Commons:categories for discussion/Archive/2015/03
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 March 2015
what does50 g stand for in measurements 67.239.165.4 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed – out of the CFD procedure's scope. FDMS 4 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Spelling mistake - please delete this category Ldorfman (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, badly named duplicate of Category:Cinemall (Lev HaMifratz Mall). --rimshottalk 11:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Spelling mistake - please delete this category Ldorfman (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, badly named duplicate of Category:Cinemall (Lev HaMifratz Mall). --rimshottalk 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a mistake in the category's name - there's a ".jpg" at the end. A new category without the "jog" was created and replaces this one. Ldorfman (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion per CSD G1. FDMS 4 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
empty category, it has no files sice one year after the category was created, it must be deleted!! Duque Santiago (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion as empty category; also incorrectly named. FDMS 4 18:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
need to be removed due to incorrect name; Canon EOS 5DS R was created, images was moved Maksim Sidorov 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Last part of that problem solved with a deletion by Krd yesterday. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
need to be removed due to incorrect name; Canon EOS 5DS was created, images was moved Maksim Sidorov 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Last part of that problem solved with a deletion by Krd yesterday. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No longer needed. The former content was completly moved to the Category:Old pharmaceutical containers. Both contained different images, but collected the same content: historical pharmaceutical jars. I don't know how to establish an transfer link, so I propose the deletion. Greetings, Koffeeinist Koffeeinist (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, the template for that is {{{category redirect}}}, I will do it. - Olybrius (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, was late yesterday. --Koffeeinist (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Old pharmaceutical containers. --rimshottalk 23:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
woman show body 92.16.37.60 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- The category might be useless, but there's no "woman show body" at the moment, and even if it were the place to fix it would be the "woman show body" page, not the category. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the category does have a use. It is to categorise all of the 20th century gallery pages by year. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- The deletion rationale does not make sense. Is this nomination a bad faith edit? Alan Liefting (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- We can AGF and consider it a test or accident of some kind. At any rate there doesn’t seem to be anything to discuss; if there’s a genuine concern, 92.16.37.60 has certainly failed to articulate it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Obviously a COM:CFD thread opened by mistake or vandal. Must be closed as soon as possible. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Next time maybe just make it so. I couldn't, a close with no reply at all would be rude, and as Odysseus1479 said, we're supposed to try AGF even if we don't believe it. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing done, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a user category. It should be either deleted or renamed to include "User" in the page name. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Assolutamente no sul personale. Se deve subire modifiche, cancellazioni o altre cose amministrative che si proceda pure, fondamentalmente sono un'occasionale utente traduttore e niente di più quanto lo stesso progetto. In ogni modo grazie per avermi avvisato. GseSro (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- "GseSro" appears to be a user name rather than a subject that belongs amongst Commons content. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, is a category that have my username. What do you do with it, to leave, rename or third option? GseSro (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- "GseSro" appears to be a user name rather than a subject that belongs amongst Commons content. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look at Category:User categories. In your case I would suggest a category name such as Category:Files uploaded by GseSro. I don't know if there is policy on this matter but you should at the very least follow the convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly I can not advise Alan! Think you what is more correct. If the category remains available, is possible that it will have other images of passage. GseSro (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look at Category:User categories. In your case I would suggest a category name such as Category:Files uploaded by GseSro. I don't know if there is policy on this matter but you should at the very least follow the convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am having trouble with understanding you English and I cannot write in Spanish. You are able to set up any number of categories for you use such as Category:Files uploaded by GseSro to be checked, Category:Files by GseSro, etc. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- @GseSro: , please pick a clearer name, Alan's suggestion category:uploads by GseSro sounds good. Admittedly it's not very likely that Commons ever needs category:GseSro for a better "official" (non-user) purpose, but a general rules "uploads by"/"photos by"/... would work, while personal exceptions could at least in theory get in silly naming conflicts. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Listen to the advice of Alan. If useful I can make and work with Category:Files by GseSro: Files by GseSro such as subcategory it contains temporary files that I can categorize. GseSro (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Done by User:GseSro, closed as {{bad name|Files by GseSro}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
synonym of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kumamoto_Castle_Keep_Tower Michael D. Gunther (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- 'Kumamoto_Castle_Keep_Tower' and 'Kumamoto_Castle_Uto Turret' are two different buildings. It is not synonym. --掬茶 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Michael D. Gunther (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be deleted as a duplicate. The category duplicates Category:Squadron emblems of United States Air Force airlift squadrons (small s) and is currently empty. Lineagegeek (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 14:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
empty (I have to type more than one word) Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
One is sufficient: {{Emptypage}}. FDMS 4 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion relevant to this category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Victoria streets in order to keep the discussion at the same location please can those interested comment there Oxyman (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed: CFD template amended, no need for a second discussion page. FDMS 4 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, would be best located in a category for Oklahoma. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sure delete, in my understanding a temporary category for handeling and categorizing a batch upload. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, to be deleted. Pikador (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
mispelled category, correct spelling is pulverulentus Esculapio (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, unlikely to be used: The two pictures in en:I (soundtrack) are saved locally at EN-Wikipedia under a non-free image rationale. Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, unreleased, copyrighted game unlikely to have associated free use media czar ⨹ 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
All files have been moved here from Category:Viedma Glacier a week ago and the former category redirects here. All other subcats in Category:Glaciers of Chile are in the English form, so I´d rather revert this and delete the new category (or redirect it to the old one). Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why not Viedma glacier? FDMS 4 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That´s what I meant to say :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved. FDMS 4 11:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A sole city in Ananiv Raion. No reason for the specific category --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A sole city in Artsyz Raion. No reason for the specific category --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A sole city in Balta Raion. No reason for the specific category --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no St Luke's Church in Gedney. Motacilla (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Info: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:St Luke's Church, Gedney (stained glass) now redirects here, please apply consensus reached in this CFD to the subcategory as well. FDMS 4 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
