it all per your instructions. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Done by Anna Frodesiak. –Be..anyone 💩 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
We should standardize these subcategories to "Gay Pride" or "LGBT Pride". I'd vote for LGBT as it's more inclusive, but on the other hand the Wikipedia article is w:Gay Pride. Brainy J (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- w:en: is only one of many commons: clients, admittedly the largest. Your suggestion is far better suited. Apparently you have to submit a bulk rename suggestion/request for all affected sub-cats when somebody closed this discussion with a decisive "make it so". –Be..anyone (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Brainy, for me is OK "LGBT Pride" . -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Moving subcategories as per very old consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Unspecific category, should rather be a disambiguation page, but even that seems doubtful Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep, apparently it is de facto a disambiguation category. I don't know how to tag it for this purpose, some variant of {{Catcat}} and an intro, keeping the link to the band. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Converted from de facto disambiguation page to actual disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Photographs by Adam Jones Brainy J (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that Category:Photos by Adam Jones is used by User:Adam63 himself while Category:Photographs by Adam Jones was used by other people uploading stuff from his Flickr stream. Propose to move the contents from the Flickr category to the personal one. --El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- This has been open for a while.... why not ask him? Victuallers (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am happy to see the Flickr category and comments folded into my personal one. Adam Jones
Images moved to Category:Photos by Adam Jones. Category:Photographs by Adam Jones deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The correct spelling seems "Caprona ransonnettii". See en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Caprona_ransonnetti. Jee 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. It is Caprona ransonnetii after Baron v. Ransonnet. - Brya (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Brya: So we need to change to Caprona ransonnetii? Jee 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. It is Caprona ransonnetii after Baron v. Ransonnet. - Brya (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. - Brya (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Guys, we don't rename categories when the name is valid but there is a synonym that is preferred.
- Otherwithe we would rename hundreds evey day.
- My proposal:
- I added a {{SN}} in Category:Caprona ransonnetti
- I Added a {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} in Category:Caprona ransonnetii
- You all provide references for both names in Category:Caprona ransonnetti
- You can modify the SN entries to add commentaries like "(Common mis-spelling)" or "(preferred by Tropicos)"
- Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Liné1: Do I understand correctly that this is all done and we can close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: . Yes, you can close it. I just improved both page to precise which name is preferred and by which sources. Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
All necessary changes made by Liné1. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
_-_WGA25457.jpg){kind=link}
The photos show the same temple of Category:Shiva Mandir, Bhaktapur Stegop (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The monuments have different IDs, which should mean that there are two distinct monuments. Is it possible that some of the files are named / categorized incorrectly? --rimshottalk 09:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Mahadev is a name for Lord Shiva, and Pashupati is an incarnation of Shiva. So also the names suggest that the two categories stand for the same temple. --Till (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The temple in Category:Shiva Mandir, Bhaktapur is not the same temple as in Category:Pashupati Temple, Bhaktapur and in Category:Mahadev Temple. Both categories show the same temple for which there is a third name: Yaksheshvara. This name is used by Dumont Travel Guides and, for example, by http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/nepal_bhaktapur.html which contains a good documentation of Bhaktapur. I suggest to use Category:Yaksheshvara Mandir, Bhaktapur. --Gerd Eichmann (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mahadev is a name for Lord Shiva, and Pashupati is an incarnation of Shiva. So also the names suggest that the two categories stand for the same temple. --Till (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Shiva Mandir, Bhaktapur has since been redirected to Category:Fasidega temple. @Gerd Eichmann, Till.niermann, Rimshot, and Stegop: Does this still need fixing or has the issue been resolved? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: As far as I can see, now each category shows only one temple, so the problem that made me write the comment 3 years ago doesn't exist any more. I can't say if the names of the cats correspond to the temples shown. I wish I could, as that would mean that I knew more about the themes. :-) --Stegop (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- The redirect from Category:Shiva Mandir, Bhaktapur to Category:Fasidega temple is correct. However Category:Mahadev Temple is still a sub-category of Category:Pashupati Temple, Bhaktapur which is not correct, these two refer to the same temple. The comprehensive book Kathmandu Valley. The Preservation of Physical Environment and Cultural Heritage. A Protective Inventory (by the Government of Nepal in Collaboration with UNESCO) gives the Name "Pashupatinath" for this temple. --Till (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Bhaktapur. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Teaching hospitals as University hospitals are not a separate topic. In English WP, they were merged following the discussion en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_27#Category:University_hospitals. Apart from Commons, only Korea now has a two-level category structure, and that only has a small number of members. