Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/11
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 November 2015
Dupe of Category:Cathedral of Yerevan. Achim (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The creator of the category is only willing to cooperate in a very limited extend. Therefore, i moved the files to the existing category and requested the deletion of the new category. --Arnd (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 6 November 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
empty category j.budissin+/- 20:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty category with no parent. Recommend deletion Gbawden (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Achim55. User:Gbawden, consider tagging empty categories with {{Emptypage}} in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete empty duplicate category to move unnecessarily disambiguated Category:Kamal Sido (historian) here. - PanchoS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved Category:Kamal Sido (historian) to Category:Kamal Sido. --Achim (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Created by mistake, should be deleted. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Empty category, nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposing to delete this empty category because there already is a category:Miadziel Lake of the same lake. Jarash (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete this category. --ValeriySh (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect rather than delete. The name seems to be spelled a variety of ways in English, including Miadzel and Myadzyel. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Miadzel Lake to Category:Miadziel Lake. --Achim (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
deletion request Alpöhi (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- category is empty as all but one media have been already in Category:Pegasus (band), I moved also the one. On the other side, in Category:Pegasus (band) there was ony one media related to original use of that category, e.g. as container for the Norwegian band of the same name. I moved that one to Category:Pegasus (Norwegian band). --Alpöhi
Kept Category:Pegasus (Swiss band) and set a disambiguation on Category:Pegasus (band). --Achim (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
duplicate category 6AND5 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Duplicate category - Tmogvi fortress, we must now decide who to leave--6AND5 (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Tmogvi fortress is the older one and its name is easier to understand, so we should keep it and merge Category:Tmkaberd into it leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Tmogvi fortress and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
duplicate category 6AND5 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Duplicate category - Khertvisi fortress, we must now decide who to leave--6AND5 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Khertvisi fortress and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Druddigon (talk | contributions) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thought the uploader meant a college in Portugal, it was actually in Mexico. Delete it Threeohsix (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Umbenennen in "Bei der Abtsmühle (Lüneburg)".
Die Straße heißt "Bei der Abtsmühle" und nicht "Bei der Abtmühle" F. Riedelio (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Der Name ist mit "Bei der Abtsmühle" richtig. Ob der Name (Lüneburg) noch dazu soll, ist mir egal. -- Clemens Franz (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- In Bei der Abtspferdetränke steht auch kein (Lüneburg) dahinter. --Achim (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bei der Abtsmühle. --Achim (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
To be deleted ; I am the creator and I made an error : wrong name Tangopaso (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason this isn't at Category:Caru' cu Bere? Yes, I realize "Carul" is formal and correct, but it isn't the name of the establishment. Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Caru' cu Bere is a proper name and apparently a registered name too. --Achim (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Caru' cu Bere and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
now at Category:Osterreiten in Bautzen 2014 j.budissin+/- 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted remains of a move. --Achim (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
empty --Ephraim33 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not empty. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
ok, than we can close this discussion. --Ephraim33 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, the only file was wrong and was moved to Category:Manor in Borowo as File:Borowo 03.jpg Michał Sobkowski (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I created this category in error. It should read "Category:Dormer windows on the Isle of Wight" Motacilla (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Category redirected as per creator's request, and in harmony with parent categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Wrong name in .jpg ; unuseful redirect ; a category with the right name has been created Tangopaso (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Inconsistent naming: According to the subcategories of Category:Lepidoptera illustrations, most of the illustration subcategories seem to be Category:Species name illustrations. Leyo 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I see no problem, I think it's a good idea. I'll appiquer this proposal and I support the renaming. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Amphipyra pyramidea illustrations. --Achim (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
refers to the same mountains as Category:Passu Cones. Only one is needed. This one here had only a few entries and has been emtied Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected empty cat to Category:Passu Cones. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have identified the missing person, category not needed Threeohsix (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Empty and unlikely to be needed again. As far as I can tell, it was only "necessary" in the first place to identify a person in a photo whose face cannot be seen. ie. I don't think it should have been created in the first place. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
please delete if possible Dirtsc (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware, that Category:Zaria (ship, 2012) definitely describes the inland tanker duild in 2012. Sorry for that, --Dirtsc (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty category with deletion requested by nominator. I've added {{Bad name}} so it should be deleted soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There is already a Category:Shah-i-Zinda so the Category:Shah-i-Zinda Mausoleum created a few days ago, should be deleted --Faqscl (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is already a Category:Bibi-Khanum Mosque (with a hyphen) so Category:Bibi Khanum Mosque should be deleted --Faqscl (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected empty cat to Category:Bibi-Khanum Mosque. --Achim (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This category seems counterproductive to me. Airports and airfields have a common name that is used as category name. For example, Category:Berlin Tegel Airport. This makes sense and is in my opinion far superior to naming airports by ICAO code, which is basically unknown outside aviation circles, where either the name or sometimes the IATA code is used. Furthermore, the ICAO is not the "name" of an airport or airfield, just a designator and not all airfield have an ICAO code. Now we have the situation that most airfield categories are by name, but a few are also by ICAO code. Even worse, we have some categories of the form "ABCD (airfield)", which contain exactly one sub-cat: the airport category by name. Therefore I suggest to delete this cat, and rename all ICAO cats to their common airfield name. If we want a list of airport cats by ICAO code (quite desirable, in my opinion), this should be done as an article. Sebari (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- +1 - All seven sub-categories have been created by the same author one day back in April 2010, it almost appears to be some kind of personal hobby. Only 7 airfields in the USA - well, there might actually be some more.
- It would not even be necessary to rename many categories, since a random check showed that many, if not all, already carry their actual aerodrome name.
- A comprehensive and systematic list of he ICAO codes would be quite desirable, maybe including links to the respective aerodrome category.
- So - rename where required and delete the rest! --Uli Elch (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree While it would be nice to be able to search for aerodromes by ICAO-code, our current category system doesn't really provide a reasonable way to do so. Let's leave that to Wikipedia and Wikidata for now and hope that COM:Structured data catches up momentum again for the future. --El Grafo (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, nobody objected. Taivo (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Inconsistent naming: Most of the caterpillar subcategories seem to be Category:Species name (caterpillar). Leyo 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I see no problem, I think it's a good idea. I'll appiquer this proposal and I support the renaming. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Euphydryas aurinia (caterpillar) in agreement with creator. --Leyo 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Single-image category, there already is Category:Daucus carota buds, which fits our usual category scheme for plant parts. I don't see the need for a parallel category for close-ups of those buds when basically all images in Category:Daucus carota buds are close-ups as well. If anything, this should be a sub-category of Category:Daucus carota buds. Also, I think "Close-ups" should be spelt wit a lower case "c"? El Grafo (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, should be merged int Category:Daucus carota buds and then deleted. --Achim (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: My knowledge of English is so bad, I do not know exactly what it is about. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Famberhorst: sorry about that – simple version: We have Category:Daucus carota buds → we do not need Category:Daucus carota Close-ups of flower buds.
- @Achim55: I've already copied the single file over to the other category, so the "merge" part is done. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, no need to keep. --Achim (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I miss order the names Almondega (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, vert in heraldry and deletion requested by creator. I've added {{Bad name}}. I see no reason to confuse things with a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Podujevo as per Podujevo Zoupan (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Podujevo and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Podujevo as per Podujevo Zoupan (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Podujevo and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Coats of arms of the Republic of Ragusa, as per consistency Zoupan (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, added to CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Propose renaming to Category:Chalkboard (typeface) to avoid confusion (both for searchers and for editors) with the concept of chalkboards (Category:Chalkboards/Category:Blackboards). The majority of the files in it were the wrong meaning. DMacks (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Chalkboard (typeface) and set a {{Disambig}}. --Achim (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
We usually separate geography by states and territories, not by fuzzy terms like arab world. Mountains are quite unrelated to arab / non-arab. My proposal is to delete this category and other similar categories like Category:Nature in the Arab world. Both cats are sparsely filled, and if used consequently, will cause a lot of double categorization. Please do not consider that as an argument against parent category Category:Arab world, which of course makes sense. Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I agree completely. There's no reason to organize geographic objects according to a cultural concept. I don't, however, see any similar categories beyond Nature in the Arab world, except maybe Water resources in the Arab world, which I'm unsure about. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree to deletion, 2 images only. Category:Nature in the Arab world should also get deleted but it requires some recategorisation of its subcats/files before deleting. I set a cfd template there which points here. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved content to appropriate categories and deleted both cats. --Achim (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
"Bento Rodrigues dam disaster" should be the propper name, like the article's name Sturm (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Bento Rodrigues dam disaster. --Achim (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
typo, should be "municipalities". Delete. Zoupan (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad name and dupe of Category:Municipalities in Kosovo. --Achim (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Should be Klokot Zoupan (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted and Category:Kllokot redirected to Category:Klokot. --Achim (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an embarrassment to Commons. This is a category for collecting pictures of scantily-clad women at car wash sponsored by a "breastaraunt" in Texas. I propose that not only the category, but all 190+ images in it be deleted. From what I can tell, these were all downloaded from Flickr and re-uploaded here because... because... oh because boobies and butts and they are all wet and stuff. The entire category is outside of the project scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I am not considering the merits of the individual photos within the category, but given there are 190 of them from a single event, it makes sense to have a category for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I am a proponent for documenting articles and events that seem beneath notice. This kind of car wash, where young, scantily clad women, wash cars, may seem common enough that we should regard it as beneath notice, but I think this is a mistake. It is a common meme in movies and television. I think that makes these events in scope, as images of these events help reach an understanding of today's society -- and the societies of the last several decades.