move back to Category:National Library of Greece per common and official name; merge in superfluous Category:National libraries of Greece as there is only one. PanchoS (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support Wikimandia (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved and merged to Category:National Library of Greece, as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Category is empty and has been blanked by a contributor without giving a reason - but afaik "former" categories are unusual at Commons, so deletion seems consequential (didn´t want to nominate it for speededelete as it might not be uncontroversial) Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I blanked this category because there isn't similar categories for other soccer/football clubs on Commons, because it seems useless and, above all, because it needs too much (useless) updates. Buff (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Category is being redirected to an empty page. If the category is to be renamed, it should be to Edificios en la Carrera Décima as most users of the page will probably be Spanish speakers. Otherwise the redirect should be removed. mrtony77 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Categories on Commons should generally always be in English, see COM:LP. FDMS 4 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
to be deleted (typo) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
to be deleted (typo) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry: I created this category in error. There is no SS Simon & Jude church in Oadby. Please will you delete it? Motacilla (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
New category more appropriated Category:Casino of Challes-les-Eaux Lev. Anthony (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Misspelled category title. --CeeGee (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- FYI @CeeGee: for typos etc, you don't have to do a discussion. I tagged the category as speedy delete. Wikimandia (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I created this category by mistake. There is no St James the Great church in Old Glossop. Please will you delete it? Thanks. Motacilla (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Not needed - please delete. The category is empty as all the files are in Category:Maya Buskila Ldorfman (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please delete, Set up by mistake, Tesseract Schleigel Diagram exists and is the appropriate one I wanted Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
есть предложение для производителей сотовых телефонов 5.44.40.221 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, seems like a sensible (and well-used) category, there's no obvious reason to delete it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept, per Mike Peel. --rimshottalk 22:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
the intersection of the 21st century and skills is not a defining characteristic. Also, it does not have a matching series of categories to go with it. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a relatively new concept in the world of education and employment, I linked the article in Hebrew (because my English is not good enough to open a corresponding article in English). For those who want to understand more I add this link - hope it will answer the question. Chenspec (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be too ill defined a subject to warrant a category.We should wait until the subject matures (if ever) before creating a category for it. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with Alan here. I don't see any sign this is a sufficiently widely-accepted concept to merit a category of its own. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know what's going on in other countries, but in Israel it appears in the official publications of the Ministry of Education. So I think this category is important. There is a link in Hebrew, you can do a Google translation and get a general impression. Chenspec (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Categorising the files in Category:Education in Israel or suchlike should be sufficient. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is misleading because it is not a concept unique to Israel. For example, look at what Google found Chenspec (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Categorising the files in Category:Education in Israel or suchlike should be sufficient. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep but change to: Category:21st-century skills. If the U.S. Dept of Education classifies "21st-century skills" as a "global imperative" then it's definitely notable and not specific to Israel. Wikimandia (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept and moved to Category:21st-century skills, as per Chenspec. --rimshottalk 22:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Löschantrag - Begründung: sinnlose Bezeichnung, habe alle Dateien, die hier aufgelistet waren in andere Kategorien einsortiert. Schofför (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
{{badname|Bundesstraße 314}} per nom & COM:REDCAT. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Empty category with an inappropriate name. There are many towns called "Hofstetten"; this one wants to be about a Bavarian one, its supercategory about a Swiss one. Momotaro (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Hofstetten. FDMS 4 15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Ambiguous name, hereby proposing to move contents to Hofstetten (Zürich) and make this page a disambiguation page. FDMS 4 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oder wie in der Schweiz üblich mit dem entsprechenden Kantonskürzel versehen (Zusatz normalerweise ohne Klammer) → Hofstetten ZH vgl. Artikel der deutschsprachigen Wiki Hofstetten ZH oder Hofstetten (ZH), Artikel im Historischen Lexikon der Schweiz (hier untypischerweise mit Klammer). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wird ZH auch auf Englisch verwendet? FDMS 4 15:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Die en-Wiki verwendet Hofstetten, Zürich wie auch die war-Wiki (total 2x), als-, de- und eo-Wiki Hofstetten ZH (als 3x), lmo-Wiki Hofstetten (ZH) (nur 1x), die anderen Sprachwikis verwenden Hofstetten bei Elgg (total 11x). Letzteres ist eine früher übliche, nicht amtliche Bezeichnung der Gemeinde (vgl. auch de:Hofstetten). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unterdessen ist die Kategorie nach Category:Hofstetten, Zürich verschoben worden, obwohl diese Schreibweise in anderen Sprachwikis nur 2x verwendet wird. Eine Unterkategorie ist übrigens Category:Timber framing in Hofstetten ZH. --Schofför (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Die en-Wiki verwendet Hofstetten, Zürich wie auch die war-Wiki (total 2x), als-, de- und eo-Wiki Hofstetten ZH (als 3x), lmo-Wiki Hofstetten (ZH) (nur 1x), die anderen Sprachwikis verwenden Hofstetten bei Elgg (total 11x). Letzteres ist eine früher übliche, nicht amtliche Bezeichnung der Gemeinde (vgl. auch de:Hofstetten). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wird ZH auch auf Englisch verwendet? FDMS 4 15:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Momotaro: please close this CFD based on Special:Diff/154175182, and check COM:DL + COM:REDCAT, IMO these procedures are not really designed to bypass a concurrent CFD. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone can close CFDs once consensus has been reached – unlike deletions, category moves can be reverted. "Bypassing" a CFD, as Be..anyone puts it, is indeed a no-go. FDMS 4 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Be..anyone: : Es tut mir leid, mir ist wirklich nicht klar, was du genau möchtest, dass ich tue; ich bin mit dem Jargon und den Vorgehensweisen hier nicht so vertraut … I hatte einen Tag vorher einen anderen CFD gestartet, nicht diesen hier. Danach habe ich die Verschiebung von Category:Hofstetten nach Category:Hofstetten, Zürich durch einen Bot beantragt, also bevor es diese Diskussion hier überhaupt gab - ich wollte sie also nicht umgehen! Es tut mir leid, wenn ich nicht der richtigen Prozedur gefolgt bin.
- Schliesslich habe ich auch COM:REDCAT angeschaut, aber nichts gefunden, was der Situation hier wirklich entsprechen würde. --Momotaro (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ja, 18. März war vor dem 19. März, die Prozedur ist wohl nicht narrensicher, auf Deiner Seite gab es nichts zu sehen, und auf der Seite hier gab es auch nichts zu sehen — unbearbeitete Bot-Jobs prüfen habe ich jedenfalls nicht auf dem Zettel, FDMS4 offenbar auch nicht. Also kann das hier nun geschlossen werden, wegen im Prinzip erledigt, bevor der CFD gestartet wurde? –Be..anyone (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- As per the discussion above, the category had already been moved, unknowingly, parallel to the opening of the discussion. What remains is the question of what to do with the redirect left behind. I Support the nomination and propose a disambiguation with at least the following categories:
- --rimshottalk 18:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguated, as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
日本語で失礼します。このカテゴリー名について、Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categoriesに基づく改名をされているのですが、不適当な部分が多いと思い、再度の改名提案を行いたいと思います。
以下は、マツダが公式に発行した東洋工業五十年史〈沿革編 1920-1970〉に記載されている形式名とグレード名です。
形式名称 | グレード |
---|---|
SSA | ファミリア4ドアST,ファミリア2ドアST,ファミリア4ドア |
SPA | ファミリア1000 4ドアST,ファミリア1000 2ドアST |
MPA | ファミリアクーペ |
MSAP | ファミリアワゴン |
BSAVD | ファミリアバン |
BSBVD | ファミリアバンオートクラッチ |
BPAV | ファミリア1000バン |
BSA55 | ファミリアトラック |
BPA55 | ファミリア1000トラック |
(ja:マツダ・ファミリア 2015年3月1日 (日) 12:21(UTC) Taisyo版より。全て自らの執筆部分)
と、「FA1」の形式名が見当たらないのに、カテゴリー名はそうなっている。日本人から見たら不思議な状態になっています。日本では形式名で呼ぶのは一般的ではなく、「初代」・・・のような感じで呼ぶことが多いように思います(ファンが多い車種では形式名で呼ぶこともありますが)。日本人の目から見たら「解りにくいし、形式名も合っていない」理解できない名称になっています。特に、マツダは対米輸出を1970年以降に開始している関係上、米国式の型式も無いように思います。
「FA1」にこだわりたいのであれば、その理由を知りたいですし、もし無いのであればCommons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categoriesの第二項のCategory:Mazda Familia (first generation)など、日本人から見て整合性があるカテゴリー名に変更して欲しいと思います。