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Objection, "university hospital" is exactly what I would search, "teaching hospital" is some artificial generalization unsuited for a multilingual project such as c:. Of course the topics are identical, and actually I don't care about the direction of the redirect (U to T, or T to U). –Be..anyone (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that teaching hospitals are always universities, or part of universities. So University hospitals is correctly a subcategory of teaching hospitals. E.g., w:Aberdeen_Royal_Infirmary, has "close links" with a university but doesn't seem to be one. --ghouston (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- This doesn't necessary prevent combining the categories under "Teaching hospitals". An institution can be categorised under Teaching hospitals as well as Universities (or the particular university it's part of) without needing an intersection category, but the name "university hospitals" shouldn't be used since some of them aren't universities. --ghouston (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- But I'm thinking it should be left as it is. Category:University hospitals as a subcategory of Category:University buildings isn't any worse than Category:University libraries or Category:University museums. --ghouston (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- This doesn't necessary prevent combining the categories under "Teaching hospitals". An institution can be categorised under Teaching hospitals as well as Universities (or the particular university it's part of) without needing an intersection category, but the name "university hospitals" shouldn't be used since some of them aren't universities. --ghouston (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- enwiki still has en:List of university hospitals, and discussions on its talk page confirm the idea that university hospitals are as subset of teaching hospitals. Since nobody else has commented here since 2014, I think it's time to close this discussion, and leave the categories unchanged. --ghouston (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Closed as above, no consensus for change. --ghouston (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This category and its subcats are not about ecology. They relate to environment, conservation, and natural history. The contents should be merged to the appropriate categories and the series deleted (unless there are any that are actually relating to ecology but a quick check did not show up any). Alan Liefting (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, in theory we (= not me) could redirect all (existing) "ecology in" to "environment in", and the redirects could stay in "ecology by country". But the terms are no synonyms, and this is no case for any deletions. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alan Liefting and Be..anyone: Closed (stale discussion without consensus) Josh (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:YYYY events in Finland by city
[edit]I request all "YYYY events in Finland by city" categories to be deleted. At the moment, Helsinki is the only city having year-event categories, so "YYYY events in Finland by city" categories are unnecessary and harmful because they just add one more layer of categorization. "YYYY events in Helsinki" categories can be categorized directly under "YYYY events in Finland" instead. Moreover, I don't see year-event categories useful for any other Finnish city since the low number of event categories or images. (Again, having categories with only one or two sub-categories or images in them just makes finding the images harder.)
At the moment such categories are:
- Category:1950 events in Finland by city
- Category:1952 events in Finland by city
- Category:1959 events in Finland by city
- Category:1965 events in Finland by city
- Category:1975 events in Finland by city
- Category:1983 events in Finland by city
- Category:1995 events in Finland by city
- Category:2001 events in Finland by city
- Category:2003 events in Finland by city
- Category:2004 events in Finland by city
- Category:2005 events in Finland by city
- Category:2006 events in Finland by city
- Category:2007 events in Finland by city
- Category:2008 events in Finland by city
- Category:2009 events in Finland by city
- Category:2010 events in Finland by city
- Category:2011 events in Finland by city
- Category:2012 events in Finland by city
- Category:2013 events in Finland by city
- Category:2014 events in Finland by city
––Apalsola t • c 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion relates to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:1950 events in Helsinki. ––Apalsola t • c 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I came to this discussion because of Category:Events in Turku by year. I started adding some categories, but find that the ones thinking there is a need for this category should also take care of its maintenance. After half a year there was only one subcategory (2003). Without this category, the events are easily found as subcategories of Category:Turku in XXXX, via the new category hierarchy they are not found, as they are not added there. --LPfi (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Unnecessary categories, make images more difficult to find. --Jonund (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Apalsola, LPfi, and Jonund: Closed (delete "Category:(Year) events in Finland by city", content to "Category:(Year) events in Finland" and "Category:(City) in (Year)") Josh (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:YYYY events in Helsinki
[edit]I request all pre-2000 "YYYY events in Helsinki" categories to be deleted. At the moment, the number of pictures (or categories) of events in Helsinki – and actually the number of any pictures of Finland – from that time is so low in Commons, that having this kind of categories is harmful because they just make finding images harder.
At the moment such categories are:
- Category:1950 events in Helsinki
- Category:1952 events in Helsinki
- Category:1959 events in Helsinki
- Category:1965 events in Helsinki
- Category:1975 events in Helsinki
- Category:1983 events in Helsinki
- Category:1995 events in Helsinki
This discussion relates to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:1950 events in Finland by city. ––Apalsola t • c 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Apalsola: Closed (no objections; upmerge to "Category:(year) in Helsinki") Josh (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't get the point of this entire category structure. When there's a category "(species name) in zoos", then what kinds of subcategories would you be expecting except, well, various zoo names? I propose simplifying all "(X)" → "(X) in zoos" → "(X) in zoos by zoo name" → "(X) in zoo (Y)" category structures to "(X)" → "(X) in zoos" → "(X) in zoo (Y)". This makes both categorization and navigation easier. darkweasel94 19:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. In which supercategory do you plan to put the categories of the "(X) in zoo (Y)" type ? Teofilo (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- For example, I think Category:Ailuropoda melanoleuca in Schönbrunn zoo should be in Category:Ailuropoda melanoleuca in zoos directly. There's now one extra step in the category structure there that I don't think serves any useful purpose, in most cases at least. darkweasel94 09:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think category:Ursidae in Taipei zoo should not be in Category:Ursidae in zoos directly, and that Category:Ursidae in zoos by zoo name is useful and needed. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that yes, in these family categories it can be useful to separate "by species" from "by zoo". But I don't think it's useful in species categories, there it only leads to more complexity with no navigational benefit. I'm not sure how to get the best of both worlds here without breaking the logical structure, though. darkweasel94 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think category:Ursidae in Taipei zoo should not be in Category:Ursidae in zoos directly, and that Category:Ursidae in zoos by zoo name is useful and needed. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I think the double classification is useful for the higher taxons (mammals, etc...). For the lowest taxon (usually species) there should be only a single classification. I think the "by zoo" thing should be deleted on those lower levels as you are saying. So you have my approval if you need it in case you want to delete or rename categories along that line. Teofilo (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Having worked a lot with the zoo categories, I agree with the idea that "by zoo name" cats be reserved for families and taxonomic levels above only, and discontinued for levels below families. --Pitke (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think "by zoo name"-categories are in most cases not useful for a single species, but there are some exemptions as Category:Elephas maximus in zoos by zoo name, Category:Giraffa camelopardalis in zoos by zoo name Kersti (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 | Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name | Move to/Rename as | Category:Animals by zoo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Josh (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
@Darkweasel94, Teofilo, and Pitke: This works as a meta category for "Category:Animals in (Zoo)" categories. As for what taxon level warrants these types of categories, it is quite simple. If there are sufficient files to warrant a "Category:(Taxon) in (Zoo)" category, then it should be created. If there are several of these for the same taxon, then a "Category:(Taxon) by zoo" meta category should be created to index them. Josh (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I've long thought that "by zoo name" should be replaced by "by zoo". After all, we don't have "Foo by country name" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. This seems perfectly logical and succinct. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Done: renamed to Category:Animals by zoo per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This should be renamed to "Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock", per other examples in Category:Metro rolling stock and because the current title doesn't allow for future categories like "interiors of Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock", as that isn't really a "type". darkweasel94 08:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to get rid of the "U-Bahn" and instead use Metro rolling stock of Vienna. FDMS 4 21:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize that the page title on enwiki is en:Vienna U-Bahn? darkweasel94 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is also Trams in Vienna, Western Railway, … I didn't know you cared so much about en.WP, I personally wouldn't in this case … FDMS 4 08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- As our category names are supposed to be in English, I think enwiki provides good guidance as to what is the English-language name of something. But I don't really care strongly, the important thing is the "rolling stock" instead of "types" part. darkweasel94 09:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- U-Bahn is as German as Straßenbahn or Bahnhof are … FDMS 4 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- … and "Vienna metro" has almost 4 times as many English search results as "Vienna U-Bahn". FDMS 4 15:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel that {{#expr:27500/22300}} = 1.23 is almost 4. But it generally is not a good idea to argue with number of Bing matches (as they are personalized). And at least you should filter away the Vienna metro station in Washington DC and the combination of Vienna U-Bahn and French Vienne Metro. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just … curiousity: How can the amount of search results be personalised? I still get 60,8 k (which is a slight increase compared to Thursday) vs. 14,2 k in "private browsing" … FDMS 4 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel that {{#expr:27500/22300}} = 1.23 is almost 4. But it generally is not a good idea to argue with number of Bing matches (as they are personalized). And at least you should filter away the Vienna metro station in Washington DC and the combination of Vienna U-Bahn and French Vienne Metro. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) There is also another reason to have "U-Bahn", which is that "metro" can just as well refer to the old Wiener Stadtbahn system (indeed, "Stadtbahn" was originally a translation of the French "métropolitain", while "U-Bahn" clearly didn't come from there). The 1986/1987 Freytag & Berndt map of Vienna translates things like this in the legend of its rapid transit map:
- U-Bahn, Underground, Métro, Metropolitana
- Schnellbahn, Rapid Transit, Train de banlieue rapide, Tren rápido
- Regionalbahn, Commuter trains, Train de banlieue, Ferrovia regionale
- Badner Bahn, Local train to Baden, Train local de Baden, Treno locale per Baden
- Stadtbahn, Metropolitan, Métro (vieux), Metropolitana (vecchia)
- The 2014 edition of the same map no longer has French or Italian translations:
- U-Bahn, Underground
- S-Bahn, Rapid train railway
- Regionalbahn, Commuter trains
- Wiener Lokalbahn (Badner Bahn), Suburban railway Vienna-Baden
- City Airport Train (CAT)
- Here we see that "metropolitan" (i.e., metro) was used to refer to the old Stadtbahn system, and "underground" to the U-Bahn system (the French and Italian translations are even more interesting). I'd say "U-Bahn" is a far less ambiguous term; if this becomes "metro rolling stock", then I'm going to categorize Category:Vienna Stadtbahn type N and Category:Vienna Stadtbahn type N1 here, and it can't stay a subcategory of Category:Vienna U-Bahn anymore because "metro rolling stock" clearly must include all Stadtbahn rolling stock. darkweasel94 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't disagree with (in fact even endorse) categorising the Wiener Stadtbahn (en.WP uses this term for whatever reason) / Vienna Stadtbahn (we sometimes use this term) or rather subcategories of it under Metro Vienna (my preferred name would be Metro of Vienna); currenlty we are including media files from (up to) 2008 in a completely seperate category thread for the means of transport which ceased to exist in Vienna in 1989. However, although I wasn't alive back then, I think that while the Stadtbahn ceased to exist, the metro didn't, and much of what would later be called "U-Bahn" by locals was in fact not at all different from the Stadtbahn.