For all we know, changes in automotive technology, of petroleum product use, or morality, could mean people stop holding this kind of event. One might argue that anyone who read about this kind of car wash can always look for a movie or TV show that dramatized one. First, images of an actual event are superior to images from a dramatization of this kind of event; second, the movies are all proprietary, and still from them could not be freely used in an academic paper or newspaper article.
Two decades ago the arterial streets of the city I live in were lined by individual parking meters. There was one per parking spot. They were coin operated, mechanical devices. It seemed gradual, at first, but over a period of just a couple of years, every one of those rows of old mechanical parking meters was replaced by a computer controlled meter. It could accept credit cards, and bank cards, as well as coins and bills; it was solar powered; it had a little antennae for communicating with HQ. What this meant was that anyone who wanted to study the old style parking meter had to cross their fingers and hope enough people had decided to document an article that seemed beneath notice.
I think the same applies to these images. What does the genuine scholar, who wants to study this phenomenon, do if we delete all these images on the grounds they are trivial, and beneath notice? Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No consent for deletion. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Out of naming scheme, should be merged into Category:Infantry or one of its subcats. Achim (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- If there was a need for a category focused on the specific military rank of the Austro-Hungarian army (en:Infanterist), then maybe, but that's not was it's being used for, and there is seemingly no need. Redirect to Category:Infantry. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- certainly no need -- Centenier (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content into Category:Infantry and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Kosovo Polje as per Kosovo Polje. Zoupan (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Though the majority of Kosovarians don't use the Serbian name Kosovo Polje I agree to merging into Category:Kosovo Polje for a) it is the older category and b) in most languages the Serbian name is in use. --Achim (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content into Category:Kosovo Polje and redirected Category:Fushë Kosovë there. --Achim (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Istok as per Istok. Zoupan (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Though only the name of an en:wp article is no argument (wikidata reads d:Istog), most articles of wp projects read Istok. So I Agree to the suggested merging. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content to Category:Istok and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
this (now) empty cat should be deleted or redirected to Category:Skardu Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Skardu. --Achim (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeep Wageer 197.78.128.146 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeep Grand Cherokee 197.78.128.146 08:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Non-sense request ★ Poké95 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC) (non-admin close)
Files in this category need to be deleted or at least follow a de minimis principle, since the building itself is fairly new, and it violates Romania's law regarding Freedom of Panorama // Gikü said done Sunday, 8 November 2015 16:28 (UTC) 16:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've nominated these images. Perhaps we should add a boilerplate warning to the category? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Added a boilerplate. --Achim (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Upmerge, no need for separate cat Zoupan (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Stefan Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia. --Achim (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat since quiet an time, may be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Duplicated with "Category:Architecture of Shanghai" Fayhoo (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Generally, Fayhoo, you shouldn't empty a category of its files and then propose discussion. That said, this seems like an obvious one to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dupe and out of naming scheme. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Umbenennung in "Mirna (Croatia)", damit Weblink zur Seite "Mirna (Croatia) über commonscat möglich ist. Dguendel 08:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Neuer Kategoriename muss "Mirna (Kroatien) heißen, damit Link commonscat gelingt, Dguendel 08:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: @Dguendel: Der Name der Kategorie auf Commons spielt für die Möglichkeit der Verlinkung über de:Vorlage:Commonscat keine Rolle, Syntax siehe dort. --Achim (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept and fixed link at de:wp. --Achim (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Category names should be plural - category should be renamed to Category:Gaff rigged ketches. BMacZero (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gaff rigged ketches. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of Category:USDA_Pomological_Watercolors, which houses the actual images in the collection. --ParkerHiggins (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content into Category:USDA_Pomological_Watercolors and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat after pictures have been deleted for copyright-reasons years ago. May be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat after content was deleted as copyvio. May be also deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Can be deleted, use Category:1850 in California --Kopiersperre (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty and dupe. --Achim (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Redundant, there is only one icon of him. Zoupan (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This category of proteins imported from SCOP should be renamed to distinguish it from the category of viruses. The original name should be redirected to Category:Group II viruses. Note that many category titles imported from SCOP do not imply that they refer to proteins. Petr Matas (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the new name to be Category:SsDNA viruses proteins. Petr Matas (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Petr, what about Category:SsDNA virus proteins ? --Achim (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Achim, it is ok, I am only a bit worried that it may refer to a "single" ssDNA virus (as a species) instead of ssDNA viruses (as a class), but I am not sure about this language subtlety. Another name could be Category:Proteins of ssDNA viruses. Petr Matas (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, then let's take that. Best, --Achim (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Achim, it is ok, I am only a bit worried that it may refer to a "single" ssDNA virus (as a species) instead of ssDNA viruses (as a class), but I am not sure about this language subtlety. Another name could be Category:Proteins of ssDNA viruses. Petr Matas (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Proteins of ssDNA viruses. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This kind of categories do not exist in Commons (try searching for "Category:Rulers in the areas ..."). Awkward name. Zoupan (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Very awkward, but I guess it was created in good faith to acknowledge that Montenegro did not exist in its present-day form during the Middle Ages. I think Category: Rulers of Montenegro in the Middle Ages would be fine though. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will properly categorize them (Category:Medieval people of Montenegro, Category:Lords of Zeta, Category:Middle Ages in Montenegro, etc)--Zoupan (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds great. So you're thinking just a delete of the category then? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will properly categorize them (Category:Medieval people of Montenegro, Category:Lords of Zeta, Category:Middle Ages in Montenegro, etc)--Zoupan (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Lipljan as per Lipljan. Zoupan (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Achim (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content into Category:Lipljan and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat after pictures have been deleted for copyright-reasons years ago. May be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat after pictures have been deleted for copyright-reasons years ago. May be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat after pictures have been deleted for copyright-reasons years ago. May be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Any reason this is separate from Category:Suțu Palace (the building housing the museum)? Seems to be pretty completely pictures of the building. I propose a merge in one direction or the other (I'd say into Category:Suțu Palace.) Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe even a new category mentioning both, like Category:Bucharest Municipal Museum, Suțu Palace. - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your second suggestion makes more sense to me, so that it can clearly stay in museum categories. It looks like the Municipal Museum has been around since 1921, and was in at least two other locations before it moved into the Suțu Palace in 1956. The palace itself has been around since 1835. I'm not sure what to do with the two existing categories though? Delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- See also, this similar discussion (Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Muzeul Naţional de Artă al României) still open since last month. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to keep the older categories as {{Seecat}} redirects. I'm pretty sure we have nothing about the city museum in its older locations; in the unlikely case that we did, we could either have a child category or a see also. Or we could take the approach we do in Seattle with Category:Museum of History and Industry, Category:Museum of History and Industry (Lake Union Park) (its current location), Category:Museum of History and Industry (Montlake building) (its former location in a recently demolished purpose-built building), and Category:Naval Reserve Building, Seattle, Washington (the current building before it was a museum). That last makes sense only if people have the discipline to sort images by when they were taken. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- From what I can see, not a single image in Category:Suțu Palace predates the museum, and all of the interior photos including exhibits have ended up there rather than in the museum category. Lumping would certainly be better than that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, for now, it sounds like a new category and redirects in the old ones make sense. If we have no media of the pre-museum palace, or the pre-palace museum(s), there's no need to make a big category tree out of it at the moment. As you said, that could always be done later if the need arises. It might be worth creating an "interior" sub-category, but that's a different issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think we have consensus here, but I gather I'm supposed to wait at least 2 weeks from initial nomination to close this and act upon it, right? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ping to Joe... --Achim (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think we have consensus here, but I gather I'm supposed to wait at least 2 weeks from initial nomination to close this and act upon it, right? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, for now, it sounds like a new category and redirects in the old ones make sense. If we have no media of the pre-museum palace, or the pre-palace museum(s), there's no need to make a big category tree out of it at the moment. As you said, that could always be done later if the need arises. It might be worth creating an "interior" sub-category, but that's a different issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Bucharest Municipal Museum, Suțu Palace it is. Redirects retained. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Gjilan. We have to discuss which name to keep: Category:Gnjilane or Category:Gjilan. All categories from Kosovo on Commons are in Serbian/Croatian language. Tiefkuehlfan (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per d:Q739808 the majority of articles of wp projects read Gnji... (or even Gni...), so I suggest merging to Serbian naming Category:Gnjilane, though more than 90% of the inhabitants use Albanian spelling. --Achim (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged content of Category:Gjilan to Category:Gnjilane and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:2004 unrest in Kosovo as per 2004 unrest in Kosovo Zoupan (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely. I suspect this might even have been a typo. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- There were more than one unrest, plural, unrests. Mdupont (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, it deals with March, 17-19. Mike, any other in 2004? --Achim (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There were more than one unrest, plural, unrests. Mdupont (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mdupont: "Unrest" is generally uncountable and can describe multiple incidents, as long as they are related somehow. If you can point to incidents that aren't related to the conflict between the Kosovo Albanian majority and the Kosovo Serb minority, that would definitely warrant further discussion. We could create Category:Ethnic-Albanian and Ethnic-Serb unrest in Kosovo if you really think it's necessary. Or if there is some other reason why unrest is inappropriate, we could consider a different word altogether. "Unrests" is pretty awkward - there is no other example of its use in a category name on commons. It's used on English wikipedia at Kosovo unrests, but only to describe multiple distinct periods of unrest (occurring in different years). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment There was an unrest (several incidents) and not several unrests, in March 2004.--Zoupan (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:2004 unrest in Kosovo and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Karimabad Rupert Pupkin (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Karimabad (Gilgit-Baltistan) as there are apparently two Karimabads in Pakistan and approximately 100 in Iran. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Does that seem reasonable Rupert Pupkin? I've just added a cfd template at Category:Karimabad as well. @Allforrous: do you have thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- My only reference is Wikipedia. I'm sorry. --Allforrous 15:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Does that seem reasonable Rupert Pupkin? I've just added a cfd template at Category:Karimabad as well. @Allforrous: do you have thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition to my suggestion after a month. Redirecting to Category:Karimabad (Gilgit-Baltistan) along with duplicates. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Karimabad Rupert Pupkin (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Karimabad (Gilgit-Baltistan) as there are apparently two Karimabads in Pakistan and approximately 100 in Iran. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition to my suggestion after a month. Redirecting to Category:Karimabad (Gilgit-Baltistan) along with duplicates. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
This category is made redundant by those for Squire's Pews in England and Squire's Pews in the United Kingdom. Motacilla (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Motacilla: Generally it's better not to empty a category of files, blank it, and then nominate it for discussion. That said, I think the proposed change does make sense here. We don't seem to categorize anything by its location in Great Britain (except locomotives for some reason) and I see no reason that Squire's pews should be different. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in a month. Added {{Bad name}}. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a move to Category:Orders of knighthood to correspond with the parent category, most subcategories, and with the English wikipedia article. But perhaps there is some reason it should stay as it is? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly a month. Redirecting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
"Category:Grand Gateway (Shanghai)" is duplicated with "Category:Grand Gateway" Fayhoo (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support They definitely require a merge. Do you have a preference? English wikipedia (as well as Spanish and Polish) uses en:Grand Gateway Shanghai but en:Grand Gateway redirects there, so there seems to be no other notable "Grand Gateway". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Grand Gateway (Shanghai) is the younger one and is empty now. --Achim (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Grand Gateway. --Achim (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary middle-category sitting between Category:Disney Cruise Line and the individual ships. There are only two images in the parent category and now only one subcat, and a user looking for pictures of the ships has to drill down twice instead of only once. --Powers (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- In this case:yes, indeed. But realise that in similar categories there are a lot of images that describe other activities of the particular company. Have a look at Category:Connexxion and Category:Maersk. This category - and a lot of others - have been created to stay in line, that's all. Besides: Please be so polite to follow the instruction as given, when you nominate a category for deletion. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it does help if you notify users. -- Docu at 04:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I normally do; I apologize for the inadvertent oversight. Powers (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Staying "in line" is no reason to make it harder for users to find images. Vast hierarchies of nearly-empty categories are pointless and discouraging to users. Powers (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you could add all images also into Category:Walt Disney Company. This would make it easier to find images on that. -- Docu at 09:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good example of a category that has enough media under its remit to be divided into subcategories as it already is. Category:Disney Cruise Line is not, however. Powers (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you could add all images also into Category:Walt Disney Company. This would make it easier to find images on that. -- Docu at 09:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it does help if you notify users. -- Docu at 04:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nominate for close: I'm not sure what this category looked liked back in 2011 when this was nominated, but it certainly doesn't seem unnecessary at this point. It fits well within Category:Cruise ships by shipping company, which wouldn't be possible if all the ships were in the parent category. Let's leave it the way it has been for the past 4 years. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
As per my comment above, the surrounding category tree has expanded to make this middle-category justifiable. No one has suggested differently in over a month. Leaving things as they are. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Reflections on structures will look the same in any country. This splitting up not makes much sense. Move all content back to Category:Reflections on structures and remove this category with all subcategories. Martin H. (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also started Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Reflections by country for the parent category. --Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC):
I just think of the number of items by category.Palamède (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not an issue. Categories are just collections, Commons is constructed for never-ending growth, this means at the end all categories will contain an infinite number of files. It then not makes any difference if you split up a category by some meaningless attribute or if you just leave all files in one category. Categories are not Galleries. --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongely disagree. Structures are different and therefore produce different types of reflections. Those cats are logical. They're subcats in the category tree of architecture by country. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Structures are different, reflections on different materials are different, glass, wood, marble, granite, whatever material... yes. But a structure will not produce different typse of reflections if you change the location. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is useful if you want to see reflections of a locality, such as on local buildings and structures or of local buildings and structures in local rivers. it helps avoid having to wade through endless images of localities you are not interested in. Oxyman (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, for reasons set out at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Reflections by country. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No consensus. —howcheng {chat} 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo (new name), see the official website Almondega (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, that category already exists: Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo.
- Second, the official name of the institution seems to be "Coleção de Arte da Cidade", no? So maybe Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade (São Paulo) would be better? Most of the top google hits for "Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo" bring up wikimedia-based websites. I've also found a few examples online of it translated as "City Art Collection", so it could alternatively be renamed to Category:City Art Collection (São Paulo) or something similar. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I believe the name of the category could be Category:City Art Collection (São Paulo) (or Sao Paulo?) and have redirects from Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade (São Paulo) and Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo. (This pre-existing category is about the same topic.) --Almondega (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- According to the institution's website, A Pinacoteca Municipal passou a chamar-se Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo a partir de maio de 2008, adequando-se à variedade de suportes e técnicas da arte contemporânea.. So I think that the current category "Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo" is just fine. I was already transferring the files and after finishing it I would redirect this category to the new one. Dornicke (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I believe the name of the category could be Category:City Art Collection (São Paulo) (or Sao Paulo?) and have redirects from Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade (São Paulo) and Category:Coleção de Arte da Cidade de São Paulo. (This pre-existing category is about the same topic.) --Almondega (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Merging of content already done, thanks to Dornicke. Set a cat redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Vale (mining company), the present day company name. Sturm (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yet several of the images feature the CVRD brand. What do we normally do when companies change names? A simple redirect or make the old name a sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest move and keep a redirect, but I would like to hear more suggestions. It was renamed long time ago, back in 2007-2008. Take a look. Sturm (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Podem fazer o que quiserem... mas só para esclarecer, essas é a marca de uma empresa que teve seu nome alterado, mas tem valor histórico pois operou desta forma durante décadas. Meloaraujo (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Sturm. The category should have the current name "Vale". CRVD was never the company's name, but only its acronym. Dantadd✉ 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Podem fazer o que quiserem... mas só para esclarecer, essas é a marca de uma empresa que teve seu nome alterado, mas tem valor histórico pois operou desta forma durante décadas. Meloaraujo (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest move and keep a redirect, but I would like to hear more suggestions. It was renamed long time ago, back in 2007-2008. Take a look. Sturm (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Vale (mining company) keeping a redirect from Category:CVRD. --Achim (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Srbica. We have to discuss which name to keep: Category:Skenderaj, Category:Skënderaj or Category:Srbica. Achim (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on Google Maps Category:Skënderaj or Category:Srbica. All categories from Kosovo on Commons are in Serbian/Croatian language.Tiefkuehlfan (talk) 9:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Srbica/Skënderaj and kept a redirect. --Tiefkuehlfan (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The site Category:Mediana is the only site in this category. I have added the parent cat to it instead. Zoupan (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Made a mistake, didn't check if another category existed before Threeohsix (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest a simple redirect, but perhaps the category you created should be the one we keep? The capitalized "TRUMF" seems to be in use by the company, and by the Czech wikipedia page (cs:TRUMF International). I just did a brief search for any commons rules about capitalization, but didn't see anything. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was a question of age, the other was created before. Don't object to that suggestion.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I just added an invitation to discuss on Category:Trumf International - Themightyquill (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was a question of age, the other was created before. Don't object to that suggestion.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Trumf International to Category:TRUMF International, which seems to be the common capitalization of the company name. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Serb rebels Zoupan (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Contains now one subcat Category:Serbian revolutionaries only that is already member of Category:Serb rebels. So this cat could be redirected or deleted. --Achim (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, awkward name.--Zoupan (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Zoupan, Agree, and Category:Military people of Serbia by war might also get deleted I think. --Achim (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Expanded Category:Military people of Serbia by war, planning to create categories for Balkan Wars and World War II.--Zoupan (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Zoupan,
- Delete, awkward name.--Zoupan (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Awkward name, created Category:Maps of the Principality of Zeta in the 14th century Zoupan (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an awkwardly titled category: it refers to a state, Duchy of St. Sava and not the actual history of Herzegovina article. I have gone through the images and categorized them properly. Zoupan (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have recategorized the images.--Zoupan (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Created Category:Maps of the Serbian Despotate and Category:Maps of the history of Serbia in the 15th century. Zoupan (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Awkward name, created substitutes. Zoupan (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is only one category, Category:Mediana Zoupan (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Redundant. Zoupan (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I totally understand the distinction between between Category:Northern Africa and Category:North Africa, so I thought I'd ask if this category shouldn't be at Category:Unidentified locations in North Africa. Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I totally understand the distinction between between Category:Northern Africa and Category:North Africa, either, but I’m quite sure that it is premature to rename this category before said distinction is clarified. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- By my reading, "North" refers to largely political geography (e.g. countries of North Africa) whereas "Northern" is referring to natural geography (plants, specifically, but mountains and fauna as well, I presume). It seems at least plausible that the borders of the two regions might not be the same. Now, the question is where "unidentified locations" belongs, since I suppose it might contain both natural and modern/human-built locations? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone cleared out the category, and except for a few photos, everything is now sub-divided by country. Given that these are political entities, I'm moving to the political phrasing Category:Unidentified locations in North Africa. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Should probably be moved to an english name. Somethng like willow buildings (+/- direct translation) or constructions made of willows. Further suggestions welcome … El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Given the other category names in Category:Architecture by material, perhaps Category:Willow architecture would work? Do you think it should be placed in Category:Wooden architecture or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Willow architecture sounds good to me. And since "wood" doesn't necessarily mean "dead, chopped-up wood", personally I'm fine with putting it in Category:Wooden architecture. --El Grafo (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Willow architecture. BMacZero (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Should be Category:Maps of White Serbia, or simply Category:White Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Category is used for files, not editahons, and should be renamed accordingly. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Andy, the category (which is hidden btw) is being used for measuring the impact of donating media files to Commons, which is being done by archives involved in the European project Europeana Sounds. So these are all the files that are donated in the context of this project. Cheers, Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrrij (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Harrrij: Yes, I'm not saying it should be deleted, just renamed to reflect its purpose. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Harrrij: This category seems to be a duplicate of Category:Europeana Sounds. The dates of the project are described slightly differently, but both categories are said to gather content produced by the project. Any reason not to redirect Category:Europeana Sounds edit-a-thons to Category:Europeana Sounds? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Themightyquill, we'll shortly look at the categorization for this project. Could you give us a few weeks, since we'll also have to check whether we can still use the categories for evaluation purposes (how many files are used in articles on WP etc). Thanks, 85jesse (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @85jesse: Fine by me, though I've just put Category:Europeana Sounds edit-a-thons in Category:Europeana Sounds because it had no parent categories at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Themightyquill and Andy Mabbett, we have looked into the categorization of the files that are uploaded in the Europeana Sounds project. We would like to propose the following. A main category in which both content from archives that is uploaded for use before or during edit-a-thons is stored, as well as any pictures that might be taken during these events. This would be the current Category:Europeana Sounds. Under this main category we would have a category for the uploaded materials from the archives, called Category: Media donated for Europeana Sounds edit-a-thons. This would replace the current Category: Europeana Sounds edit-a-thons. This category we would need to track the impact of the project and uploaded materials. Both categories would be hidden categories. Would you both be o.k. with this proposition? If so I will create the new categories and redirects where necessary. Thank you for your conisderation. 85jesse (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Media donated for Europeana Sounds edit-a-thons as per 85jesse. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Dogs do not have black eyes. They may just appear black, but they are probably dark brown. "Most dogs have brown eyes, but there are breeds with pale blue, speckled, golden or hazel colored eyes. Some dogs are odd-eyed, having one eye that is blue and another eye brown." [1] Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then do you wish that this category was renamed "Dogs with so very dark brown eyes that they appear black"? Because that's the implication of the technically incorrect but way more succinct current title. --Pitke (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Quibbling doesn't move our project forward. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all clear (at least to me) what the "function" of this category is, and it has no description. JesseW (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Categories by function Over the years this category has proven to be superfluous beside the Category:Categories by function and can redirected their. As to the term function, this term has different meaning in different fields, see also Wikitionary, but the Category:Categories by function shows is the "by function" is a criterum used in many fields. -- Mdd (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. If no-one objects in a month, please do it. JesseW (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be redirected to Category:Functions, or converted to a disambiguation. --ghouston (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd lean toward to a disambiguation. It's not a particularly good name in any case, so forcing people (at least, people who use HotCat) to use either Category:Functions or Category:Categories by function seems worthwhile. JesseW (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be redirected to Category:Functions, or converted to a disambiguation. --ghouston (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. If no-one objects in a month, please do it. JesseW (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@JesseW, Mdd, and Ghouston: I think a disambig with links to Category:Functions, Category:Categories by function, Category:Bodily functions and Category:Functional diagrams would be a good idea. Would it be reasonable to move Category:Functions to Category:Mathematical functions, for clarity? Category:Functions could then redirect to the disambiguation page as well. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the word "function" on it's own is most often used here for mathematical functions. So an option would be to Category:Functions where it is, redirect Category:Function to that, and either add some see-alsos to that category or create Category:Functions (disambiguation) if it was too much. --ghouston (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- However, we could also follow the lead of en:Wikipedia, making Function(s) a disambiguation page and using Category:Function (mathematics). --ghouston (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy with any of the suggestions made. I don't have strong preferences between them, but I'm in favor of clarifying as many of the ambiguous names (by which I mean Category:Function, Category:Functions) as possible. JesseW (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll make Function a disambiguation, Functions a redirect to Function, and move the mathematical functions to Category:Functions (mathematics). I think that will work better than "Mathematical functions" for category selection in Upload Wizard or HotCat. --ghouston (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Dynasties in Europe as per parent cat. Zoupan (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree But Category:Dynasties of Europe would be more consistent with the parent. BMacZero (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree.--Zoupan (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Dynasties of Europe. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Improperly named category. A licence is a permission from the copyright holder to use some material, but none of these templates states that a copyright holder has granted permission to use any material whatsoever, so these are not licence tags but other kinds of copyright tags. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept. This discussion has not gained track within 16 months so nobody else seems to think that the name is a problem. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
… including its 3 sub-categories
First of all: Does it make sense to categorize images by ambient temperature? Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I think this might be something worth discussing.
Assuming we decide to keep this, it might make sense to rename the category to something like Photographs by ambient temperature because it's not the temperature of the actual photographs we're categorizing here.