少なくとも、コモンズは世界共通で運用していますので、このカテゴリーは特に日本に特化した形で成立していると思いますので、日本固有の事項に関しては日本の事情を最大限考慮して欲しいと思います。--Taisyo (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support: rename category to Category:Mazda Familia (first generation). OSX (talk • contributions) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- 以前の改名者の理解も得られましたので、早速ですが依頼を出してきました。OSXさん。ありがとうございます。--Taisyo (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support restoration of original name. Why was it changed to FA1 anyhow? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 4 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
日本語で失礼します。このカテゴリー名について、Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categoriesに基づく改名をされているのですが、不適当な部分が多いと思い、再度の改名提案を行いたいと思います。
以下は、マツダが公式に発行した東洋工業五十年史〈沿革編 1920-1970〉に記載されている形式名とグレード名です。
形式名称 / code |
グレード / version | |
---|---|---|
SPB | ニューファミリア1000 4ドアST,ニューファミリア1000 2ドアST | New Familia 1000 2d/4d |
STA | ニューファミリア1200 4ドアST,ニューファミリア1200 2ドアST,ファミリア1200クーペ | (New) Familia 1200 2d/4d/Coupé |
STB | ファミリアプレスト1300 4ドアST,ファミリアプレスト1300 2ドアST,ファミリアプレスト1300 クーペ | Familia Presto 1300 2d/4d/Cp |
SPC | ファミリアプレスト1000 4ドアST,ファミリアプレスト1000 2ドアST | Familia Presto 1000 2d/4d |
M10A | ファミリアロータリークーペ,ファミリアロータリーSS | Familia Rotary Coupé, Familia Rotary SS |
BPBV | ニューファミリア1000バン | New Familia 1000 Van |
BTAV | ニューファミリア1200バン | New Familia 1200 Van |
BTBV | ファミリアプレスト1200バン | Familia Presto 1200 Van |
BPCV | ファミリアプレスト1000バン | Familia Presto 1000 Van |
BPB55 | ニューファミリア1000トラック | New Familia 1000 Truck (pickup/ute) |
BTA65 | ニューファミリア1200ロングトラック | New Familia 1200 LWB Truck |
(ja:マツダ・ファミリア 2015年3月1日 (日) 12:21(UTC) Taisyo版より。全て自らの執筆部分)
と、少なくとも「FA2」の形式名は見当たりません。ただ「FA1」と異なる点として、この車種は対米輸出されているため米国式の形式名が存在する可能性。また、社史が発行されたのが、この形式の販売途中のため、社史発行後の変更には対応し切れていない可能性は否定しきれません(「FA1」と判断が分かれる要素になり得る部分です)。
ただ、ファミリアの名称自体が日本市場が主に思いますので、そちらに重きを置いたカテゴリー名にして欲しい部分も有ります。もし、カテゴリー名が長くなりすぎるのであれば、Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categoriesの第二項のCategory:Mazda Familia (second generation)でもと思います(「FA2」は米国市場向け車両で使うと言うことで)。--Taisyo (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support: rename category to Category:Mazda Familia (second generation). OSX (talk • contributions) 21:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- 以前の改名者の理解も得られましたので、早速ですが依頼を出してきました。OSXさん。ありがとうございます。--Taisyo (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support restoration of original title. Also, both of these marvelous chassis code charts must be included, thanks Taisyo! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 4 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously created as a personal category but the name is misleading and therefore not suitable for a user category. Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted 2nd time. --Achim (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
rename as Category:Menora Mivtachim Arena per official name change on January 1st 2015 DGtal (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support That makes sense to me, so long as the redirect says in place. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved with redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there a misspelling? The article in the English wikipedia is en:Hevel Eilot Regional Council Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Both Google and their own website confirm the Eilot spelling. I've requested the moves at CommonsDelinker. --rimshottalk 09:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hevel Eilot Regional Council as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Should be Category:Hill castles - but before starting a wholly new tree under Category:Castles by type it should be discussed if that category would really be supported by an adequate number of contributors Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete today i removed the only 4 images from the category (they are in Category:Schloss Hohenlimburg) and suggest deleting the "Hoehenburg" category, because a) it would be not very useful, i think, because it would have to store the majority of castles worldwide (most of them were built on hills and not in valleys/lowlands) and b) because the naming is wrong anyway (see de:Höhenburg with ö, or better en:Hill castle in English). Holger1959 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As per Holger1959. The category would be not be useful, and it has been empty since September. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per Holger1959. --rimshottalk 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The distinction between an ordinary trial and a "show trial" depends largely on the point of view. For navigational purposes in Commons, it seems rather irrelevant so I propose to move the content of the show trials categories to the ordinary trial cats of the respective countries. Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Images in this category are used to illustrate corresponding articles in many Wikipedia sections, such as en:Show trials. It is usefull to keep them in this category. This allows the editors to find proper images quickly. Some articles also include a link to the respective Commons category. --Off-shell (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: The existence of show trials is well-documented. If you have an issue with any of the photos in the category being tagged as "show trials," that would be a different discussion. Wikimandia (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept, as per oppose comments, which didn't attract any counter-arguments. --rimshottalk 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Obsolete category, the PCZ is history itself, it only existed from 1904 to 1999. I suggest to keep Panama Canal Zone by decade as a subcategory of Panama Canal Zone and Panama Canal Zone as a subcategory of Panama in the 20th century and/or History of Panama and/or History of the Panama Canal and/or United States in the 20th century. AxeEffect (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Wikimandia (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --Achim (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support @AxeEffect: Panama Canal Zone in the 19th century and Panama Canal Zone in the 21st century categories can safely be deleted, but should History of Panama Canal Zone be redirected? To Panama Canal Zone or Panama Canal Zone by decade? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Panama Canal Zone by decade, child categories deleted. Redirecting to Panama Canal Zone would have been just as good. --rimshottalk 21:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a duplication of category:Hubert Quellinus Keith D (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Hubertus Quellinus, which seems to be the more common name. I don't think merging in the other direction would be a problem either, though. --rimshottalk 06:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Hubertus Quellinus a while ago. --rimshottalk 22:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
obsolete category, no longer needed, we now use Category:Sibylla Fugger instead Neitram (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
...which is not the right decision, IMHO, but it's really not important. I made a category redirect from the category. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The category was redirected 9 months ago. Closing - Themightyquill (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
bad name, no need for redirect Zoupan (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this looks like an unlikely redirect, but it was deleted and re-created before. We should try to wait for the creator, User:BartekChom, to explain why it was re-created. --rimshottalk 06:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. If you want an explanation: I created it just because there were files in this category. I don't know much about this topic, but I think generally that when somebody is using a category name that should be changed, a redirect should be created to make moving the files easier (in some cases even automatic). BartekChom (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- No use. Delete. Needs to be closed.--Zoupan (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. If you want an explanation: I created it just because there were files in this category. I don't know much about this topic, but I think generally that when somebody is using a category name that should be changed, a redirect should be created to make moving the files easier (in some cases even automatic). BartekChom (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This category is currently a {{Category redirect}} to Category:Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 70.
Earlier discussions (here and here) concluded that when a manufacturer markets apparently similar, or otherwise identical cameras under different brand names, it made more sense to have a separate category for every camera name, and merely have a note at the top of each category, informing people of the similar categories.
All modern cameras automatically embed the camera name into the exif data of each image. So, the cameras are not actually identical. They require different firmware in order to embed different camera names into each image. Apparently identical cameras different firmware may enable or disable other camera features; or they might make particular camera features work differently. I think it is extremely unwise to second guess the camera manufacturers, and act like we know for a certain fact that the differently named cameras are identical.
Categorizing images, using the model name embedded in the exif data, does not require any specialized knowledge. A robot could perform this task. A contributor with no knowledge of camera minutae could do it. However, combining images taken with apparently identical cameras into a single category does rely on knowledge of camera minutae. Note: contributors or even journalist who write about cameras, could be mistaken.