- According to w:Passenger rail terminology#Untergrond and Tube [the] usage of underground is very similar to that of subway, describing an underground train system […], and as there is no underground train system in Vienna Freytag & Berndt is maybe wrong calling the metro/U-Bahn an undergound. FDMS 4 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- As our category names are supposed to be in English, I think enwiki provides good guidance as to what is the English-language name of something. But I don't really care strongly, the important thing is the "rolling stock" instead of "types" part. darkweasel94 09:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is also Trams in Vienna, Western Railway, … I didn't know you cared so much about en.WP, I personally wouldn't in this case … FDMS 4 08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize that the page title on enwiki is en:Vienna U-Bahn? darkweasel94 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support for the original request. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Neutral The additional request by FDMS4 should be discussed together for Nuremburg, Vienna (already ongoing), but also Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg. Maybe the Portal:Bahn can help to provide guidelines. And it is not only the U-Bahn, it is also the S-Bahn and the Stadtbahn that might be subject to greedy Englishifying. IMO all three are proper names derived from standard German expressions. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm paranoid if I believe that amongst contributors to the German Wikipedia there is an above-average number of people who would like to see every category related to DACHLI in German … FDMS 4 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support; if "rolling stock" really is the correct term (somehow I never heard that before) make it so, "types" triggers my DEnglish alarm. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Types" is not a wrong term (the subcategories are Category:Vienna U-Bahn type U1 etc.), but it only refers to the individual types. This is now basically a meta category, but that isn't really the most useful way to organize it. darkweasel94 10:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
| Category:Vienna U-Bahn types | Move to/Rename as | Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Vienna U-Bahn trains with unidentified type | Merge into | Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock | |
 | Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock by type | Create | Wikimedia meta category | |
 | @FDMS4, Darkweasel94, and Be..anyone: Type is not necessarily inappropriate English for Commons categories. However, grouping by type is to be done as a sub-cat of the main category, not replacement for it. In this case Category:Vienna U-Bahn is the main cat for the system, and thus the system should be referred to "Vienna U-Bahn" consistently across Commons categories. All rolling stock can be gathered under Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock, regardless of type. Where specific types are identified, they can be sub-categorized under Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock, and since there are several of these type categories, they can be indexed in a Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock by type meta category. Those without an identified type can simply live under Category:Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock. | |||
| Josh (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
@Joshbaumgartner, Tokfo, FDMS4, Herzi Pinki, and Be..anyone: I agree that the current name Category:Vienna U-Bahn types is very inappropriate and confusing. However, the proposal remains past 6 years unresolved!! Btw., please notice another change. The root category Rolling stock and significant part of its category tree were renamed (merged) meanwhile to Category:Rail vehicles in March 2015. Although Category:Metro rolling stock didn't follow this change yet, we should reflect and implement the change gradually to all metro vehicles categories. Category:Rail vehicles of Vienna U-Bahn can be a convenient systematical name. (The word "rail" can appear as redundant, but a metro system or metro operator can have also various service automobiles, service carts, firefighting trucks etc.).
As regards the proposal to delete (merge) the category Category:Vienna U-Bahn trains with unidentified type – IMHO such categories of unidentified subjects (plants, animals, locations, vehicles) have their sense and should be not merged with their parent categories. Generally, such categories help to distinguish files which were checked (but their subject is not easily identifiable) from new files which were not checked yet, which helps to maintenance the root category. The root category can contain also photos of vehicles which are identified but have not their own subcategory of its type (yet). Somewhere we have such subcategories and somewhere we do not - it is to be considered whether it would be useful in this case.
Category:Rail vehicles of Vienna U-Bahn can have its subcategory Category:Rail vehicles of Vienna U-Bahn by type, as soon as we want apply paralelly some other criteria in the same root category: e.g. Category:Rail vehicles of Vienna U-Bahn by line, or "by color", "by livery", possibly "by operator", "by manufacturer", "by condition", "by motive power" etc., or categories by view (frontal and rear views, side views, interiors, underside views, roof views etc.).
As regards the dilemma between "Metro" and "U-Bahn", IMHO is usefull to respect the local terminology as a "proper name" or "local brand" sui generis. If we should unify something, we need to unify to the term used in the parent category tree (Rapid transit or Rail rapid transit), but that is not able to distinguish between S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems. Regrettably, specific "metro" category tree was once (rashly?) deleted.