More importantly, the subcategories would have to be renamed: "-5°" is an angle, not a temperature. It would have to be something like "-5 °C" or "-5 °F" with a unit and a whitespace after the number. Given that the parent category is Photographs by …, I think it might be more clear to use a pattern like Category:Photographs taken at -5 °C for the sub-categories. El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree firstly, that if kept, the categories must be renamed "Category:-6°C" (or K, but not °F, which is not an international standard). I'd also suggest, that to be included in one of these categories, an image must show a thermometer indicating the value (like the categories by time, showing clocks recording that time); pictures where the temperature is merely mentioned in the text without photographic evidence shouldn't be in one of these categories. As that excludes all but one of the photos currently included - there is realistically little point in keeping these categories at the moment. Perhaps in the future when Category:Thermometers gets very large, these categories could be recreated as subcategories of a Category:Thermometers by temperature indicated. - MPF (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with everything MPF said except that temperature categories must be named for the Celsius temperature. If the image is of a thermometer showing Fahrenheit temperature, the category should be named as Fahrenheit degrees; someone looking for an image of a thermometer showing Celsius temperature probably can't use one showing Fahrenheit. If kept, maybe the parent cat should be "Thermometers showing temperature in Fahrenheit". That being said, I don't think we need this whole structure when there's only one image where the temperature is identifiable --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been emptied and deleted. New cfd has been opened for Category:Degree of frost.--Auntof6 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be moved to Category:Polish hussars as per WP article Zoupan (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- keep, because Winged Hussars (Polish husarze) could be mess with other formations named hussars for instance hussars (Polish huzarzy) of the Duchy of Warsaw. [2] Mathiasrex (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- As per consistency, move. Hussar regiment of the Duchy of Warsaw could be added to Category:Hussars of the Duchy of Warsaw.--Zoupan (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Zoupan, consistency is a very weak argument. There is no need that a category name on commons must match a category name on an xy:wp. But based on the facts of this case I'm not sure what to do. --Achim (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- As per consistency, move. Hussar regiment of the Duchy of Warsaw could be added to Category:Hussars of the Duchy of Warsaw.--Zoupan (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus to move the cat for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
There is an overlap between Category:Former populated places and Category:Abandoned places, but they are not properly connected. Imo, both categories have good reasons for existing:
- Category:Abandoned places catches things that never were inhabited (such as bridges)
- Category:Former populated places makes sense as a subcategory of Category:Populated places
I'd like to propose the following solution:
- make Category:Former populated places a subcategory of Category:Abandoned places
- move all contents Category:Abandoned places that refer to populated places to Category:Former populated places (e.g. Lost cities, Ghost towns, Sunken cities, etc.)
Does anyone see any problems I'm not aware of? Also: Shouldn't it be Formerly populated places, as the locations themselves may still exist? El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: : Your logic seems reasonable to me. Definitely formerly not former. But I'm not sure how well the Category:Former populated places category works. Its subcategories include Category:Tomb of Saint Nicholas (was it ever populated?), and Category:Historical regions of Iran (still populated, no longer officially recognized places?), and (via Category:Former cities) categories like Category:Miličín (formerly a city, now a village, still populated). That's not a reason to oppose your change, but getting the sub-categories in order may require a great deal of further adjustments. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yeah, it's just the tip of yet another iceberg. Some of that can be fixed, in other cases we can probably only shrug and say "Well, that's how our category system works". If you dig deep enough into the sub-categories you're destined to eventually find an inconsistency at some point ;-) I'll think about what needs to be changed for this to work … --El Grafo (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: To be clear, I'm on board with this. Let's have the following hierarchy
Sound good? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: yes, of course, sounds good. --El Grafo (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: @Themightyquill: Totalmente de acuerdo. Seria oportuno precisar la diferencia entre Category:Abandoned villages y Category:Ghost towns. La mayoria de editores los utilizan como equivalentes.--Isidre blanc (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Encouragement. Less is missing--Isidre blanc (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: @Themightyquill: Totalmente de acuerdo. Seria oportuno precisar la diferencia entre Category:Abandoned villages y Category:Ghost towns. La mayoria de editores los utilizan como equivalentes.--Isidre blanc (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted to hierarchy above. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Erlenmeyer is renaming a lot of categories only by deleting "in heraldry". This wasnt discussed, nor agreed, was long term practise, makes no sense and is reducing clarity. MaxxL - talk 11:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi MaxxL. I think too that it is a very bad idea to remove the "in heraldry" since most terms are ambiguous (see wikt:chief for instance). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed "in heraldry" only in categories that include the tincture of the shield and ordinaries to give uniformity to the classification. Most of the categories that define tincture already were without the expression "in heraldry" (and I haven't been). "In heraldry" is necessary in the shield, ordinaries and charges categories but unnecessary when specifying tincture. "chiefs in heraldry" is correct and necessary. "chiefs gules" is an exclusive heraldic expression that isn´t confused with "red chiefs".--Erlenmeyer (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@MaxxL and Erlenmeyer: Is this resolved? Can we close discussion? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. Regards.--Erlenmeyer (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This category appears to be redundant; there is a Commons convention that files awaiting diffusion should stay in the main category (in this case Category:Aircraft) until they are diffused directly or progressively into sub-cats. Several of us regularly carry out that function to minimise the quantity of files in the main category. It is also probably misnamed, in that the word 'type' appears to be related to aircraft manufacturer/model names, rather than the meaning in Category:Aircraft by type. I propose that the category should be made into a redirect to Category:Aircraft. PeterWD (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, the purpose of this category has either not been made sufficiently clear or not been properly understood. It is not intended for files to stay in "Category:Aircraft", since they are not presently there. Those files are well hidden in many other different categories, like Aircraft at Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, Helicopters at RAF Fairford or 2011 at Cambrai-Niergnies Airport.
- There are thousands of aircraft files to be unearthed from more or less meaningless (in that context) categories. Would anyone attempt to find a photograph of the rare Convair CV-5800 in Category "2011 at Lic. Adolfo López Mateos International Airport"? Many files do not even have any category at all, like this Metroliner or this Reims F150.
- Having categorised 9000+ files out of "Unidentified aircraft", which once numbered more than 10000 files, I consider myself qualified to propose another way to attract interest for those hidden files.
- Concerning "misnamed", see en:List of ICAO aircraft type designators. ICAO should be a relevant source when even en:WP states "designating every aircraft type (and some sub-types) ...". Quite obviously aircraft manufacturer/model names are meant. And by the way - even the above mentioned author PeterWD states "For most aircraft images, the aircraft type (sic!) plus perhaps registration and/or operator, is sufficient to find a suitable image." on his own talk page. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PeterWD's comments above. Time would be better spent actually adding the proper categories to these files, rather than leaving them uncategorised and dumped in these meaningless sub-cats Ardfern (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well get the original poster to categorise them correctly in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- @PeterWD, Uli Elch, and Ardfern: How is this different than Category:Unidentified aircraft? I'd suggest a merge into that category. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Attn Themightyquill: Please see the ongoing discussions at Category talk:Uncategorized images of aviation and here. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ardfern and Uli Elch: I'm new to the discussion and I don't know much about aircraft, but please let me see if I understand.
- Images in Category:Aviation files (check needed) might have excellent categories but poor descriptions or poor file names, so that category is not necessarily about categorization problems.
- Aviation images should be categorized by a) aircraft registration b) aircraft type c) aircraft location (if at airport) d) airline (when applicable) d) aviation year.
- Images lacking this information may be placed in Category:Uncategorized images of aviation or Category:Unidentified aircraft or Category:Images of aircraft without type category, which (at least in my view) seem to overlap.
- Is that all correct? It seems to me that Category:Aviation files (check needed) is not redundant with any of the other categories, but that the others are somewhat redundant. I would therefore suggest the following category tree:
- Category:Aviation files (check needed)
- Category:Aviation files uncategorized by year (sub-category of Category:Unidentified year)
- Category:Aviation files lacking a description (sub-category of Category:Media lacking a description)
- Category:Aviation files with bad file names (renamed from Category:Files of aviation with bad file names)
- Category:Aviation files at unidentified locations
- Category:Images of aircraft (check needed)
- Category:Images of aircraft with bad file names
- Category:Aircraft at unidentified locations
- Category:Images of aircraft without registration category
- Category:Aircraft landing or take off (check needed)
- Category:Unidentified aircraft (files merged from Category:Images of aircraft without type category)
- This means Category:Uncategorized images of aviation and Category:Images of aircraft without type category are deleted as redundant. Your thoughts and criticisms are welcome! - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Agreed. Thanks for the work on this, as you can see it really needed it. Ardfern (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Attn Themightyquill: Looks good to me too, provided that the current contents of
- are properly and completely merged into the existing Category:Unidentified aircraft
- and
- that this category is not regularly vandalized by emptying it more or less completely, as just recently done again by someone removing thousands of files without adding proper specific replacement categories. These malicious actions have to be reverted.
- Remember: The "Type of aircraft" is the single most important category for all aircraft files. For a given individual aircraft, it remains constant throughout its entire life in 99.999 % of all cases.All other categories listed in the introduction to the Category:Aviation files (check needed) are subject to change: Registration, operator, location, "Aircraft type at airport", "Aircraft type at airport" or "Aviation year". --Uli Elch (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Uli Elch. I agree that the type is very important. I was rather surprised that Category:Unidentified airplanes doesn't exist, but Category:Unidentified helicopters does. That's why I suggested the propeller-driven and jet sub-categories. If you can think of other broad types of aircraft that would help sorting (i.e. that wold be apparent even to users with less knowledge) please make them or let me know. Maybe Category:Unidentified seaplanes? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Category:Unidentified aircraft does exist and has been there since 2006. It includes (main section) airplanes. To be exact, this one should be named "Unidentified airplanes", since both gliders and helicopters are aircraft, too (and please, do not forget to keep the existing category Category:Unidentified gliders).