What reasons would camera manufacturers have for having different firmware in apparently identical cameras with different names:
- While apparently identical, two different models, with different names, might have had their designs finalized at different times. There might be some camera feature not available in the earlier camera, because the software to provide that feature wasn't ready when its design was finalized. Alternatively, a feature might have been removed from the firmware of the later camera, because it was seen as a flawed or broken feature. (For example, there was a video camera, over a decade ago, that allowed photographers to shoot in infrared, even in normal light conditions. The manufacturer had not anticipated that some artificial fabrics used in women's clothing became translucent, and exposed the breasts and private parts of wearers, living up to the promise of the "X-ray specs" sold in comic-books. This feature was quietly dropped in cameras manufactured after this unexpected side-effect was discovered.)
- Under capitalism it is in the interest of camera manufacturers to introduce models of camera aimed at different segments of the buying public. They could, very well, introduce a bargain model camera, and a premium model of camera, that used identical lenses, circuit boards, etc. They could very well offer their customers different facilities by shipping the two cameras with different firmware, where the premium model came equipped with features that were not available in the bargain model. In my opinion this makes nominator's claims that "identical" cameras ship with "identical" circuit boards is completely irrelevant, when we have no meaningful way to know how the firmware differs. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Kingdom of Serbia (1718–39) as per Kingdom of Serbia (1718–39) Zoupan (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: English Wikipedia naming conventions are not a reason for moving Commons categories by themselves, full 4-digit year numbers are usually used on Commons. See also d:Q2603851#sitelinks-wikipedia. FDMS 4 16:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be good to have a guideline for this? It would only be practical to use the same name as in Wikipedia.--Zoupan (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- There isn't any information in the Commons naming conventions (for categories) or the WP naming conventions (for article titles) about year ranges. The article in question is named that way because you moved it there. I agree with FDMS that the usual convention on Commons is to use the full year. This makes it clearer to an international audience that a year range it meant. --rimshottalk 12:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the English Wikipedia link – the guideline does say that [in] general, however, abbreviations for years or months are avoided (e.g.,
Jan '68→ January 1968) […], so the article move should probably be reverted there? (Personally I am a little afraid that starting a discussion on the article's talkpage would end in an endless 1v1.) I also guess that the correct abbreviation would be '39, not 39. FDMS 4 14:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)- I moved it there because the scheme used in other articles (Kingdom of France (1791–92), Czechoslovak Republic (1945–48), Kingdom of Illyria (1816–49), Hellenic State (1941–44), Albanian Kingdom (1928–39), etc) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ranges. If the usual convention is to use the full years in categories with year ranges in commons, it would be useful to add this to the Commons category naming conventions. If this is agreed upon, I revoke this request.--Zoupan (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aha, thanks, good to know (so '[two-digit year] might be a German thing). Please note that there are no Commons-wide category naming conventions besides COM:CAT#Naming categories, only standalone category schemes for certain topics and "case law" created by CFDs like this one. FDMS 4 22:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I moved it there because the scheme used in other articles (Kingdom of France (1791–92), Czechoslovak Republic (1945–48), Kingdom of Illyria (1816–49), Hellenic State (1941–44), Albanian Kingdom (1928–39), etc) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ranges. If the usual convention is to use the full years in categories with year ranges in commons, it would be useful to add this to the Commons category naming conventions. If this is agreed upon, I revoke this request.--Zoupan (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the English Wikipedia link – the guideline does say that [in] general, however, abbreviations for years or months are avoided (e.g.,
Keepas is in the style of Category:Maps of the history of Croatia (1526-1918). The enwiki-MOS is useless, it's in conflict with the {{ISOdate}} convention yyyy-mm for 01<=mm<=12. OTOH in yyyy-zzzz it's at least obvious that zzzz can't be a month, also for folks who don't have the enwiki MOS number talk page on their radar. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)- Meanwhile I figured out which recent CFD I had in mind, and it turned out to be unrelated to the issue here. Apparently the Croatian category is the only example with (yyyy-zzzz) in the Balkan. Nevermind… –Be..anyone (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Has been open for months now. There is no Commons naming convention that full years be used. Consistency with WP favours Category:Kingdom of Serbia (1718–39).--Zoupan (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming. Search engines won't match 1739. Btw, I told more than once that consistency with the naming on any wp is a very weak argument. So we have obviously a lack of consensus regarding this cfd request. --Achim (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept without action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This category is being redirected from the airports official name in Spanish to a category with the translated name in English. Shouldn't it be the other way around? mrtony77 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support it being called Aeropuerto Internacional El Dorado. But isn't there a way to make categories have different names by language though? I thought that was a function. Wikimandia (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The content of the category has been move from this correctly named category to a translated category name of a proper name location. This goes against Commons category naming guidelines. mrtony77 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
KTV should be a disambiguation category page; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTV - there are numerous stations using that abbreviation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was using this category recently to organize photos of the entertainment centres in China and some other parts of Asia which range from family-oriented karaoke to hostess bars with working girls. I'm not sure how best to name a new category that covers just that use of KTV. Probably "Karaoke television". Chinese believe this is the usual English name for such places but in fact "KTV" is pseudo-English originating from 1980s Taiwan. — Hippietrail (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as per User:Piotrus and rename to an understandable English name like "Category:Karaoke venues" or "Category:Karaoke bars". --rimshottalk 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Most KTVs are in China and are not bars so "Karaoke bars" would be wrong. Venues would work better. — Hippietrail (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the meantime, Category:Karaoke lounges has been created by User:Benzoyl. I still prefer Category:Karaoke venues, as it is more neutral as to the type of venue. --rimshottalk 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Hippietrail and Rimshot: Is Category:Karaoke lounges sufficient for now, so that we can close this CFD? Do we need a disambiguation page, or can we just delete it? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's been no opposition to Karaoke lounges in a year, so I think it can stay. As for Category:KTV, I'd say disambiguate into:
- --rimshottalk 22:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguated as per Rimshot. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Nearly same as Category:Metropolitan Intercity Railway. --本日晴天 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @本日晴天: Metropolitan Intercity Railway is a company name, and Tsukuba Express is a railway line operated by them. These are different notions, thus these should be distinguished. ... otherwise, users who want to categorize the media related to the railway line instead of the company, might be puzzled. --Clusternote (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Clusternote: OK, let's to be used properly. --本日晴天 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks like consensus to keep. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Balša III as per Balša III Zoupan (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Balša III by Zoupan in December 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a very useful category. It's a subcategory of Category:Apartment buildings, which is incorrect. Although condominium apartments are a common usage, a condominium is actually a legal structure that can also be applied to other types of buildings such as offices, hotels and shopping malls. There are also townhouse developments that have separate buildings under condominium ownership.
A further confusion is a usage in the US, where some people seem to use a variant meaning where a condominium is a residential building, but not a type of apartment. They say things like an "apartment" is a unit you rent, while a "condominium" is a unit you buy. I guess that's why Category:Condominiums in the United States isn't a subcategory of Category:Apartment buildings in the United States (I once tried to move it there to be compatible with the top level category, but it was moved out again).
Furthermore, it's unclear in the variant US usage if a condominium is an entire building of units, or just a single unit. It seems like it can be used for either.
According to my first argument, Category:Condominiums isn't a type of building at all, so should be moved to some other place like Category:Property law. But then for the category to be useful, I'd expect it to contain legal documents or something, and not pictures of buildings. A building added to Condominiums would still need to be added to Category:Apartment buildings (or whatever type of building it is), assuming the variant US usage is rejected.