In any case, the current completely inappropriate and confusing name should be changed as soon as possible, whatever possible solution is chosen. I try to do it right now. --ŠJů (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Some urgent changes were implemented. The discussion can be closed, or can continue, if somobody want. --ŠJů (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: moot, as the category has been moved. Further discussion should take place at a separate nomination. --✗plicit 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This category is singular instead of plural and German instead of English. I hereby suggest moving it to Metro rolling stock of Nuremberg. FDMS 4 08:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, "U-Bahn" is a proper name widely used in English for systems with that name. There is no problem at all in having that word in category names. darkweasel94 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we try to harmonize category names locally (on Commons), and its parent category is called Metro rolling stock, not U-Bahn rolling stock. While I doubt "U-Bahn" is a proper English word "tramway" definitely is, and we do not encourage using it in category names on Commons either. FDMS 4 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't even really possible to harmonize that, given how many names are in use even in English-speaking countries: metro, subway, underground, and our root category is actually called rapid transit. darkweasel94 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess "metro" is the preferred one (on Commons, not on en.WP as far as I know) as it's a redirect and explicitely mentioned on Category:Rapid transit. FDMS 4 13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't even really possible to harmonize that, given how many names are in use even in English-speaking countries: metro, subway, underground, and our root category is actually called rapid transit. darkweasel94 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we try to harmonize category names locally (on Commons), and its parent category is called Metro rolling stock, not U-Bahn rolling stock. While I doubt "U-Bahn" is a proper English word "tramway" definitely is, and we do not encourage using it in category names on Commons either. FDMS 4 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- 55 files with 4 subcategories using a dubious "U-Bahn train type" in their name. If Vienna gets rolling stock Nuremberg can also get it, and while at it "Nürnberg" could be fixed in the 1+4 category names. "U-Bahn train" sound like "auto car", drop the "train". –Be..anyone (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
| Category:U-Bahn train (Nürnberg) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Nuremburg U-Bahn rolling stock | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:U-Bahn train type A (Nürnberg) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Nuremburg U-Bahn type A | |
| @FDMS4, Darkweasel94, and Be..anyone:
| |||
| Josh (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Not done: no consensus for any possible rename. --✗plicit 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Dupe to Category:Graphics by book. Should be merged, I don't know in which direction. Danny lost (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Work" is not the same as "book", since it includes magazines, for example. Also Illustrations is not the same as Graphics. So they aren't dupes. However I'm thinking that perhaps this category should be renamed to "Images by work" and then Category:Illustrations also redirected to that. As far as I can see, "illustrations" are just images associated with a particular work. --ghouston (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The vast majority of these, however, are illustrations from books (or, in many cases, simply books with illustrations). @Ghouston: I'm not clear on how book graphics are different than book illustrations. Can you explain? Anyway, I'm not necessarily opposed to moving to Category:Images by work but we need to account for Category:Book illustrations somehow. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose what I meant was that illustrations are images / graphics that are used to illustrate something, so they are a subset of images. We could have "Images by work" and subcategories like Images by book, Images by magazine, and Images by newspaper. I don't think categories are needed for "graphics" and "illustrations". --ghouston (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe "Images from books" is better than "Images by book". --ghouston (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which could be a subcategory of Category:Images by source. --ghouston (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which already exists anyway: Category:Images from books. --ghouston (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to get very confused looking at all these categories. One thing that I've forgotten above is that "image" is a very general term, and includes, apart from drawings, photos etc., also symbols, including letters. A scan of a page of text is also an image. The illustrations of a book separate the drawings, photos, diagrams etc., from the text in a way that "images" can not. --ghouston (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority of these, however, are illustrations from books (or, in many cases, simply books with illustrations). @Ghouston: I'm not clear on how book graphics are different than book illustrations. Can you explain? Anyway, I'm not necessarily opposed to moving to Category:Images by work but we need to account for Category:Book illustrations somehow. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: All very good points. Thanks for your response. Do you think we should organize things something like this?
- Category:Images
- Category:Illustrations
- Category:Illustrations by source or Category:Illustrations by source type
Category:Illustrations from booksCategory:Book illustrations
- Category:Illustrations by source or Category:Illustrations by source type
- Category:Images by source
- Category:Illustrations by source
Category:Illustrations from booksCategory:Book illustrations- Individual illustrations from books
Category:Illustrations by bookCategory:Illustrations from books by title
- Category:Illustrations by source
- Category:Illustrations
- Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, although I think I'd skip Illustrations by source (at least initially) and leave "Illustrations from books" in Illustrations. I guess there won't be many types of sources, and all illustrations should go in one of them (since if it doesn't come from some larger work, it's not really an illustration). Also Category:Book illustrations already exists, as mentioned above, it could be renamed if desired. Illustrations could then also be moved from Category:Images from books and Category:Graphics by book to Book illustrations. I suppose Images from books is needed in some form, as a parent category for "book illustrations" and for the book page scans that aren't illustrations, although that name may be confusing. Maybe something like "book digitizations", since "scans" can be made with a camera too. --ghouston (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think a lot of the subcats need to be removed, leaving only the ones named "Illustrations from...". If any not named that way really contain only illustrations, they could be renamed. Some of the current cats have files that are not illustrations from their respective books. For example, this file and other djvu filez, and this audio file (one of many in its cat). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Illustration from books despite being perfect it is not standard. To simplify the use and maintenance of categories we use a restricted language and thus we use by whenever is almost acceptable. For istance category:people by country, category:paintings by medium not category:paintings media. For your adknowegment an illustration is a picture that explains the content of a book and generally made specially for the book; this happened in old times when didn't still esist photos. We have also the category:illustrators. So if a book was about ships, a drawing with the ship parts was an illustration. If a books was about Michelangelo, a picture of a painting was likely not an illustration because was the book problably explaining the picture and not viceveresa. Of course is not a cutting-edge classification. Usually an illustration is an engravings or a print. The noun illustration came from latin verb illustrare. It's perfect translation is to enlighten. So an llistration is a enlightening picture--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pierpao: Category:Illustrations from books could include single files. Category:Illustrations by book could be a subcategory/metacategory for categories of illustrations from specific books (e.g. Category:Illustrations from The Begum's Fortune by Léon Benett. I'll add that to the proposal above. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Illustration from books despite being perfect it is not standard. To simplify the use and maintenance of categories we use a restricted language and thus we use by whenever is almost acceptable. For istance category:people by country, category:paintings by medium not category:paintings media. For your adknowegment an illustration is a picture that explains the content of a book and generally made specially for the book; this happened in old times when didn't still esist photos. We have also the category:illustrators. So if a book was about ships, a drawing with the ship parts was an illustration. If a books was about Michelangelo, a picture of a painting was likely not an illustration because was the book problably explaining the picture and not viceveresa. Of course is not a cutting-edge classification. Usually an illustration is an engravings or a print. The noun illustration came from latin verb illustrare. It's perfect translation is to enlighten. So an llistration is a enlightening picture--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note the discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Graphics and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Engraved illustrations of people. These discussions are somewhat related to this one. Josh (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've just deleted Category:Graphics by book, since it was a strange mix. I moved things to Category:Illustrations from books by title to be clearer. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Danny lost, Ghouston, and Themightyquill: Since the original duplication no longer exists, can we close this now? Josh (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fine with me. --ghouston (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Danny lost, Ghouston, and Themightyquill: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The subcategories under each letter are named in Russian instead of English (e.g., Category:И буква, Category:И звук and Category:И слова under Category:И). This would appear to run counter to our category-naming policy, and makes the category difficult to use for anyone who does not already read Russian. Accordingly, I suggest that all of these subcategories be renamed.
Note that: ("X" here is a placeholder for each Russian letter)
- "X буква" = "X letter", so rename to "Russian letter X" or "X (Russian letter)" or…?
- "X звук" = "X sound", so rename to somehow use the English word "sound" or "pronunciation"
- "X слова" = "X words", so rename to somehow use the English word "words"
I'm not sure what conventions we should use here, since there seems to be no agreement in such matters across different alphabets — based on a quick spot-check, anyway. Opinions? Can someone point to relevant guidelines, discussions, or an example of a similar category "done right"? - dcljr (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, use the names from Unicode or from the Wikipedia articles about the letters. As for the sounds, there is a tradition among Russists to transcribe them with a Latin-based Czech-like alphabet, if you need some transcriptions for the sounds. Perhaps, you can see such transcriptions in linguistic academic articles on Russian, for example, the ones from the FASL conferences (Formal approaches to Slavic languages).--Imz (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Dcljr and Imz: The letter categories themselves are fine, it is the sub-cats under them which are an issue. The contents of them are almost exclusively audio files with pronunciation of Russian words, syllables, and letter sounds. The should be grouped in each letter something like:
- Josh (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the category structure under Category:Russian alphabet has changed quite a bit since I first made my proposal, but (to state this explicitly) many of the Russian-named categories I was talking about still exist — they're now just "buried" as subcategories of subcategories of Category:Russian letters by letter (itself a subcategory of Category:Russian alphabet). I have no objection to the kind of renaming/refactoring that Josh suggests, but I do object to using English letters (in the Latin script) in the category names as opposed to Russian ones (in the Cyrillic script). For example, the subcats about the Russian letter Б are now found under Category:Russian letter B (that's a Latin capital B) whereas the subcats about the Russian letter В (Cyrillic В) are under Category:Russian letter V (Latin V). This seems, well, stupid to me — but unfortunately it does seem to adhere to the relevant policy (see the sentence starting with "Latin alphabets…"). The way I would do it, the "Russian letter" categories would use Cyrillic for the letters themselves but otherwise be in English: Category:Russian letter Б and Category:Russian letter В. But I guess that's not how we do things. (As a result of this, I think I might have to bow out of this discussion, since