Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/05
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive May 2015
This article should be deleted, split into Vlachs of Serbia and Vlachs of Bulgaria Zoupan (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Split into Category:Vlachs in Serbia and Category:Vlachs in Bulgaria.--Zoupan (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 08:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
empty category FRacco (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Support --El Funcionario (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 09:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Was nominated as speedy deletion, but declined as speedy by me. Reasoning given was: "this is not a neighborhood, its a geographical description". Basvb (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This and three other categories, Category:Northwest Yonkers, New York, Category:Northeast Yonkers, New York, and Category:Southeast Yonkers, New York were originally nominated by User:Beyond My Ken for the same reason. While he was right about these being geographical descriptions, I don't think it was necessary to tag them for deletion. The others should be restored. We can always use them as container categories until there are enough images for more specific neighborhood categories. The same practice is done in other cities. BTW, I've been trying to rename the Wikipedia article "Crestwood (Yonkers)" to the more correctly formatted "Crestwood, Yonkers," but Wikipedia blocked that rename. ----DanTD (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep I agree. Since I labelled these for speedy deletion, I have discovered that these are indeed legitimate neighborhood names, not simply geographical descriptions. (see my comment on User:Jim.Henderson's talk page) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE - I just restored the other three categories. All we need is to restore the material that had them, and most importantly find more material for the Northeast Yonkers category, because right now there's only one I know of that belongs there. ----DanTD (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't just "restore" the material, check first that each item is actually in the neighborhoods that bear those names, and not simply in the geographical areas. The Yonkers neighborhood map is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then prepare for the making of more neighborhood categories. Maybe I should start with Category:Getty Square, Yonkers, and I'll decide which ones to add from there. ----DanTD (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per the note on Jim's talk page, I counted 16 neighborhoods. You've got 4 with the "geographical" ones. I'd think Getty Square and Ludlow would the next two logical ones (since Getty Square's got some landmark-y stuff, and Ludlow's got a train station.) Many of the other neighborhoods are probably residential, so I'm not sure we're going to have images to populate them with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that map doesn't have Nepperhan, Centuck, Glenwood, Greystone, or Lawrence Park, so unfortunately I had to put the Yonkers Water Works in "Northeast Yonkers," instead of Nepperhan. Ludlow sounds good, but I want more than just the train station. ----DanTD (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dan: Not challenging you, as Yonkers is not my territory (by which I mean that I'm not very familiar with it), but do you have a source for the neighborhoods which aren't on the map I posted? "Nepperhan", for one, concerns me, as I think it's a neighborhood in New Rochelle. Glenwood and Greystone are, of course, stations created by the NY Central, which sometimes named stations without regard to whether there was an existing name, so I don't know if they existed as names at the time the railroad came through, or, if not, whether they caught on as neighborhood names after the stations were established. I suppose I should get hold of a good history of Yonkers, if such a thing exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the most I've been able to get besides that link is Google Maps, at least for Nepperhan, and some of the others I've mentioned. In the case of Glenwood and Greystone, those were named for neighborhoods in Northwest Yonkers and the source for at least one of them is right here. That was where I got the info about that station. Be that as it may, it's still always good to look for a good source for the history of Yonkers. ----DanTD (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dan: Not challenging you, as Yonkers is not my territory (by which I mean that I'm not very familiar with it), but do you have a source for the neighborhoods which aren't on the map I posted? "Nepperhan", for one, concerns me, as I think it's a neighborhood in New Rochelle. Glenwood and Greystone are, of course, stations created by the NY Central, which sometimes named stations without regard to whether there was an existing name, so I don't know if they existed as names at the time the railroad came through, or, if not, whether they caught on as neighborhood names after the stations were established. I suppose I should get hold of a good history of Yonkers, if such a thing exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that map doesn't have Nepperhan, Centuck, Glenwood, Greystone, or Lawrence Park, so unfortunately I had to put the Yonkers Water Works in "Northeast Yonkers," instead of Nepperhan. Ludlow sounds good, but I want more than just the train station. ----DanTD (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am much pleased. No, not either pleased or displeased that my rough cut long ago has been partially confirmed by the thoughtful, since a lucky guess is no credit to the guesser. I am pleased that worthy minds have carefully examined the question and produced something more useful than my hasty division. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per the note on Jim's talk page, I counted 16 neighborhoods. You've got 4 with the "geographical" ones. I'd think Getty Square and Ludlow would the next two logical ones (since Getty Square's got some landmark-y stuff, and Ludlow's got a train station.) Many of the other neighborhoods are probably residential, so I'm not sure we're going to have images to populate them with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then prepare for the making of more neighborhood categories. Maybe I should start with Category:Getty Square, Yonkers, and I'll decide which ones to add from there. ----DanTD (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't just "restore" the material, check first that each item is actually in the neighborhoods that bear those names, and not simply in the geographical areas. The Yonkers neighborhood map is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE - I just restored the other three categories. All we need is to restore the material that had them, and most importantly find more material for the Northeast Yonkers category, because right now there's only one I know of that belongs there. ----DanTD (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is this done now? --rimshottalk 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. I tagged for speedy deletion, and if anyone needs a formal withdrawal of my desire for it and other related cats to be deleted, this is it. DanTD seems to have things well in hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Created by typing mistake (I meant Category:Adama Chmielowskiego Street in Kraków Misiek2 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 11:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I JUST got the Minotra X 700 MPS it came witha couple Batteys i dont know how to use4 this cvbmn 2605:6000:81C6:9600:38FD:177E:D6B6:6DB5 09:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Closed, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 11:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to delete some pic Roboindia (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done Then this is not the way. Please add {{Speedy}} on that image and wait until an admin reacts. Trijnsteltalk 10:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please delete this category. The corrected definition of category is Erebegraafplaats Lübeck. This exists now. Roland.h.bueb (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Erebegraafplaats Lübeck. --rimshottalk 23:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Ambassadors to the Kazakhstan 37.17.4.62 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Kazakhstan seems unusual to me, so merge to Category:Ambassadors to Kazakhstan. --rimshottalk 19:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Other category deleted by User:Túrelio. FDMS 4 01:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
becos not gooed 197.26.200.128 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No valid rationale. FDMS 4 01:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
please delete (typo). the actual category is at Category:PARKnSHOP Supermarkets in Kwai Tsing District Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 01:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
please delete (typo). The actual category is at Category:Shops in Kwai Tsing District Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The scope of this category is much too broad, and its function has been addressed elsewhere. Rsteen (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Category is empty now. Propose deletion. --Rsteen (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 01:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the text correctly these 2 pics don't show Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. grave so we don't need to caregories him him. Sanandros (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It shows "Grave of Joseph Edward Willard at Oak Hill Cemetery, a historic secular cemetery in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in the United States." and "The only one used for funerary purposes is this one, on Willard's grave. It is worth more than $100,000, and was placed there in 1997 by the Kermit Roosevelt family". Perhaps this explains relation to this category. Also a photo of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr with his grand father was added to the category. regards--Ashashyou (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yea then this two pics should categories to the Kermit Rosevelt family and not Kermit Roosevelt.--Sanandros (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK--Ashashyou (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK done.--Sanandros (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK--Ashashyou (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yea then this two pics should categories to the Kermit Rosevelt family and not Kermit Roosevelt.--Sanandros (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep category on Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. It is likely to fill with more files in the future. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus to keep among all discussion participants. Original problem solved and rationale therefore no longer applying. FDMS 4 01:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Other Henry Grey categories exist, therefore disambiguated. FDMS 4 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Mistakenly named category. Created new category to replace it. AWang (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Krd. FDMS 4 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