The Wikipedia article w:Condominiums is also a victim of the usage differences, and alternates randomly between the legal usage and the US variant usage. I think user70245's explanation at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/difference-between-condo-and-apartment is good however. My conclusion is that the category has no useful purpose, and its contents should generally be moved into Apartment buildings. --ghouston (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously bad name, I thought that it's some kind of monarchy, or a commonwealth, only different, checking: 2nd entry, 1st entry, and international law mumble something about a joint government.
- Some minutes later, of course, not only Science Fiction, some decades ago I collected the French and Spanish stamps of Andorra, a condominium of a Spanish bishop and France—after they got rid of some heads, all power to them. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be treated like Category:Housing cooperatives, renamed to "Housing condominiums" and treated as an organization category instead of a building category. --ghouston (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed as successful – contents will be moved into the apartments trees, and the categories deleted once they're empty. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, I wish the various subcategories (eg, "Condominums in {name of US state or city}") had been tagged that there was some discussion going on before they were all deleted (by procedure, shouldn't they have been??). In common US English usage, an "apartment" is rented by the person living there while a "condominium" is owned by the person living there. Thus not the same. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong language; As a group description redundant to Category:Artillerymen, as a rank designation too unspecific to be of any use. Would have nominated it as a speedy but for the number of files in the cat. Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- indeed -- Centenier (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is a over a year old and the category is currently orphaned without parents or children. Redirecting to Category:Artillerymen. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Military Academy (Serbia) as per Military Academy (Serbia) Zoupan (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Wikimandia (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in over a year. Moving to Category:Military Academy (Serbia). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some overlap here with these categories and already existing categories below:
- Category:English duchesses
- Category:British countesses
- Category:British duchesses
- Category:British marchionesses
Additionally this is confusing - this could apply to a British woman who married an Italian duke. I propose they be merged into these categories, to exactly match the format of the male categories in Category:Peers:
- Category:Duchesses in the Peerage of England
- Category:Duchesses in the Peerage of Great Britain
- Category:Duchesses in the Peerage of Scotland
- Category:Duchesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
- Category:Countesses in the Peerage of England
- Category:Countesses in the Peerage of Great Britain
- Category:Countesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
- Category:Marchionesses in the Peerage of England
- Category:Marchionesses in the Peerage of Great Britain
- Category:Marchionesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
Any objections? Wikimandia (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support merge. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Pages moved by Wikimandia in April 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Move as per Sanjak of Syrmia Zoupan (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in two years. Redirecting to Category:Sanjak of Syrmia. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense definition and thus impossibly unclear scope. Delete as unworkable.
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:Halogen light bulbs with GU10 screw Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is nonsense. Needs no discussion IMO.
- (To honour Commons:Don't be bold, you should plan the recategorization well, but not hesitate to improve obvious nonsense).
- --Ikar.us (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in 2 years. Category is empty. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Language policy states that category names must be in English. The English name for this flea market is Carmel Market and therefore, the category should be renamed Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support: No, to be clear, Commons:Language policy doesn't say that. It says "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." Ordinarily, I'd be against translating this proper name, but it seems, in this case, that Carmel Market is a well-established English equivalent, as evidenced by en:Carmel Market. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there are enough reasons to rename it: no opposition to request, match the Wikipedia article, match the name used in many of the files, match other categories in Category:Markets in Tel Aviv-Yafo, and the current name has bad capitalisation. --ghouston (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Language policy states that category names must be in English. The English name for this flea market is Carmel Market and therefore, the category should be renamed Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support: No, to be clear, Commons:Language policy doesn't say that. It says "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." Ordinarily, I'd be against translating this proper name, but it seems, in this case, that Carmel Market is a well-established English equivalent, as evidenced by en:Carmel Market. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there are enough reasons to rename it: no opposition to request, match the Wikipedia article, match the name used in many of the files, match other categories in Category:Markets in Tel Aviv-Yafo, and the current name has bad capitalisation. --ghouston (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "Princes of Kastrioti" at Google Books gives 0 hits. Zoupan (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Title is ambiguous. Almost all of the photos in here related to one specific model known as the w:Holyland Model of Jerusalem Oncenawhile (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: Yes, and the fact that it's a sub-category of Category:Israel Museum, Jerusalem suggests that specific model was the intended purpose of the category. So Category:Holyland Model of Jerusalem should definitely be created. But are there actually images of other models of Jerusalem in this category? Enough to merit a Category:Models of Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period or something more broad? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with the rename. "Models of Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period" would be rather too narrow wrt the existing Category:Models of the temple of Jerusalem and Category:Second Jewish temple in Jerusalem, Category:Scale models of Jerusalem and Category:Models of the Temple Mount. Actually, seeing this organic mess of categories, perhaps a more general revision would be appropriate. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Holyland Model of Jerusalem. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Rename into Category:Military diagrams of the United States and move the maps to Category:Military maps of the United States. Jonund (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @Jonund: It seems reasonable to divide these, but I have a few questions. Currently they are effectively identified as diagrams and maps from the US Army, rather than from other parts of the US Military. Is it not worth maintaining that separation? Secondly, what would be the parent category of Category:Military diagrams of the United States? There is no Category:Military diagrams by country, so I'm assuming it would fall into Category:Military of the United States and Category:Military diagrams? Third, Category:Military maps is currently a subcategory of Category:Military diagrams so I'm assuming Category:Military maps of the United States would be removed from Category:Military of the United States and placed in the newly created Category:Military diagrams of the United States? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Moved to Category:Military diagrams of the United States. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Arianiti family as per Arianiti family Zoupan (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No opposition. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Thopia family as per Thopia family Zoupan (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No opposition. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a practical difference between this category and Category:Roads named after Victoria of the United Kingdom or is this duplication? Oxyman (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm not quite sure of the point of the differentiation between Roads and Streets and Avenues on Commons, but apparently it's a thing. Wikimandia (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, guidance at Category:Streets states "This category is for primarily urban and residential roads. Bigger roads like freeways and highways can be found in Category:Roads". Category:Avenues states "*Designed as a garden and park linear planting feature, or as a road-street landscape uniformly lined with trees (same species) along the sides.". So by those guidelines the subject here does seem to be about streets, so maybe Category:Roads named after Victoria of the United Kingdom should be merged to this category or both categories should be redirected to another called Category:Streets named after Victoria of the United Kingdom. I shall NfD the other category and direct to this discussion Oxyman (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
there is another important point of this disambiguation, which nobody has mentioned : not everything named 'victoria" is named after queen victoria of gb/uk/etc. Lx 121 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The current subcats of Category:Victoria streets all seem to be from the UK or commonwealth countries, I don't know the individual history of every one but is it not a safe bet that most refer to Queen Victoria of the UK? I propose that Category:Streets named after Victoria of the United Kingdom should be a subcat of Category:Victoria streets and the streets named after the Queen moved there.