- That said, I have no objections of splitting it up into [[:Category:Unidentified propeller-driven airplanes]] (!) and Category:Unidentified jet-powered airplanes, though I personally do not deem it absolutely necessary.
- However, dividing it further into minor sub-categories like the proposed "seaplanes" appears to be too specialized (then one could even split that one up into "floatplanes" and "flying boats" and even further - no, please). Anyway, thank you very much for your intensive efforts and proposals for re-structuring! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am working on Category:Images of aircraft without type category and Category:Uncategorized images of aviation to properly categorise them, not to dump them yet again into another cat such as Category:Unidentified aircraft. This is not the place for them. Category:Aviation files (check needed) is the place, despite its size. It is about time people started to work on proper categorisation rather than devising yet more places to dump incompletely categorised files. Ardfern (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There are an enormous number of files in Category:Images of aircraft without type category that are also in categorized by registration number. This doesn't make much sense, since the registration number categories are (almost?) always categorized by exact model. Is there a way to search for files both in Category:Images of aircraft without type category and in a sub-category of Category:Aircraft by registration? And then remove them from the former? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Can you think of a way to do this automatically? I tried with AWB, but there are so many files in sub-categories of Category:Aircraft by registration that just coming up with a list takes forever. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ Themightyquill, how to search: As an example for Challenger CS-CHD, you can open two windows, 1) with the file in Images of aircraft without type category.
- 2) Open a second window in Category:Aircraft by registration; in the shaded "Contents" box scroll the lowest line (the one starting with "0 00 01 02 ..." until you can hit "Cs" (see here). In this case you are lucky: "CS-CHD" already exists. However, you'll need some patience when looking for "ZU-ZOZ" in this line ...
- Please make sure that the type is included in the files' categories. Some people have created "A-BCDE (aircraft)" categories without adding any other meaningful category.
- You are even luckier if you are equipped with two monitors side-by-side, so you can search much faster. But even if not, you can switch between the two windows. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Petebutt: If you have suggested changes, please make them here rather than acting independently. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ardfern: There are currently 2,303 files in Category:Images of aircraft without type category. If this continues to grow rather than decrease, I'll be dumping them into Category:Unidentified aircraft and redirecting the former category. Category:Unidentified aircraft is indeed where an image should go if the primary subject is not reflected in the categorization. Yet multiple people continue to add files to Category:Images of aircraft without type category, making the establishment of a proper category tree impossible. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Category deleted, replaced with more standard categorization tree, as above. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Requires a renaming to Category:White Hart pubs in the United Kingdom, Suspect many, if not most of the categories in Category:Pubs in the United Kingdom by name need similar renaming. The principal behind the naming of the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union doesn't apply on Wikimedia projects. Mattinbgn (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Or they could just be moved to Category:Pubs by name? Google tells me there's a White Hart pub in Connecticut and another in California, and possibly more elsewhere. Or have I missed something? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved some to Category:White Hart pubs in the United Kingdom, and moved Category:White Hart pubs to Category:Pubs by name. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Church of Saint Sava as per Church of Saint Sava, the same with subcategories. Zoupan (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Zoupan, it's quite difficult. Slavic languages use hram = temple, others per d:Q330385 temple as well as church, cathedral, Dom (German). The main problem is that there are 2 st sava churches side by side, to be seen here. The second one is here entitled Church of Saint Sava so we have a problem to identify both of the church buildings clearly by their category names. Any suggestions? --Achim (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- As per common name and main subject, there is no problem in the use of Church of Saint Sava. If necessary, a short description of the churches could be added to the category lede.--Zoupan (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a problem for there already exists Category:Saint Sava Church (Belgrade) for the 2nd one. So Category:Church of Saint Sava for the 1st one seems to be a somewhat ambiguous name because both are situated in Belgrade. --Achim (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- As per common name and main subject, there is no problem in the use of Church of Saint Sava. If necessary, a short description of the churches could be added to the category lede.--Zoupan (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There are also the Church and Temple of St. Sava in Belgrade. They are built side by side. The church was built in 1935 at the site of the older one, dating from 1895. (Category:Saint Sava Church (Belgrade)).
The temple was built right next to the church, 2004 (exterior, while the interior is still being renovated). Changing the category Category:Temple of Saint Sava could be confusing, because in Serbian language such large cathedrals are commonly called temples (Hram) and this large, new church is officially called the Temple of Saint Sava (Hram Svetog Save).
This category should be edited and some new categories created, because it is quite a mess. As far as I can see, the discussion note has been on the category page for almost five years. Can a conclusion be drawn and a note taken? I do not know of any other name that could be given.--BuhaM (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. Kept as it is, left a note on the cat page pointing to the other church. --Achim (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the only specimen of khatchkar in Serbia, does it need to have its own category? Zoupan (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are two images, so it makes sense to group them. I don't see the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept, old discussion. Already four files. Solution per user:Themightyquill.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Accolade. Jonund (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- One should definitely be redirected, but I'm not sure which one. Accolade definitely seems to be the proper term, but knighting is undoubtedly far more commonly used by the general public. Accolade can also have other meanings (e.g. general praise) that could cause confusion. Anyone else have thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Accolade currently has miscategorized files like File:En-Sega v. Accolade-article.ogg, File:Inc 500 listing.jpg, and File:Rucha Pujari trophy collection 2016.jpg. Category:Knighting, by contrast, has no such miscategorized files. I'm now propose we redirect Category:Accolade to Category:Knighting to avoid confusion, even if accolade is the correct term. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No opposition in over a year. Moved to Category:Knighting. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Unusal name, schould be 'by municipality' (singular). See also Category talk:Umgebinde Furthermore the administrative term municipality better should be replaced by something not having the meanng of administration, as in this case municipality is used for a lot of different things like municipality, village (Ort), part of village (Ortsteil), former municaplity etc. Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki: Would Category:Umgebinde by community work? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: What about Category:Umgebinde by settlement? In my feeling community is too unspecific, but I'm not a native speaker. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki: Would Category:Umgebinde by community work? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The categorytree "Umgebinde by municipalities" was established to reveal local differences of the vernacular architecture. These differences do show between neighboring villages, moreover (in some cases) between neighboring villages, that are today part of one town. On top of that, "Umgebinde" was also well established in towns, if not initially introduced in towns.
- by village / reason: categories do refer to Umgebinde in villages and towns (in fact: the origin of Umgebinde may be in towns)
- part of village (Ortsteil) / reason: very narrow definition of the category (as in atomize)
- former municaplity / reason: does not only refer to former municipalities (not to be mistaken as abandoned village)
- settlement has comparable limitations as "part of village" (a settlement is part of a village).
- community can be critical. In the area with the widest distribution there is/was no homogenous community. in different waves of settlement different ethnic (Germans, Bohemians, Sorbs, Poles, Czechs, some Huguenots ...) and religious (Catholic and Lutheran) groups did live together in one place. All in houses with Umgebinde.