state vs religion 69.57.118.12 06:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- What do you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 08:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess nothing related to categorisation, therefore out of CFD's scope. FDMS 4 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not in English 37.17.4.24 13:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 01:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
unused category 217.21.43.64 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
personal category, not needed out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The category is empty. WikiU2013 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete - empty category, duplicate of Category:Tomb of Simeon bar Yochai DGtal (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please delete due to my spelling error: mantle should be mantel. Jim Derby (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This should be "priory", not "priority" (also in the sub-cat). AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @AndreasPraefcke: ok, thanks. Skim (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 06:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
please delete (typo). Category is at Category:Shops in shopping malls in Sai Kung District Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, bad name. For such obvious cases, where no discussion is needed, you can also use {{Badname}}. --rimshottalk 18:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Merge - should be merged into Category:White suits DGtal (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, White suits sounds more natural. --rimshottalk 10:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:White suits, as per nom. --rimshottalk 12:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by categories for Romanian Orthodox churches in England and the United Kingdom. Motacilla (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Romanian Orthodox churches in the United Kingdom, because the category has existed for a while and to avoid re-creation. --rimshottalk 13:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The character seems to be a hoax (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteru) and had only a file, which have been moved to parent categories. No need to have this category Discasto talk 09:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
only 1 file dont need own page 103.17.164.185 03:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Non admin closure: While there is only one file in the category, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Anon is also vandalising on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is only a single isomer of butane, called "isobutane", which is in the Category:Isobutane subcat here, so it doesn't seem like there is anything else that would ever be in Category:Isobutanes. Propose scrapping this plural container-cat level. DMacks (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support both chemistry and logic are correct. DGtal (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Isobutane, so that it doesn't get re-created. --rimshottalk 13:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As per scope, redirect to Category:National costumes of Serbia (and move media). Zoupan (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK. good----László (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Files moved and cat redirected. INeverCry 06:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty and uncategorized category, probably not intended as a category but as a Wikipedia article Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Skateboarding signs 37.17.114.36 12:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
OK Merged. --ŠJů (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Skateboarding signs, with redirect. --rimshottalk 13:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
cat not in use since quiet a time Druschba 4 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted.: INeverCry 06:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Misspelled title (book is "Kota Jogjakarta 200 Tahun"). No need to keep it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicate with Category:People of Belarusian State University 37.17.113.97 10:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please remove this category. It was created by mistake. Tatiana Markina 16:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Uncategorized category - has anyone an idea what the category is about? If not, it should be deleted. Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cat cleared and marked speedy. --Achim (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted after speedy. --JuTa 11:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty and uncategorized category, notability of the artist is doubtful as the Interwiki link leads to a disambiguation page. Should be deleted and can be restored when files are uploaded. Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please delete, thank you. Can't entirely remember what inspired me to make this page in the first place, since I couldn't find any related images - must've got ahead of myself. Earflaps (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted.: INeverCry 06:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry: I mis-spelt this category. I have now created correctly-spelt Category:Christ Church, Henley-on-Thames. Motacilla (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, misspelt duplicate of Category:Christ Church, Henley-on-Thames. For such obvious cases, you can also use {{Badname}}. --rimshottalk 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This category should be deleted. It is for a contemporary sculpture, which is copyrighted, and the category is currently empty. Another Believer (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Braddock Avenue created by mistake Photojunkie (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 09:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A category with similar (and more suitable name) already exists for exactly this purpose. B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- What's the name of the other category? --rimshottalk 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dupe of Category:Wooden bridges in Macedonia, cat cleared and marked speedy. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. after speedy. --JuTa 11:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep It was suggested that this category be deleted. I recommend keeping and moving all files from Category:Production line into this category since it is in the plural and meets the naming convention. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support keeping the category, the name is good, the category is well-filled and well categorized. --rimshottalk 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Production lines as per nom. --rimshottalk 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
All content moved to Category:Hof (Amersfoort) --Dick Bos (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 19 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There are many Centennial Parks. This page should be a disambig and Centennial Park (Toronto) should be created. Mjrmtg (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, candidates for disambiguation:
- Category:Auckland Centennial Park
- Category:Centennial Park (Champaign, Illinois)
- Category:Centennial Park (Christchurch)
- Category:Drakesbrook Centennial Park
- Category:Gifu Pref Centennial Park
- Category:Centennial Park (Millington, Tennessee)
- Category:Centennial Park (Nashville)
- Category:Navotas Centennial Park
- Category:Centennial Park (Seattle)
- Category:Centennial Park, Sydney
- --rimshottalk 13:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Centennial Park (Toronto) and disambiguated as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Unspecific category name not corresponding to its description and categorization. ŠJů (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seem to be drafts of traffic signs. Both of the files are categorized at Category:Diagrams of additional road signs of the Czech Republic, so Category:Návrh značení can get deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Achim55 (talk · contribs) nominated it for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It has been requested on Template talk:Agência Brasil#Categoria to change {{Agência Brasil}} so that files are categorized into Category:Photographs by Agência Brasil (only difference is the ê) instead. This change was already attempted in March 2013 but was reverted right away. I am inclined to grant the request as this is a name and the template also contains the non-English ê but wanted to get some feedback from the community first. Should we move this category to the category with ê? Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per general policy cats should be with english name. There may be another policy to avoid special characters in cat names. --Denniss (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The category name is in English except for the agency name. I don't know of any policy to avoid special characters in names, they are usually written with all the special characters they contain. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support since its proper name is Agência Brasil and nothing else, otherwise, you might as well call it "Agency Brazil". Hardly any Wikimedia project strips diacritics from names, only people who don't like them and argue that they don't have such a button on their keyboard (which is why redirects exist). Besides, the target category already exists now and the Commons isn't solely English-language Wiki. Jared Preston (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support since "Agencia" (with no ^) is not a noun in either English or Portuguese. ~★ pikolas [[mia diskuto]] 23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Closed as declined. Cat names should be in english. Special characters in cat names may be a cause of further problems. --Denniss (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Nicht wikigemässe Künstler-Kategorie. E. E. ist nach eigener Aussage Hobbymaler. Bitte auch Inhalt (Bilder) löschen. (Siehe • 7 hier.) Martin Sg. (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nun alle Inhalte gelöscht, weil keine Verwendung für Wiki. Also klarer Löschfall auch der Kat. --Martin Sg. (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 22:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Long Turkish War as per Long Turkish War. Zoupan (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Reduces ambiguity. Choess (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, --Achim (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved Category:Long War to Category:Long Turkish War. --Achim (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Category for two separate buildings. Now superseded by "Category:Anglican Chapel, City of London Cemetery" & "Category:Dissenters' Chapel, City of London Cemetery". Motacilla (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Soft agree The previous wording might just have been confusing to some as: City of London Cemetery chapels combined with non-specific Crematorium chapels. The problem with a lot of sub-cats is that they get, and might be unlikely to get, very few pics... in this case unless someone goes around each chapel and snaps loads of architectural details. As there are only two chapels here, I would probably have gone for a sub-cat: Chapels of the City of London Cemetery, and when this became overloaded, if ever, then split into the two chapels as sub-sub-cats. But I'm not exercised about this change. Acabashi (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. Also, both categories have (slightly) different parent categories and different listed building numbers. --rimshottalk 22:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The correct spelling for this event is "WrestleMania XXV Axxess" wL <speak·creatively> 03:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Simple typo. Moving category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Should be Category:Zastava M84. Zoupan (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Renaming done.