- @Lx 121: makes a good point - there are Queens and Princesses Victoria from other countries, including Sweden. There is a Victoria Street in Gothenburg that seems to be quite fashionable and is probably named after Victoria of Baden. Certainly the Commonwealth nation streets are named after Queen Victoria, but there are Victoria Streets in California; New Jersey; Texas, etc - are they necessarily really named after Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom? So I think having the subcategory as suggested directly above me by unsigned (... @Oxyman: ?) is a good idea. Wikimandia (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for forgetting to sign my above comment Oxyman (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- follow-up: the comment above is quite right; within the boundaries of the old british empire there are many things named after queen victoria (although that does not necessarily & not automatically mean that EVERYTHING named "victoria" is a reference to her). setting aside the other "victoria"s for the moment, i think the intended purpose of the category "victoria streets" was to provide a disambiguation category for all the roads that are literally named "victoria street" (whatever their namesake); of which the english speaking world has MANY examples. other common street names in english would include "union street", "main street", "(number) street", etc. given the probable existence of at least several hundred "victoria street"s on this planet, it may perhaps be desirable to keep the disambiguation category in place? Lx 121 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to keep Victoria Streets. Every occurrence will be categorized under the appropriate queen/princess. CFD Closed... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Pirot carpet as per Pirot carpet. Zoupan (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. These flat-woven double-sided rugs are called Kilim in the Balkans, and fit the usual definition of kilim as used in Turkey and Iran. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Chiswick Chap. Our article (from a quick scan) does say that these are all flat weaves. Maybe we should consider changing the article name instead? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ℯxplicit 02:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any real difference between a "copy" and a "replica" of a painting? The two categories belong to separate "copies" and "replicas" parents (the latter through a "Replicas by subject" intermediary), but it isn't made clear whether there are distinct definitions for the two terms—whether affected by creation of the copy/replica by the same or a different artist, or by execution in a different medium, or something else. Waltham, The Duke of 07:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, we can merge the categories--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like there is a slight difference. Thus different articles for Copying and Replica. Wikimandia (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that the difference may be too slight: the Wikipedia articles, as well as a couple of dictionaries I have consulted, seem to agree that replicas are very good copies. How can we adapt this to a division line between the two categories that isn't just an arbitrary "faithfulness to the original" cut-off on what is essentially a spectrum of similarity? We need something more technical than that. Engravings of paintings, for example, would be a good example of copies but not replicas, but they already have their own category—the specificity of the category structure is working against us here.
- So, what makes a replica? It appears that the original's author as well as other artists (or forgers) can create a replica, so that doesn't look like a good criterion on which to base a distinction. Size could be a factor, though I read replicas are often smaller than the respective originals. Fidelity in details and execution in the same medium? Maybe. Truth is, I'm lost. Is there someone more artistically literate to advise us here? Waltham, The Duke of 09:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- We could define the differences, e.g. copy is also a free copy, everything with after in the creator tl, replica is exactly, or nearly the same. The problem here would be nearly.--Oursana (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Duke of Waltham, Pierpao, Wikimandia, and Oursana: Does anyone strictly oppose a redirect to Category:Copies of paintings? It would be great to close this discussion.- Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't... Then again, I seem to have proposed something like that. Waltham, The Duke of 17:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I do not oppose too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also do not oppose, sorry for being late--Oursana (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I do not oppose too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Copies of paintings. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not well defined. What's "Tsukuba-kei"? --本日晴天 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) --本日晴天 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- In general, Tsukuba-kei is a (slightly masochistic, self-proclaimed) nickname of the professionals and students who are temporarily living in Tsukuba Science City (筑波研究学園都市). Historically, their life styles tend to deviate from those of local people, so they were sometimes distinguished as new habitants (see 筑波研究学園都市 § 住民). Amongst of them, especially the bachelors and students who share the similar sense as Akiba-kei, may be what called Tsukuba-kei in here.[1] Japanese media artist/entertainer, Meywa Denki referred the artists who are University of Tsukuba alumni as Tsukuba-kei (artists), and characterized them as "Serious & Playful", quoting a theme of Campus Exhibition by his old school at Ars Electronica.[2][3]
- ↑ Aoki, Tomoya (Joso-city ambassador). Ibaraki-kei people: Tsukuba-kei (in Japanese). Ibaraking.com.
- ↑ Tosa, Masamichi (2011-09-03). "Ars Electronica", Linz, Austria. Meywa Denki (MaywaDenki.com).
- ↑ Seriously Playful / Playfully Serious: Campus Exhibition 2011. University of Tsukuba. "Ars Electronica 2011 / Festival ofr Art, Technology and Society / Linz, 31.8. - 6.9.2011"
- --Clusternote (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- @本日晴天 and 本日晴天: Can we close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for any action. --ƏXPLICIT 01:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This category only has a tiny few things associated with it out of the millions that could be. Its not being used nor is it really needed. Reguyla (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- comment: NOT "millions"; the number of discrete biographical "person-by-name" categories that we have @ commons is AT MOST tens of thousands, to a few hundred thousand. probably at least half of them are for deceased/historic persons. Lx 121 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
as discussed elsewhere, we NEED to be classifying ppl by vital status (alive/dead); (as well as gender, etc.).
the fact that we have not been doing so, IS NOT a good reason to continue not doing so.
we've 'finally started classifying photographs by date, after facing the same sort of arhuements presented here.
if you want to help; why not write a script to populate the category? ppl by name with a death-date could automatically be places in the "deceased" category. ppl by name without any "death' categories could provisionally be classified as "alive" (& if any birth-year, then less than 150 yrs ago, say), subject to human-review.
Lx 121 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with you that having some sort of categorization of Living or dead could be useful. It would unfortunately be hard to maintain, it would be hard to verify in many cases and would most likely be a logistical nightmare to keep up with. Not I personally feel strongly that we shouldn't have it, but based on historical interest on this project over said categories. I also would be happy to write s script or a bot for such a task and it would be trivial to do so for some situations (others would be harder and others still would be impossible). I recently requested access to AWB in fact to be able to do this sort of thing and that access was denied, so I don't feel a bit bad about not doing more. I will simply scratch out a few here and there. Reguyla (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- i understand your arguements, & had already given the matters some thought in previous discussions (on the basic considerations, moreso than on the writing of scripts). what it comes down to, is this: I. IF we were trying to keep track of the entire/general population, yes the workload would be enormous BUT we are not. most of the persons with a "people by name" category are going to be "notable" persons (by wikipedia definitions). of the rest, most will be wikimedia contributors. II. barring factual errors, or VERY unusual circumstances, the "flow through" is going to be entirely "one-way"; people will be categoris/zed as living, then dead. many people are/will already be dead when their category is added @ commons. so that drastically reduces the complexities & "quantities" of the work. III. many, probably the majority, of the "people by name" @ commons will also be covered by wikipedia "blp" {&/or} posthumous biographies. so we can "piggyback" on their work, so to speak. all of which should make the task FAR more manageable than it might at first seem. Lx 121 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Living" is only a short-term temporary state, let wikidata figure it out, unless you are talking about public domain and death + 70 years rounded up to the next year. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- with all due respect; your comment is wryly philosophical, BUT if you really & truly cannot understand why it is useful for OUR database to keep track of whether biographical subjects are alive or dead, then you should not be working on categorization-structure issues. Lx 121 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and Be..anyone: Like them, I don´t see the need and can´t think of examples for practical use that even-up the effort to fill and maintain it. The fact that it is heavily underpopulated and is attached to less than 200 subcategories after more than a year shows the lack of support. In general, I´d appreciate if new categories that potentially affect a very large number of other cats were created only after having proposed them at the village pump: If they aren´t supported by a reasonable number of contributors, they tend to fall into a sorry half-life, just like the category in question. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Like them, I don´t see the need and can´t think of examples for practical use" -- you REALLY can't imagine ANY end-user who might conceivably want to search for living-persons, or cross-index a search by alive/dead status? Lx 121 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- "as discussed elsewhere, we NEED to be classifying ppl by vital status (alive/dead); (as well as gender, etc.). the fact that we have not been doing so, IS NOT a good reason to continue not doing so."