anything that results from it that is in accord with our policies will presumably be something I don't agree with.) - dcljr (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dcljr: I agree, and I am not sure why this is done. I personally would prefer that we use, as you suggest, Category:Russian letter Б, but as you state that probably takes changing policy at a higher level. Be sure to let me know if such a discussion is launched, I will gladly contribute. Josh (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: See Commons talk:Categories#Clarification about non-Latin alphabets. - dcljr (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any opposition to changing to Category:Russian letter Б, etc. I suggest the following changes: Josh (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: See Commons talk:Categories#Clarification about non-Latin alphabets. - dcljr (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dcljr: Above is what I make of using proper Cyrillic letters in place of transliterations. Not being a Russian expert, let me know if you see any errors. If there are no objections, I can close this CfD and implement the proposal. Josh (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, either. (In fact, I don't even "know" Cyrillic, much less any language that uses it as its script.) But one problem I've noticed: it looks like the Russian letters in your table that have the same form as Latin letters are, indeed, Latin characters instead of Cyrillic characters. For example, all the letters in the first row of the table that look like capital A are Latin A characters, and none of them are Cyrillic А characters. And all of the letters in the 6th row that look like capital E are Latin E characters; none of them are Cyrillic Е characters. And so forth. (Apart from that, I didn't notice any obvious mistakes.) - dcljr (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Dcljr: Thanks for that good input, I've modified the table above to fix the issue by swapping in Cyrillic letters for their Latin lookalikes. Josh (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, either. (In fact, I don't even "know" Cyrillic, much less any language that uses it as its script.) But one problem I've noticed: it looks like the Russian letters in your table that have the same form as Latin letters are, indeed, Latin characters instead of Cyrillic characters. For example, all the letters in the first row of the table that look like capital A are Latin A characters, and none of them are Cyrillic А characters. And all of the letters in the 6th row that look like capital E are Latin E characters; none of them are Cyrillic Е characters. And so forth. (Apart from that, I didn't notice any obvious mistakes.) - dcljr (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dcljr and Imz: Closed (rename per table above) Josh (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Meaningless name. If the mountain is not identified, then the photos should go to the generic category Category:Langtang Stegop (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment
Images in this category have an ID placed on them:|
|
This is a photo of a natural site in Nepal identified by the ID NP-RAS-04
|
Before I categorized this natural site in Nepal identified by a specific ID, these 34 images were in with many other images in a very large general category, most images with no ID. The ID
|
|
This is a photo of a natural site in Nepal identified by the ID NP-RAS-04
|
now is placed in Category:Langtang in a way that includes categories and images that have no IDs. What is the point of the use of the ID's if they are used in a way that helps identify them and the images mixed in with other images and categories with no IDs? The category Category:Langtang is massive with images mostly lacking the known IDs. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- ID NP-RAS-04 stands for what? Is it not the Langtang Range? Or probably the Langtang National Park, which is perhaps another redundant category. Anyway, if the ID doesn't apply to all the range, how can we trust that an unidentified mountain belongs to the classified site? --Stegop (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to en:Draft:List of Natural Monuments in Rasuwa (which has no references), NP-RAS-04 refers to "Langtang" but doesn't specify what it is. Langtang National Park has its own ID, NP-RAS-06. So I'm not sure what Langtang refers to in this case. The nearby village of en:Langtang, Bagmati (destroyed in 2015) is an unlikely candidate for a natural monument. There are at least two peaks with Langtang in the name (en:Langtang Lirung & en:Langtang Ri) so it might refer to those, or to the larger region of en:Langtang that contains Langtang National Park. Perhaps Nabin K. Sapkota can help? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Parabolooidal, Stegop, and Themightyquill: That draft article has since been deleted. The IDs are something to do with the Wiki Loves Earth competitions, but I can't find a list of IDs with what they are referencing. Does anyone know of where such a listing can be found? Josh (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- According to en:Draft:List of Natural Monuments in Rasuwa (which has no references), NP-RAS-04 refers to "Langtang" but doesn't specify what it is. Langtang National Park has its own ID, NP-RAS-06. So I'm not sure what Langtang refers to in this case. The nearby village of en:Langtang, Bagmati (destroyed in 2015) is an unlikely candidate for a natural monument. There are at least two peaks with Langtang in the name (en:Langtang Lirung & en:Langtang Ri) so it might refer to those, or to the larger region of en:Langtang that contains Langtang National Park. Perhaps Nabin K. Sapkota can help? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Parabolooidal, Stegop, and Themightyquill: I can't find any differentiation between the two. Any objection to an upmerge at this point? Josh (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No opposition from me. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Parabolooidal, Stegop, and Themightyquill: Closed (no objection to upmerge) Josh (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there any real difference between Category:Pashupatinath and Category:Pashupatinath temple? Isn't Pashupatinath a temple complex? Put another way: what images will be in a category that aern't relevant to the other also? Stegop (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment According to Pashupatinath, the word may refer to Shree Pashupatinath (the Hindu God), Pashupatinath Temple (in Kathmandu, the holiest place in Nepal and the temple of the most revered God of Nepal), or Pashupatinath temple, Mandsaur (a temple in India) Perhaps looking at what's in each category is helpful. Looking at Category:Pashupatinath, there are images that aren't clearly, or primarily, the temple, examples:
- File:Jay boom boom.jpg
- File:Door way to heaven - Flickr - askmeaks.jpg (According to the upload this is from Pune, India.)