--Sanandros (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems to mean the same as Category:Musical group logos from Austria but I'm not sure how to merge categories, nor which one would actually be preferred. - Nikki (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Musical group logos from ... is used more often in Category:Musical group logos by country, so it's probably the better name. --rimshottalk 06:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Musical group logos from Austria. --rimshottalk 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Bad name. Change > Category:Statues in Madonna del Sasso (Orselina) > Category:Madonna del Sasso (Orselina) Schofför (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's correct. No problem. Change it! --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Madonna del Sasso (Orselina) by Schofför 29 June 2015. --Achim (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Drdoht has moved all content to Category:Edward Adelbert Doisy, probably because this is the title of the article in EN-Wikipedia. But the article exists in 42 languages and there might be Commonscat-links to the old category name in some of them. Will these be updated automatically once a category redirect is in place on the description page of the old cat? Or is a move entry needed at Delinkercommands to achieve that, even if all content has already been moved manually? Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there is no automatic update of Commonscat-links, but if a redirect is kept, visitors will not get lost. As we do prefer full names for category names, the new name is better by Commons standards as well. --rimshottalk 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirected as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Doublon à supprimer. Le Passant (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, by User:Taivo, as per nom., I suppose. In the future, please also close the CFD if you delete a category with an open discussion. --rimshottalk 22:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
These are good photos, but most of them were miscategorized. They belonged to Durga, not to Ambiger, temple. So I moved them over to Durga. But Ambiger is certainly a valid category, so I didn't delete it. And it is different from Durga, so I didn't redirect it. Michael D. Gunther (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Michael D. Gunther (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Done: emtpy inbetween. --JuTa 18:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This building was built after 1944. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category and every image of the building in it should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Keep with the "No FoP" warning I just added, but move to Category:St Paul's Cathedral (Tirana). It has a name, and there's another cathedral in Tirana: Category:Cathedral of Christ's Resurrection, Tirana (accomplished 2011) Themightyquill (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
we name categories using the plural, the correct english plural of fish is fish (and not fishes). So the cat should be moved back. Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fishes is also correct according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, but fish is the term used in this category's parent- and subcategories; the rename of this 1000-files (!) category was a clear violation of our consensus-building process and as such should be reverted. FDMS 4 15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, added to Delinker. --Achim (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Reverted move moving back to Category:Unidentified fish via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
misnamed (should be with an ampersand as per umbrella category), also there were lots of PL 15CV cars of different styles mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. This is just another case where a business continues but its name e.g. La Societé Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Panhard et Levassor changes along with changing ownership and changing conventions. Panhard-Levassor will be found written on that particular product somewhere and it will have been the manufacturer's name at that time. After many versions didn't it end up Dyna-Panhard at its death? What are our rules for dealing with a manufacturer's name changes?
- Is this something our Francophone colleagues would be in a better position to research? Can't help with the necessary research, even my English can be unwittingly delivered fractured.
- Re 'lots of PL 15CV cars of different styles', isn't that the way these things usually are? Eddaido (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose you'd need to check out the appropriate registry at the town hall to know if there was a formal name change at some time / place. Emile L died in 1897: his widow was still alive after that, but I don't know for how long. I don't know if they had Levassor grandsons. A Levassor granddaughter married in 1927 which presumably reduced (at least) usage of the Levassor name within that branch of the family.
- Then again, the registered name of the business and contemporary usage will not always be the same and where one (or both) change(s) they are unlikely to change simultaneously. French wikipedia itself, in its article on the firm, appears to use "Panhard & Levassor" till the early 1930s and "Panhard" after 1945, but of course that only reflects the usage of one - or maybe a handful of - wiki-contributors(s). Still, those guys mostly have French as a mother tongue, so probably they're in a better position to assess French usage and any French language sources they've come across. In the absence of compelling sources pointing in the other direction, I find the "consistency" argument persuasive here, which you can take as a conditional vote for "Panhard & Levassor". Success Charles01 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Greetings Charles01. Let us put aside whether or not the owner gave his automobile the correct name on his entry form (my source) for the Brighton run. Would one expect to find an enterprise such as this one registering itself at the local town hall? Might there be some central place of registration? In Britain this size of enterprise often raises capital from the public and accordingly is required to publish all sorts of useful information. But it would take a French-speaking bean counter with access to online Paris newspapers to establish whether or not P&L did the same and if so that would provide the answer. Look at the rim of the crown thingummy hanging over their stand Panhard-Levassor Grand Palais here (Pointez pour zoomer) and there over the far side you may see the ghost of ampersand. I have like hyphenated forms about the same time including a sudden switch to Panhard Levassor (no hyphen) by The Times in 1903 though later they returned to the old form. More required?
- So the top category for these images should be Panhard? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know whether or not P&L ever became a "Société Anonyme". I suspect maybe not, which could be one reason why, in common with much of the French auto-industry, they had trouble raising money for investment when the times were good and risked having the rug pulled out by the banks when times were bad. As for the question of where the company was registered, I had always assumed that in France company registration was done on a regional basis, but I can't remember why I assumed that. There is no country in Europe more centralised than the UK, but at least if you restrict your attention to the larger ones, France is a whole lot more centralised than most. So there might be a central point for companies registration. It's just that (1) I never came across it and (2) even if there is one now, that doesn't mean there was one fifty years ago.
- On the name of the business, I still think it was "Panhard & Levassor" during the first half of the twentieth century and I am agnostic on the extent to which that might have morphed to become merely "Panhard" by the time Citroen acquired a majority holding in (I think) 1965. I have entered a question on the Panhard talk page on francophone wiki asking if anyone knows when/whether the name changed "officially" but ... don't necessarily hold your breath for an answer.
- On the name of the category, I think "Panhard & Levassor" works better than "Panhard et Levassor" because it avoids getting into discussions with monolinguists vs polylinguists (and no, I've no idea if either of those are real words).
- Also on the name of the category, I would stick with "Panhard & Levassor vehicles" for anything up to 1940. I would probably go with "Panhard vehicles" for cars after 1945, but I've no idea how wikipedia categories deal with company name changes. There may or not be recommendations or guidelines on that, but once you dig into details there's such a variety of possible scenarios that I suspect it might be better just to stick with what makes sense to the contributors involved on a case by case basis. Though yes, that stops working if contributors can't agree. I should add that in this instance, if someone comes with persuasive evidence I am always open to persuasion. But I don't regard what some fellow wrote on his entry submission for the Brighton run or for a Bonhams auction as being sufficiently persuasive in respect of anything ... much. Hang on, I had a slight thought .... I've just found a copy of an announcement from the company that appeared in "L'Actualité Automobile" in October 1933 for a "Conduite Intérieure 14 CV". There is a picture in the middle and two little paras of text on each side. The paras describe it simply as a "Panhard". But in big bold letters at the foot of the announcement it says "S.A.A.E. Panhard & Levassor, 19 Av. d'Ivry, Paris". I have absolutely no idea what S.A.A.E stands for, but the overall message on what the company called itself in 1933 seems to be "It depends who's asking and why you wanted to know". Which I don't really find a powerful argument for changing the present wiki-status-quo. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Check out the first line of the second para above to see La Société Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Panhard et Levassor for S A A E.