- Support per nominator and Be..anyone: Like them, I don´t see the need and can´t think of examples for practical use that even-up the effort to fill and maintain it. The fact that it is heavily underpopulated and is attached to less than 200 subcategories after more than a year shows the lack of support. In general, I´d appreciate if new categories that potentially affect a very large number of other cats were created only after having proposed them at the village pump: If they aren´t supported by a reasonable number of contributors, they tend to fall into a sorry half-life, just like the category in question. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- with all due respect; your comment is wryly philosophical, BUT if you really & truly cannot understand why it is useful for OUR database to keep track of whether biographical subjects are alive or dead, then you should not be working on categorization-structure issues. Lx 121 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Living" is only a short-term temporary state, let wikidata figure it out, unless you are talking about public domain and death + 70 years rounded up to the next year. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- i understand your arguements, & had already given the matters some thought in previous discussions (on the basic considerations, moreso than on the writing of scripts). what it comes down to, is this: I. IF we were trying to keep track of the entire/general population, yes the workload would be enormous BUT we are not. most of the persons with a "people by name" category are going to be "notable" persons (by wikipedia definitions). of the rest, most will be wikimedia contributors. II. barring factual errors, or VERY unusual circumstances, the "flow through" is going to be entirely "one-way"; people will be categoris/zed as living, then dead. many people are/will already be dead when their category is added @ commons. so that drastically reduces the complexities & "quantities" of the work. III. many, probably the majority, of the "people by name" @ commons will also be covered by wikipedia "blp" {&/or} posthumous biographies. so we can "piggyback" on their work, so to speak. all of which should make the task FAR more manageable than it might at first seem. Lx 121 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- our job isn't just to "collect pictures", our JOB is to make a USEFUL DATABASE; that means ORGANIZING THE MATERIAL, so that END-USERS CAN FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR.
- you might not have noticed, but the "native" search function in mediawiki SUCKS, & we have nothing set up for #tags or keywords; which means that categorization is our DEFAULT system-of-organization.
- & you know what, if this BAD/WRONG-HEADED decision really passes in a proper community RFC (& not just a quiet little back-room chat, in the darkest corner of boring discussions), then I QUIT categorization. i'll just stick to my own uploads & related work, & to hell with the database: WP:idgaf. i've had enough of arguing with IDIOTS over OBVIOUS, BASIC database-organization. fuckit who needs to be able to FIND anything @ commons? just put it all in a big pile, & let wikidata sort it out. :P
- so let it be written, so let it be done. Lx 121 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- & as to the matter of populating the category, if you READ my previous comments, instead of just skimming over them, you would find that i have outlined a VERY simple tool that could be used to handle most of that problem AUTOMATICALLY. Lx 121 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
...ok, let's go back to the basics: we NEED to classify our biographical materials by whether the subject is ALIVE or DEAD.'
here is how wikipedia (EN) does it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dead_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_status
Lx 121 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Support deletion. Personally I am favourable to the elimination of this category. It's an unmanageable category which would require constant (pratically daily) review. As someone before me said, is pratically impossible to mantain. It's destinated to be a lying category because you'd always find there someone who should not be there because of lack of maintenance. Basically it's the typical category born to be permanently unaccurate because it's based on a volatile criterium (being alive, which is by nature to come to an end).
With due respect Lx 121's analogy with Photographs by date is fallacious because a photography date is not to change (unless it has been erroneusly indicated). While classifying for Death might have some reason because death is a definitive condition, classifying for Living status has no reason to be. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- so you are saying: "we shouldn't bother"? wikipedia seems to do ok on tracking who is alive & who isn't, as does wikidata; & many people would consider this to be an important criteria of organizing biographical information.
taking your arguement to its logical conclusion we shouldn't bother having ANY categories that need updating; or at least none where the member-items of that category could "change their state" such that they would no longer qualify to be included within that category.
want me to go & look up all the categories that should be eliminated from wmc, based on your criteria that "we shouldn't bother categorizing things that could change & would therefore have to be moved to a different category later"? ^__^
because, i think we might have a few of those around...
Lx 121 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is useful. As mentioned, wikipedia and wikidata are keeping track of this info, and they are good venues to do so. Commons is about storing media, and photos in particular. Photos of people don't change depending on whether the subject is alive or dead. Living people don't inherently have much in common - not even in the very slight way that people born on a certain year do. I'm not sure what wikipedia's reasons for keeping close track of people's status as living people aren't more about the threat of libel, an issue that we need not be as concerned about here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- with all due respect you are repeating several of the same arguements discussed & rebutted above. a year ago. meanwhile the population of the category has continued.
- wikidata is still NOT READY to "take over" categorisation & organisation of the in-wiki databases, of any of the major wm projects.
- wikipedia keeps track of whether its bio-subject are living or dead, for factual accuracy, not just "to avoid libel suits. AND, when it comes right down to it, WMC can be sued by unhappy "blp"-subjects over media files, just as easily as easily as WP can be sued, over article contents.
- as above, your agruement comes down to "why bother?" - on making the effort to improve the quality of our database here. & again, if you don't see the importance, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS WORK; you can jut let the people who do care "get on with it.
- & if you really & truly do not "get" the significant differences between people who are alive, & dead; or the significance of the characteristics that members of each of these two groups have in common, OR WHY IT IS USEFUL FOR END USERS to have these files sorted according to these differences,
- then you & i are operating from fundamentally different concepts of both existence, & useful database organisation... :p
tangentially -- whether a subject is dead, & how long they have been dead DIRECTLY EFFECT certain issues of copyright. tl;dr - any works by a LIVING PERSON are still under copyright, "by default". which is another thing we need to keep track of on here. hence, yet another reason, why this categorisation "matters" @ commons. aside from simple factual accuracy & complete-ness Lx 121 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- That would be more of an issue for creator templates, wouldn't it? I suspect a large majority of these categories are for the subjects of photos, not the creators. I never said anything about wikidata. Aside from using a lot of bold and all-caps, I don't think you've made a case or rebutted the arguments of others. Please be civil. And no, I really can't imagine why anyone would want to search for images of living people, or images of people that died in a certain year. I can see why they might want to search for such people, but that's what wikipedia would be useful for. I don't see the job of commons as creating a useful database for researching people or subjects. I see its job primarily as a creating a database which is useful to other wikimedia projects. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- actually, you did mention wikidata, in your previous comment (see above). & if you read the MISSION STATEMENT of commons, you will find that our purpose here is slightly more than just to serve as a "warehouse" for the images used on other wm projects; in fact, it IS our job to create a useful, searchable database of images & other media vfiles.
- & respectfully, i do not think that you are able to fully & completely anticipate the needs of every single end-user well enough to make such judgements about which categorizations we "needn't bother about".
- & again you don't need to work on categorizations that you don't care about; there are plenty of other ppl willing to do the work. we currently have over 25,000 'dead people by name', & >900 'living people by name', even though certain users appear to be de-categorising "living persons by name", without consensus.
- & this is civil. especially when i still have to RE-explain the same basic concepts covered in the discussion above, yet again, one year later. Lx 121 (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- as regards the use of templates: templates are a kludgey, fragile mess. & when they break, they break everything connected to them. there is a reason we DO NOT handle (most) categorisation via templates, & we probably shouldn't be relying on them for any of the categorisation. Lx 121 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
additionally - you have clearly not considered the use of multi-parameter searches. living persons + musicians, living persons + actors, living persons + politicians from hungary, etc. do you see how this can be useful yet? :) Lx 121 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lx 121, in theory it seems like a good idea to categorize as comprehensively as possible. But even more important is that the basic requirements for a working Commons´ category system are met. Which are IMHO:
- First, categories must be reliable in all three relations, i. e. the category as it is defined should be true for the respective object, the category should contain all respective objects and the objects should be tagged with all applicable categories.