(On top of that "Umgebinde" was misunderstood(?)/promoted as an example how different ethnic groups did work together, to build one house with both their vernacular traditions (specifically timber framing from German vernacular + log construction from Slavic vernacular)) --Anika (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
WikiAnika, I did not talk about by village / by part of village / by former municipality as a proposal for the future naming, but as a reason why this needs to be renamed. Settlement can be anything, all of the above, so IMHO it would be a better choice than the quite specific municipality --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Done: redirected to Category:Umgebinde by settlement, which is the most inclusive term. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Unusal name, schould be 'by municipality' (singular). See also Category talk:Umgebinde Furthermore the administrative term municipality better should be replaced by something not having the meanng of administration, as in this case municipality is used for a lot of different things like municipality, village (Ort), part of village (Ortsteil), former municaplity etc. Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Done: already redirected to Category:Umgebinde in Saxony by municipality. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The current name causes this category to be filled up with individual photographs, and obviously this category shouldn't substitute for topic categories. Suggesting, therefore, that this be renamed to Category:Photographs by topic and tagged with {{CatCat}}. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense to me. Although we may need Category:Photographs by camera type, or color palate, or whatever as well. Either way, this surely shouldn't have individual photos in it.– Quadell (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Most of files on Commons are photographs. This category is useless as such (or should be at a very top level, root of many categories, or a hidden category). Jack ma (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend, you're right but it would be a hell of a ride to manage that. 1st this cat is linked from Main Page and almost any of its translated versions, 2nd it is linked or redirected from elsewhere like from Photograph or {{Information Art of Life}}, 3rd it is probably moving target of some bots, 4th we got a similar problem at Category:Photography and Category:Images the purpose of whose is mostly misunderstood too. Your suggested {{CatCat}} is a good idea I think. --Achim (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- To manage what, the renaming? I'm not sure why it would be hard; WhatLinksHere would show us the pages that need to have links their changed, and relevant bot operators could be contacted. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but have a look at Category:Photo for example. The redir-target will change to Photographs by topic and a bot like RussBot will move the content there. Because of people will always add to Photo our newly Photographs by topic will some weeks or months later contain hundreds of images, so I suspect we won't get an advantage. --Achim (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now I see what you mean. Is there a way to tag the redirect so that the bot (or a different bot?) would just dump the category instead of moving the contents to a redirect? Or could we suggest that the bot habitually dump redirected categories when their targets are tagged with {{CatCat}}? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such tag now, but I suppose one could be added to the bot code if needed. But, why not just delete the undesired redirects (Category:Photo and Category:Photographs) after completing the renaming? --R'n'B (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am very happy to see this discussion finally taking place. There are millions of photographs in Wikimedia and potentially all of them would fit into this category. And if one goes through the photographs filed here, you can find that many of them have no other tag, i.e. they are useless, because they cannot be found. Top categories like this one should be completely blocked and categorizing files into it should be disabled by the system. I would really appreciate, if the admins could take up this suggestion! Simisa (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Could the redirect categories be changed to point to Category:Media needing categories? Or maybe a bot could move any files found into the current day's subcat of media needing categories? Of course, that might be a problem if there were other valid categories. Maybe Category:Media needing category review would be better. Whatever the case, are we getting to a consensus yet? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is no such tag now, but I suppose one could be added to the bot code if needed. But, why not just delete the undesired redirects (Category:Photo and Category:Photographs) after completing the renaming? --R'n'B (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now I see what you mean. Is there a way to tag the redirect so that the bot (or a different bot?) would just dump the category instead of moving the contents to a redirect? Or could we suggest that the bot habitually dump redirected categories when their targets are tagged with {{CatCat}}? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but have a look at Category:Photo for example. The redir-target will change to Photographs by topic and a bot like RussBot will move the content there. Because of people will always add to Photo our newly Photographs by topic will some weeks or months later contain hundreds of images, so I suspect we won't get an advantage. --Achim (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- To manage what, the renaming? I'm not sure why it would be hard; WhatLinksHere would show us the pages that need to have links their changed, and relevant bot operators could be contacted. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- The category may be "useless" for files, but where else would you put subcategories like Photographs by century or Hand-colored photographs? They don't fit in Photographs by topic … --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thought about it, and per El Grafo I also say Keep tagged {{CatCat}}. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Achim55, are you opposing all changes except the addition of CatCat, or are you agreeing with me and rejecting the delete vote by Jack ma? When the nominator says "rename" and someone else says "delete", a mere "keep" doesn't have a single clear meaning. To El Grafo, I say that "hand-colored" and "by century" are topics, or themes, or whatever other really broad descriptor you want. I'm trying to find a title that will include all of the current contents while excluding individual images, since individual images belong on high-level topic categories (e.g. "Houses", "United States", "Black-and-white") or their subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend, I'm wavering. Imagine the Category:Photographs were renamed and deleted, then it will appear at Special:WantedCategories as soon as any file has been dropped there (even deleted categories can contain files). I'm sure we won't have to wait for a long time until someone says "Oh, a missing cat, let's create it." --Achim (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- It can always be deleted as a recreation of deleted content; see COM:GCSD #4. If this happens repeatedly, we could always protect it. Part of the issue is that people use it because it exists (if you can see that a category doesn't exist, you're less likely to use it, even if you're not aware that it formerly existed and got deleted), so deleting the title itself will reduce the number of photos getting put into it. Moreover, if you're familiar with Special:WantedCategories, you're probably familiar with the idea that you shouldn't recreate pages that were deleted because they had bad names, so any recreations would likely be by new users. Finally, part of the problem is that images in this category aren't getting noticed by YaCBot when it goes around tagging uncategorised images, because they're currently in a category; if we delete the category, images put into it should still be considered uncategorised by the bot. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend, I'm wavering. Imagine the Category:Photographs were renamed and deleted, then it will appear at Special:WantedCategories as soon as any file has been dropped there (even deleted categories can contain files). I'm sure we won't have to wait for a long time until someone says "Oh, a missing cat, let's create it." --Achim (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Achim55, are you opposing all changes except the addition of CatCat, or are you agreeing with me and rejecting the delete vote by Jack ma? When the nominator says "rename" and someone else says "delete", a mere "keep" doesn't have a single clear meaning. To El Grafo, I say that "hand-colored" and "by century" are topics, or themes, or whatever other really broad descriptor you want. I'm trying to find a title that will include all of the current contents while excluding individual images, since individual images belong on high-level topic categories (e.g. "Houses", "United States", "Black-and-white") or their subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thought about it, and per El Grafo I also say
- Nyttend, you're right but it would be a hell of a ride to manage that. 1st this cat is linked from Main Page and almost any of its translated versions, 2nd it is linked or redirected from elsewhere like from Photograph or {{Information Art of Life}}, 3rd it is probably moving target of some bots, 4th we got a similar problem at Category:Photography and Category:Images the purpose of whose is mostly misunderstood too. Your suggested {{CatCat}} is a good idea I think. --Achim (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- “[…]my point was merely to make it obvious that this was meant to be only a meta-category, excluding individual images.” → thanks for clarifying this, Nyttend. That's a totally reasonable idea. Here are some thoughts on that:
- We have loads of similar meta categories with the same problem. The usual way to deal with this is to put {{CatCat}} or {{MetaCat}} on them and clean them up every once in a while. I know that arguing with “that's how we've always did it” is often considered bad style (in German we'd probably call that a Totschlagargument). But I think with categories we should try to be as consistent as possible. If we're going to implement new ways of identifying meta-categories, I'd like to hear some more opinions first.
- Whether a Category:Photographs exists or not, people will add it to their uploads. Probably less if it doesn't, but still … An existing Category marked as requiring permanent diffusion through {{CatCat}} will be recognized and cleaned by more people than a non-existing Category. Think of it as a Honeypot.
- In case this whole discussion results in renaming Category:Photographs to something that screams "Meta Category", I don't think Category:Photographs by topic would be a good name for that. I must confess, though, that I don't really have hard arguments against that. It just feels totally wrong and/or confusing to me (see below). Maybe something like Category:Photographs (meta category)? But that would be totally against Commons:Meta category, which demands something like X by Y.
- Side note: The existing Category:Photographs by topic should probably be renamed to Category:Photographs by subject for better consistency with other categories (compare Category:Visual arts by subject). Or all that Arts by subject stuff renamed to by topic to harmonize with all the stuff below Category:Topics (Category:Topics by year, etc.). Oh wait, there's also Category:Categories by subject. Shouldn't Category:Children in action be in Category:Children by topic and Category:Action photos by subject rather than Category:Children by subject? Darn, I've fallen into the rabbit hole again. Or is it a wormhole? Anyway … this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of the reasons why we need structured data with appropriate intersection tools instead of Category:Barbie dolls by topic by year by manufacturer by location by condition by color. Sorry for being off-topic (no pun intended), got side-tracked here for a second.
- All in all, I'd say: Keep, add {{CatCat}} and otherwise just leave it as it is. --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- PS: Lots of those files that currently go to Category:Photographs would probably just end up in Category:Photography instead, because people would pick the next best thing the auto-complete function(s) offer them. Maybe someone could write a bot that monitors file additions to categories like this and leaves a friendly message on the uploaders' talk pages asking them to look for better categories? --El Grafo (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This category is something like a melting pot of Category:صور, Category:Foto, Category:Fotos and others. When new users load up files, they often give them categories like this because they don't know better, and someone else has to clean up. But that's OK.--ProfessorX (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to something like "Photographs by characteristic". Use {{Catcat}} or {{Photographs}}, but not {{Metacat}}. "By subject" certainly doesn't fit. Whatever is done, I would do to all the geographic subcategories (cities, continent, country, region, etc.) -- any category with a name like "Photographs of <place>". Maybe then we could clean these out once and for all. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given this recent nomination, I've tagged some of the sub-categories that are more likely to be problematic with the current name pattern including Category:Photographs by topic, Category:Photographs by country, Category:Photographs by city, and Category:Photographs by continent. I think Auntof6's suggestion of Category:Photographs by characteristic would make it clearer that these are mean to be category-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "By characteristic" is easily better than my original suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Given this recent nomination, I've tagged some of the sub-categories that are more likely to be problematic with the current name pattern including Category:Photographs by topic, Category:Photographs by country, Category:Photographs by city, and Category:Photographs by continent. I think Auntof6's suggestion of Category:Photographs by characteristic would make it clearer that these are mean to be category-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Allforrous (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why should we pay attention to a vote that doesn't even explain itself? Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Allforrous: These discussions are not straight votes. The decisions are made based on the strength of the arguments on each side. If you just say keep or delete without saying why, that doesn't give people anything to consider. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hola Auntof6. Yo no discuto con nadie , y mucho menos en idioma inglés. Si querés anulo mi voto. Chau. Un fuerte abrazo. --Allforrous (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hola, Allforrous. Gracias para su respuesto. Trataré de responder en español. Cuando uno dice "keep" o "delete" aquí, necesitamos saber sus razones. El número de "keeps" y "deletes" no es lo importante. Lo importante es las razones. Si usted quiere explicar sus razones en español, yo las traduciré lo mejor que puedo para los otros usuarios. Siento mucho si mi español tiene errores: hay bastante tiempo que no lo he hablado. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Files often get added to this category by a bot that recategorizes them from redirects. If we do rename anything, we will need to address whatever redirects point to the categories being changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment I understand the rationale of this CfD. Nonetheless I would suggest that "Photographs" be the mother cat only for specific children metacategories (i.e. class of photograps: valued photographs, panoramic photographs, photographs by author, photographs by city). Shortly, for topic related to the attributes of a photograph rather than for the subject pictured in the photograph itself. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that it exists at all is the source of the problem. A person uploading a photograph sees the category and thinks "I'm uploading a photograph, so it must go there!" Changing what is allowed in it won't help if the category name stays as it is. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating things, how about this:
- Move this category to one of the suggested names above.