- French banks are/were as powerful in industry as German banks?
- There are many images, French-sourced, in the Commons collection describing the brand as Panhard-Levassor. Use search.
- Other samples:
- I have the impression that while the name of the business may not have changed the hyphenated form may have been used on the product around 1902-1905. I understand its independence but would it not be simplest and easiest for Commons to follow the Wikipedia lead on rules around naming? Which is? (please point me to the right page)
- This may be meaningful
Centra des archives du monde du travail - Société anonyme des anciens établissements Panhard-Levassor
Historique
Des accords furent conclus en 1955 et 1956 avec la SA André Citroën afin de permettre une meilleure utilisation des installations (montage à Ivry des fourgonnettes 2 CV) et une coordination partielle des réseaux commerciaux. Cette entente aboutira en 1965 à la fusion des deux sociétés sous la dénomination "Citroën SA, Automobile Citroën, Berliet, Panhard". A la suite des fusions avec Peugeot (1976) et Talbot (1980), la firme, devenue filiale de Peugeot SA retrouvera son autonomie sous la raison sociale de "Société de constructions mécaniques Panhard-Levassor" (SCMPL) dont le siège social est toujours au 18 avenue d'Ivry et qui se consacre, dans son usine de Marolles-en-Hurepoix (Essonne), à la fabrication de chars et d'engins blindés. But it does sound a Klaxon with Panhard-Levassor.
- This may be meaningful
- added note: Pour l'historique des Établissements Panhard, voir PEROT, (Benoît).- Panhard, la doyenne d'avant-garde avec préface de Jean Panhard, Paris, Ed. E.P.A., 1979, 493 p. ill. ouvrage conservé sous la cote 65 AQ N, ainsi que 4 notices dans 186 AQ 15 dossier 2.
- la brochure du cinquantenaire intitulée Société anonyme des anciens établissements Panhard-Levassor, publiée à Paris en 1905
- Might it be possible to find someone who can understand this?
- Entry record (for 2015) Cliquez D1590!
- One can easily make the case for dash, ampersand, or et. I don't give a hoot which one we use, as long as it's uniform for all of the categories. It was easier to rename two categories than all. As for the types, the "15 CV" label was used from 1902 until 1915 on a variety of chassis: C, H, I, J, S, U2, and U7 (all chain drive, conventional engines with valves), X, X4, and X11 (shaft drive, valves), X17 and X21 (shaft drive, sleeve-valve engine). I figured I'd split the category into chain and shaft drive for now, as that seems to be the most fruitful in terms of organizing. There is an awesome listing of PL models here, with code explanations etcetera. Here's a 1920's plate, and a 1910 parts catalogue (want!). mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- As for the switch to simply "Panhard", I'd say WWII is when that took place. However, "PL" still appeared here and there, such as on the engine of this 24bt I recently got to admire. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- All makes sense to me. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- As for the switch to simply "Panhard", I'd say WWII is when that took place. However, "PL" still appeared here and there, such as on the engine of this 24bt I recently got to admire. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
we name categories using the plural, the correct english plural of fish is fish (and not fishes). So the cat should be moved back. Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fish is a perfectly good plural, and probably the more common one among native speakers. At the very least, a cat redirect is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Jmabel. When the word "fishes" is used, it means multiple types of fish, not multiple individual ones. This category appears to be for unidentified individual fish, so its name should use the word "fish" as the plural. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Apparent duplicate of Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/05/Category:Unidentified fishes. FDMS 4 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Too broad and meaningless category, located in a crowded parent category. The subcategories can easily be found through their other parent categories. Jonund (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose because of Category:Water in religion. --Achim (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done but moved to Category:Water in Islam. BMacZero (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This should be renamed to ‘Green Party of England and Wales’. Kaihsu Tai (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Category was moved: 18:05, 5. Sep. 2016 NeverDoING (Diskussion | Beiträge) . . (63 Bytes) (+63) . . (NeverDoING moved page Category:Green Party of England to Category:Green Party of England and Wales) --GeorgHH • talk 16:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
There has never been a ‘Green Party of the United Kingdom’. This should probably be renamed as ‘... of the Green Party of England and Wales’ and contents adjusted. Kaihsu Tai (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --Achim (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Done All files and subcats moved to Category:Members of the Green Party of England and Wales. --GeorgHH • talk 16:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
And also:
Categories for files whose filedescs or filenames contain "perfect" (perfect category only) or subjective judgement (some say nothing is perfect …). As such IMO lacking any categorisation-wise value. FDMS 4 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Subjective judgement category without any categorisation-wise value. FDMS 4 00:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, point in case: File:A complicated road junction at Altnaharra - geograph.org.uk - 946149.jpg, which doesn't look complicated at all to me. --rimshottalk 06:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 23:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
P is not an proper name for portal or project (here is not Wikipedia). So please rename (compare talkpage). The same for all sub-cates, including Category:N icons. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 08:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that "P icons" is not a useful name, but what should it be renamed to? --rimshottalk 09:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- A simple solution would be Wiki P icons!? (Rimshot) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can we expect anyone to know what "Wiki P" means? What does this category contain, anyhow? --rimshottalk 21:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- A simple solution would be Wiki P icons!? (Rimshot) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Any objections to moving this to Wikipedia portal icons? FDMS 4 23:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
No objections raised to FDMS4's suggestion of moving to Category:Wikipedia portal icons. Moved and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This category and its contents do not appear to be educationally useful. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So long as we have the images, it makes sense to keep them in a category. Feel free to nominated images for deletion if you'd like, Cpt.a.haddock - I won't object. For the time being, I've renamed the category Category:Deep Group Theatre Company. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Should be called "Panhard & Levassor type M4E", would also allow for the inclusion of other bodystyles mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly two years. Moved to Category:Panhard & Levassor type M4E. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The category name relates to a professional accociation (German association of chirugical assistants) but none of the pictures in the category is connected to this association. If the files are removed from the cat it becomes empty and should be deleted until a real need occurs. Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Images removed and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
en.wiki cat moved from Category:Washington, D.C. City Council members to Category:Members of the Council of the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_19#Category:Washington.2C_D.C._City_Council_members) Naraht (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- is there a reason to rearrange the deck chairs? WCP style guide trumps common name? lol. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such entity as the Washington D.C. City Council. See en:Council of the District of Columbia.Naraht (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- is there a reason to rearrange the deck chairs? WCP style guide trumps common name? lol. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rename per Naraht (otherwise City Council would have to be decapitalised). FDMS 4 23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Members of the Council of the District of Columbia. As per Naraht and FDMS4. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This building was built after 1944. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category and any image representating this building in it should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Images can be deleted, but the category contains a "No Freedom of Panorama" warning, and currently contains a photo taken from the top of the museum. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Category has been moved to Category:Pyramid of Tirana. It still has no-fop warnings, and it contains a legitimate sub-category of Category:Views from the Pyramid of Tirana. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The film a photo has been taken on is usually not the photo's subject. This goes far beyond the point where "unidentified" categories can be useful, as in most cases a photo's film is just impossible to identify. FDMS 4 00:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment It may would have been more appropriate (for example) "Photographs by century". --Benzoyl (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think we should have a general category for photographs taken on film. Currently, the only way to mark an analog (film) photograph a such seems to be to add it to one of the subcategories of Category:Photographs by film (or maybe even more indirectly through the camera model used). But we have boatloads of old analog images where we don't know the film type or camera. So I'd suggest to just turn it around: Move the content of this category to Category:Photographs taken on film and make Category:Photographs by film a subcat of that. Category:Reversal film photos could be another subcat. --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- El Grafo's suggestion of a move to Category:Photographs taken on film makes sense to me. What do yo think, FDMS4 and Benzoyl ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is up to you. You can decide. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree. FDMS 4 09:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- El Grafo's suggestion of a move to Category:Photographs taken on film makes sense to me. What do yo think, FDMS4 and Benzoyl ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Photographs taken on film, and left a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Category:Kentucky Route 49 Bridge, Spanning Rolling Fork River, Bradfordsville, Marion County, KY HAER
[edit]This was originally at Category:KY49 Rolling Fork River Bridge. Why in the world did it get moved? I can't find any evidence that a move was requested, not even at the mover's talk page. The new name uses the naming convention of the source for the images currently in the category, but why do we need to use their convention? Should Category:Charleroi-Monessen Bridge be moved to Category:Charleroi-Monessen Bridge, Spanning Monongahela River at State Route 2018, North Charleroi, Washington County, PA HAER? I don't think so, and I don't think this should have been moved: categories should have simple names when possible. Finally, note that the current "Kentucky Route...HAER" title excludes all images that aren't sourced from the Historic American Engineering Record — all the current contents are, but it's possible that someone could upload an old postcard of the bridge. This is like the glass spheres at COM:C. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support The old name is sufficiently descriptive without being so unwieldy. BMacZero (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, making it 3-0, and I'm moving it back. A disambiguation may be needed if someone wants a category for the replacement bridge, but this naming wouldn't help. --ghouston (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a category:Shantytowns. This should probably be merged with Category:Slums in South Korea. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- We have Category:Shanty towns. Since that's also up for discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/05/Category:Shanty towns, we may as well close this one. --ghouston (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll redirect the Slums category to Shantytowns, since all the images seem to be shantytowns. --ghouston (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Singular category name. Should be renamed to either Kösener Corpsstudents, Members of the Kösener Corps or Members of the Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband – what is the difference between the latter two (their categories have exactly the same description)? FDMS 4 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The last proposal would be wrong since the Corps are Members of the Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband not individual persons. Kösener Corpsstudents is ok, and Members of a Kösener Corps would be ok too. I would prefer Kösener Corpsstudents though it sound a little bit Germish to me.--Kresspahl (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- and the discussion affects Category:Weinheimer Corpsstudent too.--Kresspahl (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- The last proposal is wrong, as explained by Kresspahl. Instead of the first proposal, I would propose Kösener Corpsstudenten. It has to be seen as a proper name, which shouldn't be partially translated. The second one implies that the persons in question would be members of all Kösener Corps. But in most cases the persons to be categorized belong to one Corps only. Therefore my proposal would be Members of Kösener Corps. Everything mentioned can be applied to the category Weinheimer Corpsstudent as well. --Von Hintenburg (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- and the discussion affects Category:Weinheimer Corpsstudent too.--Kresspahl (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- The last proposal would be wrong since the Corps are Members of the Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband not individual persons. Kösener Corpsstudents is ok, and Members of a Kösener Corps would be ok too. I would prefer Kösener Corpsstudents though it sound a little bit Germish to me.--Kresspahl (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Members of Kösener Corps and Category:Members of Weinheimer Corps look good to me, and the first also fits well with its subcategories like Category:Members of Corps Borussia Bonn. I'll submit renaming requests some time if there's no objection. --ghouston (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- That looks like consensus, since no one has objected to Von Hintenburg's proposal in over two years. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Closing, rename requests submitted as above. --ghouston (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This building was built after 1944. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category and the building's photos which feature in it should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Images can be deleted, but there's nothing wrong with the category itself. There's a "No Freedom of Panorama" warning, and the category contains a sub-category with collections from the museum. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: The request is not in CDF's scope, a DR must be fieled if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I beg you from renaming this category and any categories related with Belarus. First we need to reach consensus about naming policy of Belarusian geographical names in Commons. 37.17.4.31 07:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This building was built after 1944. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category and all images included in it should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find a date, but the building was constructed as the Soviet Embassy after WWII. Copyright still applies. That said, there's a map in the category that's PD. I'm going to add a no-FoP template and nominate the images of the building for deletion. But I suggest keeping the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would, however, suggest a move to either Category:Presidential Palace of Tirana (as per en:Presidential Palace of Tirana) or preferably the official Albanian name Category:Presidenca (Tirana). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is a new law in Albania, FoP is allowed now. Look here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania --Halavar (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept but moved to Category:Presidential Palace of Tirana with no opposition in over 2 years. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Lisbon. Splitting this subject into historical periods seems non-productive, especially as it has been continuously settled for the last 2500 yrs. It is also not the usual policy, even for “splittable” subjects. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to be dead... Anyway, it is useful to have a category for "Ancient Roman Lisbon" stuff, possibly with that very name. Therefore, I suggest moving Olisipo to the more neutral Category:Ancient Roman Lisbon or something to the same effect.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin and DarwIn: It does seem strange to split this using a name rather than description, but we also have a bunch of them in Category:Ancient Roman cities and villages by Latin name by country and the wikipedia article is at en:Olisipo. If there is consensus to move to Category:Ancient Roman Lisbon, I won't object, but we should leave a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a good way to deal with it, TheMightyQuill. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, Themightyquill, and Tuvalkin: Agreed, and I am going to carry out the redirect. --LeZibou (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin and DarwIn: It does seem strange to split this using a name rather than description, but we also have a bunch of them in Category:Ancient Roman cities and villages by Latin name by country and the wikipedia article is at en:Olisipo. If there is consensus to move to Category:Ancient Roman Lisbon, I won't object, but we should leave a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ancient Roman Lisbon. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This would not be controversial if it didn't involve so many files, so I am starting a discussion. There are a number of esoteric category names that should be moved to less confusing names or be deleted.