- Second, categories should be helpful within Commons´ project scope, which is storing, curating and providing media files. An overly bloated category system is not helpful but rather increases the effort for curating the files. It is one of the founding myths of Wikipedia that whatever the task someone will someday do it. Experience shows that sometimes this works. But experience shows, too, that it obviously doesn´t work with Commons categories. Have we reached the one million mark of uncategorized files yet?
- Third, Commons shouldn´t do what our sister projects can do better. Categorization of file content (Category:Men looking left) is done only at Commons. Basic categorization of individual objects is helpful for curating and finding content, see above. But comprehensive categorization of individual objects is done better and therefore better done by Wikidata.
- What does this mean for Category:Living persons by name? Let´s look at some (very rough) numbers: We´ve got around 150,000 categories of persons that are probably alive right now (and in addition there are more than 50,000 photographs without individual cat in fitting birth-by-year categories). Category:Living persons by name has 900 entries. This fails the reliability criteria by a very bad margin. And even if you´d work hard to fill your category with the 150,000 probable candidates it will fail even more badly in respect to being true for the individual entry: I doubt that you or anyone else will continuously look through the 150,000 to move all persons who have died (which will sadly be around 5000 each year). Mirroring current changes can be achieved by wikidata though its connection to the Wikipedias and as a central data system, but it makes no sense at Commons. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lx 121, in theory it seems like a good idea to categorize as comprehensively as possible. But even more important is that the basic requirements for a working Commons´ category system are met. Which are IMHO:
Comment - a few quick points to update, & to rebut the previous commentor.
1. Wikidata is not yet capable of providing that kind of service to commons. (after several years of operation) they've just barely rolled out basic subject template-boxes on here. there's no decent search-mechanism for end-users to navigate wmc via wd.; etc., etc., etc. give it a few (more) years & maybe we can talk about that (WD taking over some functions on the commons db).
2. what makes commons useful to END-USERS is the way material is organised. & the search-engine in mediawiki sucks. so categorisation is the primary system of organisation at commons.
3. the other "half" of this categorisation schema 'deceased people by name' has now got 200,000+ entries, some supporting tools have been added , & it has become a standard part of 'people by name' biographical categorisation. i'd say that, de facto, this settles the matter. if we have a category for dead people, we need one for not-(yet-)dead people. like the rest of commons, it is a "work in progress", & like the commons database as a whole, it is always going to be. it's not ever going to be complete, or perfect, but a wiki is a thing in continual motion. "updates are ongoing" is how we work.
4. also, your estimate of 150,000 notable living persons with media files @ commons seems a wee bit high, tbh. there aren't that many notable living people (by wp criteria; i assume we're not counting userpics, or otherwise-"nn" people in this tally?). there are maybe a few thousand in the general category of "celebs" - artists, athletes, & suchlike, & a few thousand politicians, activists, people in business, finance, etc., & at most a few thousand other people who achieve notability in the news (in some other way); & we don't even have basic pictures for many/most of them. if we've got media files for (a grand total of) 20,000 notable living persons on wmc, i would be moderately surprised. my guess would be that we maybe have (at most) ~10,000 notable living persons for which we have at least 1 picture. weed out all the copyvios, & maybe half of that number. & a lot of those are single pictures.
Lx 121 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
AND; as i've said before, in this discussion & elsewhere, it would be (you should pardon the expression) DEAD EASY to automate moving people from this category to 'dead persons by name' when a "died in (X-year)" cat is added to the subject's cat. Lx 121 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Living persons by name | Delete | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
@Lx 121, Themightyquill, Rudolph Buch, Blackcat, and Reguyla:
| ||||
Josh (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC) |
also worth noting that, whatever the opinions of the handful of users who have contributred to this conversation over the last 4 years that this conversation has sat here, BOTH living & dead by-name categories are alive & well & being continuously populated BY the users that actually work on categorzation, as opposed to lurking discussion boards.
category:Deceased people by name in particular, is doing quite well with over 250,000 entries. i'd say that is pretty clear evidence of community opinion, support, & established practice over the time since this discussion was opened, four+ years ago.
AND wikidata still isn't read to take over handling of these things @ commons, four years AFTER another user in this discussion first proposed it (2015).
respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
AND the CfD for 'deceased persons by name' was resolved in 2016, as keep & rename - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2015/06/Category:Deceased_persons_by_name. so any proposal to delete it now would require re-opening that Cfd, not just "lumping it on" here. Lx 121 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- AND we already have some categorization for corpses.Lx 121 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
AND for the reasons "why it is USEFUL for commons to sort our people-by-name categories between those people who are alive, & those people who are dead", i refer you to the section above this proposal. it REALLY is not hard to understand why it MIGHT "just possibly maybe sometimes" actually be useful for end-users @ commons to be able to select between "living people" & "dead people" when they are looking for media. Lx 121 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment as it is I still keep seeing this category as unusable and unfeasible. The only way I see it of some use is to prevent it from being populated manually. I mean, it should be an automated category populated with biographical Wikidata items with no death date. The exceptions of people with unknown death date are manageable. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - the 'deceased people by name' category IS being populated automatically i would think (currently over 250,000 "i see dead ppl!" there) . no one seems to have bothered for the 'living' cat, thus far. i'm not a coder, or i'd have a go @ that. & i would THINK that by now wikidata must have some parameter(s) to identify 'living persons'; but they haven't got it set up to plug into commons's categorization. Lx 121 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unless it is added in an automated way to each and every concerned people cat. E4024 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
From my understanding of en:Focal adhesion, "Focal adhesions" and "extracellular matrix adhesions" are the same and thus this category should be a redirect to Category:Focal adhesions. Torsch (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit more complex than that, and if we are to go with a redirect, it should be in the other direction. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Torsch and Daniel Mietchen: Any further thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No consensus: Stale for over 2 years. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Superfluous to its parent category, Steam locomotives of the Isle of Man. All railway lines on the Isle of Man are narrow gauge, therefore this category causes unnecessary duplication. I Propose that this is deleted, with the two subcats going directly to the parent cat. An optimist on the run! 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd agree the basic observation here, the question is what to do with it.
- First of all, Commons practice is frequently to just ignore the issue. There are many, many categories (especially for steam locos) where the only member of a category is a single subcategory. These aren't going away – I've tried to delete a few myself, sent off with a flea in my ear.
- Secondly, given that these are narrow gauge, I would see the better solution to be keeping this cat and deleting Steam locomotives of the Isle of Man instead. With the parent categorisation migrating downwards onto this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: Thoughts on this? It would be great to close the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, now. Five years on and I'd forgotten about it! Pinging Andy Dingley for further thoughts. (NB My user name has changed since raising this). O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Same as before. I'd keep this, as the correct and more specific, and if our concern was in having too many layers I'd remove Steam locomotives of the Isle of Man instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Locomotives_of_the_Isle_of_Man too. I'd note that we already only have "narrow gauge" for the "diesels", which is what we want to end up with. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've no objection to that. O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, now. Five years on and I'd forgotten about it! Pinging Andy Dingley for further thoughts. (NB My user name has changed since raising this). O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: Thoughts on this? It would be great to close the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep: Per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)