- File:Tibet & Nepal (5162497709).jpg
- File:Tibet & Nepal (5162496079).jpg
- File:Tibet & Nepal (5162502867).jpg
- File:Tibet & Nepal (5163109366).jpg
- File:Tibet & Nepal (5162500701).jpg
- File:Shivaling - Flickr - askmeaks.jpg (which is also in Category:Mukhalinga that includes an image from Pashupatinath Temple, Mandsaur, a temple in India.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I think more thought should be put into what goes in which specific categories. My view is that the categories should be cleaner and more specific as to content so the viewer has some guidance, such as putting the temple's ghats into a subcategory. I don't think large, indiscriminate categories are helpful. Is the proposal to put all these into one category? i.e. merge Category:Pashupatinath and its subcategories (Category:Cremations in Pashupatinath, Category:Sadhus in Pashupatinath,etc.) with Category:Pashupatinath temple? Or visa versa? Or some third category? Parabolooidal (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- So the wiser to do is transform Category:Pashupatinath and Category:Pashupatinath temple in a disambiguation, not keeping 2 o 3 categories with images from the same things. --Stegop (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a disambiguation is the way to go, personally. My way would be to clean the categories so that what is in each one really belongs. It's informative to see the way other countries handle categorization. India has many small and specific categories e.g. for topics like temples, so that everything in a category belongs there. And there are many cross-categories. Look at Category:Cave temples in India for example. Or Category:Temples in India. Or Category:Temple tanks in Karnataka, etc. There aren't huge vague categories with hundreds of questionable images. It's all very carefully categorized and many ways to access a particular interest, like "temple tanks" in wherever. Or look at Category:Badami Cave Temples. See how finely categorized everything is? Or another cross-category like Category:Temple tanks in India. There, the viewer can see that there is an attempt to correctly categorize the images to overcome having huge, vague categories. Or another huge example Category:Death Valley National Park. There the viewer can be sure that the categories that exist are accurate. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you suggest to do. The fact is that now we have photos in Category:Pashupatinath that could well be in Category:Pashupatinath temple and the former is categorized as a place in Kathmandu, so it doesn't make sense having them separated, at least with those ambiguous names. --Stegop (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a disambiguation is the way to go, personally. My way would be to clean the categories so that what is in each one really belongs. It's informative to see the way other countries handle categorization. India has many small and specific categories e.g. for topics like temples, so that everything in a category belongs there. And there are many cross-categories. Look at Category:Cave temples in India for example. Or Category:Temples in India. Or Category:Temple tanks in Karnataka, etc. There aren't huge vague categories with hundreds of questionable images. It's all very carefully categorized and many ways to access a particular interest, like "temple tanks" in wherever. Or look at Category:Badami Cave Temples. See how finely categorized everything is? Or another cross-category like Category:Temple tanks in India. There, the viewer can see that there is an attempt to correctly categorize the images to overcome having huge, vague categories. Or another huge example Category:Death Valley National Park. There the viewer can be sure that the categories that exist are accurate. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- My suggestion: Category:Pashupatinath temple might contain pictures of the main Shiva temple in Pashupatinath area for which the category Category:Pashupatinath could be used. A lot of pictures in both categories are misplaced. I'm ready to purge these categories when I am back from my next stay in Nepal. --Gerd Eichmann (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bon voyage! gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- To avoid confusion it might be useful to rename Category:Pashupatinath to something like Category:Pashupatinath (area) which could be placed under Category :Neighbourhoods in Kathmandu Christopher Fynn (talk)) 08:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Bon voyage! gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Given that Pashupatinath refers to both a god, a temple, and a temple complex, I think Category:Pashupatinath should be disambiguated. Given that we have Category:Pashupatinath temple (Kathmandu), Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Mandsaur, and Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Bhaktapur, I think Category:Pashupatinath temple should also be disambiguated. I therefore suggest:
Pashupatinath may refer to
- an incarnation of Category:Shiva
- the Category:Pashupatinath temple complex, Kathmandu (containing numerous temples)
- the Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Bhaktapur, a recreation of the temple in Kathmandu
- the Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Mandsaur
Pashupatinath temple may refer to
- the Category:Pashupatinath temple complex, Kathmandu (containing numerous temples)
- the Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Bhaktapur, a recreation of the temple in Kathmandu
- the Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Mandsaur
- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wandering into this area without specific knowledge, I agree some kind of disambiguation is called for; the current situation is confusing and inconsistent. The above seems sensible to me although ISTM the Kathmandu temple category (but not that for the complex) should be capitalized to Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu (assuming that’s its proper name).
- That said, I’m not sure Pashupatinath itself needs disambiguation; although we don’t seem to have any category for this god-form or avatar (at least not under Shiva) it appears to be a grammatical form of the usual name Pashupati. So my support for the first disambiguation page is weaker than for the second: I’d rather create Pashupati (of whom we likely have a number of images already) including a see-also link to the temple disambiguation page, to which Pashupatinath would also redirect. (See-alsos among the three temple cats could also be useful.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- The temple complex should be named Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu. The name "Pahupatinath Temple" applies to the entire complex, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. While one might normally expect a 'temple' to be a singular structure, in this case it really is the entire complex. There are other temples that reside within it, but "Pashupatinath Temple" is the correct proper noun for the complex. Josh (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Any thoughts on comments above by Odysseus1479 and myself? It sounds like with minor tweaking, we can adopt your proposal if you don't object. Josh (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- The temple complex should be named Category:Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu. The name "Pahupatinath Temple" applies to the entire complex, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. While one might normally expect a 'temple' to be a singular structure, in this case it really is the entire complex. There are other temples that reside within it, but "Pashupatinath Temple" is the correct proper noun for the complex. Josh (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'll happily defer to those with more knowledge on this one. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Odysseus1479, Gerd Eichmann, Cfynn, and Frank C. Müller: Closed Josh (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)