- Category:M1-1 - Interstate Route Sign → Category:Diagrams of Interstate Highway shields
- Category:M1-2 - Interstate Business Loop shields → Category:Diagrams of Interstate Business Loop shields
- Category:M1-3 - Interstate Business Spur shields → Category:Diagrams of Interstate Business Spur shields
- Category:M1-4 - Federal Road Shields → Category:Diagrams of U.S. Highway shields
- Category:M1-1 - State Route Sign → Category:Diagrams of state highway route markers of the United States
- Category:M1-6 - County Road Shields → Category:Diagrams of U.S. county route markers
- Category:M1-7 - Forest Route shields is entirely redundant to Category:Forest Route shields and should be deleted
The M1-1 number refers to the sign code in the US MUTCD (see http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf), and as such, it is an obscure inventory code to most people. I believe that in the past, the SVG files were in the same category as photos of signs, and I respect the desire to keep SVGs and photos separate, so I am proposing Diagrams of... categories instead. –Fredddie™ 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom and would simplify the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support to make the categories more understandable. --Rschen7754 22:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
On hold - The nom seems like he has a reasonable case, but what would this mean for other MUTCD-listed categories? Also what would the proposal for US Forest Route shields mean for Forest routes in other countries? ----DanTD (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Fredddie and DanTD: Further thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Closed as move. I've worked as a traffic engineer, and MUTCD numbering still confuses me. To address DanTD's concerns: other RMs can be filed (or boldly moved) for other MUTCD categories if appropriate. And only the US seems to use "Forest Route" with that capitalization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This mosque was built and consecrated after 1944, although the first building (which was demolished before the building of the new structure) was quite older. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Images from this category should be deleted. --Halavar (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Glorious 93 and Halavar: Images of the old mosque would be acceptable, or no? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is a new law in Albania, FoP is allowed now. Look here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania --Halavar (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
FOP in Albania makes this discussion unnecessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This museum was built and opened after 1944. According to that information and the fact that there is no-FoP in Albania, this category should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Missing FoP doesn't affect all images in this category. Category is fine --> keep. Each image has to be checked individually. --Albinfo (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
New rules about FOP in Albania make this discussion unnecessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably intended not as a category but as a gallery page Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nein, keineswegs, sondern so, wie die Kategorie definiert ist. --Konrad Stein (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Commons ist ein internationales Projekt, deshalb sollten die Kategorien möglichst in Englisch benannt sein. In diesem Fall wäre das vermutlich die bereits existierende Kategorie Category:Sheet music publishers oder die Kategorie Category:Music publishing companies. Außerdem sollten Kategorien, die sich auf die ganze Person beziehen, der Personenkategorie zugewiesen werden, nicht einzelnen Bildern (deshalb dachte ich, es sollte eine Galerie statt eine Kategorie sein, für Robert Schumann existiert ja eine Personenkategorie). Darf ich die Dateien entsprechend verschieben? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nun, die bisher in dieser zusammengefassten Personen sind „Herausgeber einer Musikzeitschrift“. „Sheet music“ betrifft Notendruck, „Music publishing companies“ wären Verlage, beides passt daher nicht. Jedem Bild eine „Personenkategorie“ zuzuordnen wäre selbstverständlich sinnvoll, aber auch sehr aufwändig. Gibt es denn eigentlich Verweisungskategorien? Denn nicht jeder Nutzer ist ja so international, dass er den Unterschied zwischen „editor“, „publisher“, „producer“ etc. kennte und darüberhinaus auch noch wüsste, dass es für das deutsche Wort „Herausgeber“ keine passende Entsprechung im Englischen gibt. Viele Grüße von --Konrad Stein (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ja, es gibt Verweisungskategorien, sie heißen hier Kategorie-Weiterleitung und werden durch den Eintrag {{category redirect|Name der Zielkategorie}} erzeugt. Das ist auch das übliche Verfahren, um von anderssprachigen Bezeichnungen auf die englischsprachige Kategorie weiterzuleiten.
- Die feingliedrige Kategorisierung von Verlegern oder Herausgebern nach Themengebiet ist bislang nicht üblich. Möglich ware aber, eine neue Category:Music magazine publishers unter die bestehende Category:Magazine publishers einzuhängen (bzw. Category:Music magazine editors unter die bestehende Category:Magazine editors - je nachdem, wie man Herausgeber übersetzen will).
- Personenkategorien sind eigentlich kein größerer Aufwand als die Kategorisierung der einzelnen Dateien, eher im Gegenteil: Durch die Zusammenfassung der Objektinformationen (Beruf, Lebensdaten, Sortierschlüssel) in der Personenkategorie werden die Dopplungen in den einzelnen Dateien erspart und die Oberkategorien werden übersichtlicher. Ich habe das eben mit Category:Franz Brendel als Beispiel umgesetzt. Beste Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Rudolph Buch and Konrad Stein: I've created Category:Magazine editors from Germany and most of these fit there. We haven't generally categorized editors by subject, though we do have Category:Fantasy editors and Category:Science fiction editors. We could, theoretically, move this to Category:Music editors, Category:Editors of music publications or Category:Editors of music-related publications. Please note that, as well as not being in English, this category has never been categorized, so it's not within the category tree, making it difficult to find and largely useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Themightyquill, thanks for your effort to resolve this. I´m not currently active in categorizations (somehow lost my belief that it would make any difference) so I´m fine with any action that you wish to take. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Largely replaced by Category:Editors of Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Per my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slum#Merge_with_shanty_town, this category is not distinguishable from Category:Slums, where it should be merged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @Piotrus: Not to say we can't merge them, but I'm not sure the two are synonymous. Slum can mean any deeply impoverished area, but the buildings could be poor quality apartment blocks. Shanty town is something more specific, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: While there said Wikipedia discussion has not achieved consensus, I am not sure if there are any good visual cues on how to differentiate slum from shanty town, other then by their categorization on Wikipedia. I think this category is too ill-defined and subjective to support both terms, visual-wise. Seriously: take a random pic from them and ask random people to categorize it in slum or shanty town - and I bet you'll get a 50/50 split. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: , as I see it, all shanty towns are slums, but not all slums are shanty towns. An area where all the homes are made of assembled bits of corrugated steel and other scrap metal (File:Flimsy shacks in CiteSoleil.JPG) certainly qualifies as shanty town. An image from Budapest's Magdolna District (File:Magdolna negyed.jpg, for example) is fine in the slum category tree but no one would place it a shanty town category. That said, I imagine you are right that there are a lot of in-between areas (with housing that's a little more stable) that would be hard to categorize. This image (File:Complexo_do_Alemão_(3).JPG) is from Category:Complexo do Alemão which is currently categorized as a shanty town, but as you said, lots of people would disagree. Merging to slums is probably a good idea, but it might be a good idea to categorize shanty towns by something less ambiguous, like Category:Corrugated iron homes in Category:Corrugated iron buildings? A note could be added to the category to encourage that. Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I see it, the main feature of a shanty town is that the residents havce built their own houses, whereas slums (which are often apartment blocks) are often landlord-owned. If we are to differentiate betwen the two, it might be appropriate that the differentiation be whether each building is essentially a single-family unit or a multiple-family unit. Martinvl (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: , as I see it, all shanty towns are slums, but not all slums are shanty towns. An area where all the homes are made of assembled bits of corrugated steel and other scrap metal (File:Flimsy shacks in CiteSoleil.JPG) certainly qualifies as shanty town. An image from Budapest's Magdolna District (File:Magdolna negyed.jpg, for example) is fine in the slum category tree but no one would place it a shanty town category. That said, I imagine you are right that there are a lot of in-between areas (with housing that's a little more stable) that would be hard to categorize. This image (File:Complexo_do_Alemão_(3).JPG) is from Category:Complexo do Alemão which is currently categorized as a shanty town, but as you said, lots of people would disagree. Merging to slums is probably a good idea, but it might be a good idea to categorize shanty towns by something less ambiguous, like Category:Corrugated iron homes in Category:Corrugated iron buildings? A note could be added to the category to encourage that. Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: While there said Wikipedia discussion has not achieved consensus, I am not sure if there are any good visual cues on how to differentiate slum from shanty town, other then by their categorization on Wikipedia. I think this category is too ill-defined and subjective to support both terms, visual-wise. Seriously: take a random pic from them and ask random people to categorize it in slum or shanty town - and I bet you'll get a 50/50 split. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Martinvl on this, and now that I think of it, I don't think it makes sense to categorize anything as a slum. "Shanty town" is a objective category, based on the visible nature of the housing. Slum is a derogatory and subjective term, describing the general economic wealth of an area relative to its neighbours. We don't have Category:Sketchy neighbourhoods so we shouldn't have Category:Slums. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I am not sure that I agree with Thewmightyquill about removing the Category:Slums. At times there are no alternatives. How, for example, would we categorise this image? Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- You may well have a legitimate argument, Martinvl, but I think that's an especially bad example to use. It's definitely not a picture of a slum, it's a picture of people. I've added Category:People of Dublin and Category:Poverty in Ireland which were inexplicably missing. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. People are not slums; we could have a category of inhabitants of slums, but I am not sure if it is the best idea. We could also consider having a category for Category:Shanty towns and slums, since it is so hard to distinguish one from another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- You may well have a legitimate argument, Martinvl, but I think that's an especially bad example to use. It's definitely not a picture of a slum, it's a picture of people. I've added Category:People of Dublin and Category:Poverty in Ireland which were inexplicably missing. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I am not sure that I agree with Thewmightyquill about removing the Category:Slums. At times there are no alternatives. How, for example, would we categorise this image? Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
I looked a few terms in the Oxford English Dictionary:
- shanty town: n. a suburb consisting of shanties, spec. a poor or depressed area of a city or town.
- shanty: Chiefly U.S. and Canada. A small, mean, roughly constructed dwelling; a cabin, a hut.
- slums: A street, alley, court, etc., situated in a crowded district of a town or city and inhabited by people of a low class or by the very poor; a number of these streets or courts forming a thickly populated neighbourhood or district where the houses and the conditions of life are of a squalid and wretched character. Chiefly pl., and freq. in the phrase back slum(s). Also rarely, a house materially unfit for human habitation.
This tells me that a shanty town is a particular type of slum - namely one which consists of single dwellings as opposed to tennement blocks. My experience in Africa is that a shanty town is a township where corrugated iron and sheets of plastic are frequently used as building materials. Nneteenth Century European slums on the other hand were often brick or stone tennemant blocks around a central courtyard. Therefore I suggest that the categories be kept as they are. Martinvl (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a specific phenomenon - areas of housing in an urban setting, self built from poor (often scavenged) materials, on land with (at least) insecure legal status, housing poor people, lacking basic amenities. The terms "slum", "shanty town", "squatter camp", "favela" and "Hooverville" are used. I think "shanty town" is best. Slums are usually areas of regular housing that have deteriorated, favelas are shanty towns that have been regularized. "Squats" (an existing category are (in modern times) unused buildings that are being occupied - though I suppose "squatter camp" is a usable term. --Simonxag (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as they are. Some slums are not shanty towns. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
How is this different from Category:Headless statues? The only possible distinctions I can imagine (which may not have been the reason for creation) is that Headless is used for accidental head removals, while Decapitated is for intentional head removals; or perhaps Headless is for statues that never had heads (weird designs, for example?), while Decapitated is for statues that have lost their heads. Both seem rather useless: occasionally we know why a statue's headless (example, where college students cut off the head and stole it), but that's rare (especially with ancient statues) and won't be relevant for most reusers or most people trying to categorise an image in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I agree that we don't usually know if a head has gone missing from decay or vandalism, but I actually think your second suggestion for disambiguation make some sense. Perhaps Category:Decapitated statues could be moved to Category:Statues with missing heads? Aside from weird statues like File:Agora, Grant Park, Chicago (14580968214).jpg, it's not so uncommon to have statues of people holding their severed heads. Could File:Paris Notre-Dame cathedral Portail de la Vierge jamb statues left Saint-Denis 01b.jpg go in Category:Headless statues or do we need a separate category for that sort of thing? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- We already have a category for that sort of thing; see Category:Statues of cephalophores and en:cephalophore. Barring that, I still don't see a benefit to distinguishing between "never a head" and "no longer a head". Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The three categories Category:Peasants, Category:Farmers, Category:Ranchers should be merged together. I would propose Category:Peasants as the most general term. The classification is not obvious at all. Boundaries are at least unsharp. Description of categories is missing. It seems to be culture dependent. Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Farmer is a person who owns or manages a farm.Peasant is a poor smallholder or agricultural labourer of low social status (chiefly in historical use or with reference to subsistence farming in poorer countries). And a Rancher is person who owns or runs a ranch. so , it's exactly cultural dependent. in Middle East, "Peasant" is for who is from Village , poor or not. there is no category for people from village in Commons.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Farmer and Rancher is big agro-business, esp. abroad or in colonial context, in Europe there is not much difference between the owner of the land and the one doing the work on the fields and in the stables (except for land workers). In German we use the same word for both concepts. The social status of peasants in Europe is not that low. If you have a look at the three categories, assignment is not clear at all. What about to limit farmers and rangers to named persons owning a minimum area or a minimum number of cattle (number to be defined) and subcat them both to peasants? Farmers and rangers do not work on their farm / ranch, but manage the farm / ranch. They have all year employees doing the work. Except for the definition of peasant, we agree in limiting the farmers & rangers to persons that own or manage something. Images of people doing agricultural work should be put to peasants generally. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, I never would have realized there were such cultural differences in the meanings of these terms. I will give the US perspective as I understand it.
- In the US, when we think of peasants, we probably mean low-class people who live on land that belongs to a person that they serve. (We probably think of the Middle Ages when we think of them.) They may work that person's land in exchange for the right to live there, and they may not have the right to leave. We don't usually consider people like migrant farm workers to be peasants.
- A rancher is someone who owns or manages a ranch (called a station in Australia), which is a large piece of land used for raising livestock. The animals are often those that graze, which is why the land needs to be big. So you could have a cattle ranch, a horse ranch, or a sheep ranch, but you wouldn't have a ranch for poultry or pigs because those animals don't need that kind of space.
- A farmer owns or manages a farm. A farm is a place for raising crops and/or animals. The animals are usually either smaller ones or fewer in number than on a ranch. A farm can be smaller than a ranch, in fact can be quite small, but can be large if there is a large area of planted crops (like big wheat fields).
- So from this perspective, peasants are clearly different because they don't own the land and they work for their landlord. Ranchers and farmers do similar work, but with different products and usually on a different scale. I would say that farmers and ranchers are not peasants (in the US they would be insulted to be called peasants) and should be separate if we have farms and ranches separate. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This category mostly just replicates its containing category. Anybody looking for reliefs and sculptures will find them right away at Pancha Rathas, so why do we need the subcategory? Michael D. Gunther (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, in short: no it does not replicate. Reasons to be establised, among the logical ones referring to categorizing, to avoid 'overwhelming' of its mother categories (Mahambalipuram/Rathas), and to improve usability for users outside of the Wikimedia Commons project, as well to categorize more adequate p.e. art of India by period (see categories of the subs), and also to avoid 'overwhelming' of the accordingly categories, to realize access from "Mahabliparum" monuments to accordingly sculptures of the monuments, to differ the 'rock-temples' (Rathas) from just the 'sculptures' surrounding the five (Pancha) Rathas, and so on, etc. btw: normally really not interested to discuss such matters as categories etc. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 00:40 [edit ~01:58], 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The 'Elephant,' 'Lion,' and 'Nandi' categories are listed as subcategories of 'Sculptures' and also of 'Pancha Rathas.' But 'Sculptures' is already listed as a subcategory of 'Pancha Rathas.' This is logical overcategorization. It needs to be fixed. What is your advice? Michael D. Gunther (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since (The Lion, Elephant , And A Bull) are listed monuments under ASI code N-TN-C41, I suggest that they should be separated from other reliefs and sculptures under a new category so that Template:ASI Monument can be used for one category only. - Jazze7 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Done: moved to Category:Sculptures at the Pancha Rathas by Themightyquill. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Instead of "National costumes", shouldn't all categories follow "Traditional costumes" as actual scope? Zoupan (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's a lot of categories to be renamed. I also prefer "traditional costumes", though, as that would include regional costumes too. --rimshottalk 11:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per actual scope, that is indeed the best name.--Zoupan (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Another name used is "folk costumes".--Zoupan (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per actual scope, that is indeed the best name.--Zoupan (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Any thoughts?--Zoupan (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Achim: Any thoughts?--Zoupan (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Neutral There's a long discussion at en:Talk:Folk_costume#National_costume_vs_folk_costume worth checking out. English wikipedia's article is at en:Folk costume but it used to be at "National costume" as evidenced by the still existing en:Category:National costume. "Nation" in this case might not refer to "nation state", but just nation as in "a people", so "regional costumes" might still be national costumes. ie. ethnic minorities existing solely within a state might still have their own "national" costume. I'm not especially opposed to a change, but I don't see it causing a lot of problems the way it is now. Redirects from Category:Folk costumes should definitely be put in place though.- Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, national is indeed a problematic term. National ≠ Folk/Traditional. "national" implies a nation-wide or nation-representative costume. "folk" and "traditional" do not have that meaning. To avoid confusion over whether a particular dress is a/the national costume, as implied by the term, and as the scope of all Commons-categories are indeed folk/traditional costumes (several, various), a move would not be controversial. --Zoupan (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good change too! Most of the pictures in the categories is not on one national costume but on many different traditional costumes. In Sweden there is a national costume called "Nationella dräkten" (The national costume, used in the 1700s by the aristocrats) but it is not at all what most people mean when they talk about traditional "folkdräkter" (folk costumes), and most of the pictures in the category are on folkdräkter. --Astridx (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, national is indeed a problematic term. National ≠ Folk/Traditional. "national" implies a nation-wide or nation-representative costume. "folk" and "traditional" do not have that meaning. To avoid confusion over whether a particular dress is a/the national costume, as implied by the term, and as the scope of all Commons-categories are indeed folk/traditional costumes (several, various), a move would not be controversial. --Zoupan (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Astridx, Zoupan, and Rimshot: It seems to me that, as Astridx says, "traditional" is broader category that might contain a "national" subcategory (in cases where clothing has been formalized as part of nationalist projects.) So I propose a move to Category:Traditional clothes by country for all of these, unless a "national" sub-category is clearly necessary. I'd suggest we use clothes over costumes for the sake of clarify, since costumes can have different meanings. I realize "traditional" is subjective, but not any more than "national". - Themightyquill (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Zoupan, Astridx, and Rimshot: Do we have consensus to rename to Category:Traditional clothing by country? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes we do. --rimshottalk 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see another problem. «Traditional costumes» does not include more modern/newer/current clothing, but typical for a country. Nevertheless I also like the term Traditional Clothes. -- Kürschner (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I thought I was ready to do this, but what to we do with Category:National costumes? Just move it to Category:Traditional clothing? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I see another problem. «Traditional costumes» does not include more modern/newer/current clothing, but typical for a country. Nevertheless I also like the term Traditional Clothes. -- Kürschner (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Traditional cloths", "Traditional clothing", "Traditional costumes"... While for some countries we have several cats for the same stuff, for others (who have a rich cultural heritage in this area) we have none. This is where "self-centered activity" (nationalism) in Commons and Wikipedias have brought us. Shame on me for my part. E4024 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country. JopkeB (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion about this matter has been continued on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country. See there for the conclusions and actions; they are in line with the outcome of this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Purpose: unify transliteration of Belarusian geographical names into the Roman alphabet according to en:Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script.
At the moment Commons do not have naming convention for Belarusian geographical names in category titles. In Belarus a system of romanization for Belarusian geographical names was adopted in 2000 and was revised in 2007. In 2012 the system was recommended to be adopted as the international system for the romanization of Belarusian geographical names by United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names [1]. The system as presented at Tenth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names can be found here.
The system has wide usage in Belarus today: signs 1, 2, schemes, maps, public transport: 1, 2. This system is the only way you can find your destination as other systems have no practical usage.
Conclusion: in order to have all the category names related to Belarusian geographical names be written in one style and have them better recognized by the users, Commons should use en:Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script for its naming conventions. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- When the conventions for romanization of Cyrillic languages were developed at dawn of Commons project, BGN/PCGN was a good option to apply it for Belarusian as for other languages with Cyrillic script. Over the years, this approach, however, revealed disadvantages that are often cannot be easily avoided. Among others, they are, namely, the inability to reverse a romanized name in a general case, and existence of two official languages in Belarus often leads to a conflict of which language, Russian or Belarusian, should be used as a source for BGN/PCGN romanization.
- At the same time, it can be noticed, that the naming conventions in English WP for all the Cyrillic languages that have an officially adopted romanization standard, suggest to use exactly this standard as a preferable transliteration methods. These languages are Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbian. All the other languages on the list, except Belarusian, do not have an official transliteration standard, so the BGN/PCGN romanization would actually be a good option. Belarusian, however, now has such an official standard, that was additionally recommended by UNGEGN, and shows continuous growth of usage share over the past years as shown in the original message. Besides this, the standard allows to solve the transliteration problems named above.
- Based on this, I strongly support the initial proposition and suggest utilizing of the official transliteration method for Belarusian geographic names. —zedlik (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Only because some organizations recommend something as standard is not helpful. Unify with the Belarus government document but destroy links with the English language?
- Many user will not be able to write ĺ and ŭ.
- Additionally it will lead to splitting of Belarusian and Russian - e.g. H instead of G. According to en:Russian language in Belarus in 1995 70% declared Russian to be the language spoken at home. :FreightXPress (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- All statements should be based on reliable sources. United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names is undoubtfully reliable source as it represents worldwide recognized oraganization. There are no any other system of transliteration of Belarusian geographical names into the Roman alphabet that has the same level of recommendations. You shouldn't worry about links and problems with some characters, they already resolved in Commons as it is only technical issue. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: closing stale discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)