- Keep this category as a redirect to Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention or, if possible, an appropriate subcategory.
With this method, files that get incorrectly put into Category:Photographs will end up in a more appropriate place. I've been trying to keep this category cleaned out (along with Category:Images and maybe one or two others) and it would be nice to have this taken care of. -- ~~
I figure this depends on WCs definition of "wikt:photography/w:Photography." If the definition includes all images, be they film photos that were common until about 10 years ago, and today's digital/electronic types, then this category is pretty redundant, at least most of its sub-cats, as, what, +95%?, of the media here are of either film or electronic type. Category:Photographs by film and Category:Photographic films seem to be about cameras and actual film than how the images were made in regards to whether they are film or electronic. If, however, the definition is film only—my preference—then the subcats would be good.199.7.156.129 10:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Putting photographs in the Category:Photographs is very unspecific but it isn't "incorrect", since all files should be categorized by their media types. --MB-one (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's kind of the point: it's not technically incorrect if you look only at the category name, but it causes issues so we're discussing how to deal with the kinds of issues it causes. As for all images being categorized by media type: first, I don't think "photograph" is a media type on Commons. Media types are things like jpeg, ogg, etc. Second, the overwhelming majority of files here are photographs (the notable exceptions being audio, video, and computer-generated media), so requiring every photograph to be in a photograph category would be a burden on both users and the system. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:Auntof6: What you are listing are file types, not media types. In general, what I meant is, e.g. Template:Photographs suggests, that photographs, unlike other media types shouldn't be categorized as such and that doesn't make any sense to me. --MB-one (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I see the distinction. Nevertheless, not all photographs are in photograph categories. "Photographs" is a de facto default for media type, so files only go in those categories if there's a sort of meta-reason for it. The photographs categories are only for photographs that share some characteristic (such as being black and white, being panoramics, or something else), and they only hold other categories. If you look at Category:Photographs of Norway, for example, you'll see that it has the template {{Photographs}}, which explains this. Then if you look at File:Norges geografiske midtpunkt vinterstid.jpg, you'll see that there's no photographs category. I know this isn't intuitive: it makes sense that a category called "Photographs" could contain any and all photographs, but that isn't what the photographs categories were intended for. Whoever set up the naming scheme may not have thought it out as well as they might have, hence this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:Auntof6: What you are listing are file types, not media types. In general, what I meant is, e.g. Template:Photographs suggests, that photographs, unlike other media types shouldn't be categorized as such and that doesn't make any sense to me. --MB-one (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's kind of the point: it's not technically incorrect if you look only at the category name, but it causes issues so we're discussing how to deal with the kinds of issues it causes. As for all images being categorized by media type: first, I don't think "photograph" is a media type on Commons. Media types are things like jpeg, ogg, etc. Second, the overwhelming majority of files here are photographs (the notable exceptions being audio, video, and computer-generated media), so requiring every photograph to be in a photograph category would be a burden on both users and the system. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thus, ladies and gentlemen, have we reached a consensus? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think, we have a consensus, what the status quo is. What we haven't even really discussed yet, is if it should stay that way or rather be changed and if so in which direction. --MB-one (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: AFAIK, {{Photographs}} was implemented without any discussion or consensus. If I'm wrong about this, please direct me to the relevant discussion. --MB-one (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)I
- I wouldn't know, that was before my time here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just how many people here are actively moving the images in this category away from it? Because I just discovered it yesterday, and I started replacing them since then. ----DanTD (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I remove files from the category now and then when I think of it. If you mean that you are putting files into the category, then please stop. The box at the top of the category explains that it should contain only subcategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: There is no consensus for that. Category:Photographs (and selected subcategories) should get {{CatCat}}, {{Photographs}} is really superfluous. --MB-one (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- No consensus for removing files from a category that shouldn't contain files? I think that comes under general maintenance. In any case, {{Photographs}} includes all the functionality of {{CatCat}}, plus an explanation of the use of "photographs" categories specifically. Adding {{CatCat}} would be redundant. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant {{Categorise}} not {{CatCat}}. The point is, {{Photographs}} and the respective policy was implemented unilaterally without any discussion. --MB-one (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: There is no consensus for that. Category:Photographs (and selected subcategories) should get {{CatCat}}, {{Photographs}} is really superfluous. --MB-one (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I remove files from the category now and then when I think of it. If you mean that you are putting files into the category, then please stop. The box at the top of the category explains that it should contain only subcategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Just how many people here are actively moving the images in this category away from it? Because I just discovered it yesterday, and I started replacing them since then. ----DanTD (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know, that was before my time here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: AFAIK, {{Photographs}} was implemented without any discussion or consensus. If I'm wrong about this, please direct me to the relevant discussion. --MB-one (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)I
- Exactly, the discussion is still in progress. This template was made before any discussion and is implying the existence of a rule that has never been discussed. Long-standing practice is not an argument here. Once we have a consensus here, the template can be changed accordingly, but for now it has to be changed to a neutral wording. --MB-one (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- The template was made in 2010. This discussion is not about the template or whether it should have been made: this discussion started after the use of that template was well established, whether or not you agree that it should have been established. I have no objection to changing the wording as long as it still says that the categories it's used on should contain only other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, the discussion started later and is still going on. That means, we can't enforce any special rule, that hasn't been agreed on. So the general rule stands, which is not, what the template suggests. --MB-one (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The template was made in 2010. This discussion is not about the template or whether it should have been made: this discussion started after the use of that template was well established, whether or not you agree that it should have been established. I have no objection to changing the wording as long as it still says that the categories it's used on should contain only other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: closing stale discussion that leans toward keeping status quo. As a top level category, frequent clean-up and diffusion will continuously need to be done. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Stefan Dečanski as per Stefan Dečanski Zoupan (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: In almost all wp projects as well as at wikidata he is named Stefan Uroš III Dečanski so I suggest renaming this category to Category:Stefan Uroš III Dečanski as of Serbia is redundant. Other categories like Category:Stefan Dečanski and Category:Stefan Dečanski (Dečani) should be merged thereto. And to Zoupan: First renaming the article at en:wp and then saying it should be renamed here because of its name at en:wp doesn't convince me... --Achim (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since you are aware of the move at ENWP, have you bothered to take a look at what this person is known as? Why would I use "as per" if I didn't mean "as per the decision at ENWP". If you disagree, why should Category:Stefan Dečanski be merged here when it is a redirect (!?).--Zoupan (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, you're right, I didn't even have looked into Category:Stefan Dečanski when I wrote the above. Btw. if redirections are kept it is irrelevant which cat keeps data and which one points redirecting there for either way the data can be found. --Achim (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since you are aware of the move at ENWP, have you bothered to take a look at what this person is known as? Why would I use "as per" if I didn't mean "as per the decision at ENWP". If you disagree, why should Category:Stefan Dečanski be merged here when it is a redirect (!?).--Zoupan (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Stale discussion and easily to be solved by an admin. Please any admin (eg user:Themightyquill, user:Achim55) move this category to Category:Stefan Dečanski (enwiki solution)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Duplicated with "Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture" Fayhoo (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, there's no reason to capitalize heritage or architecture. More importantly, however, there is clear explanation for this category. What defines heritage architecture in Shanghai? Are these all cultural heritage monuments or are they all historic Western/Colonial architecture? Maybe Category:Colonial architecture of Shanghai in Category:Colonial architecture by country would make more sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Livelikerw: Do you have any thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: In Shanghai, we have an official list [3] that issued by Shanghai Municipality People's Government, include 1058 sites of architectures as named "Shanghai Heritage Architecture". The official list is not only include the colonial/western architectures in Shanghai, but also include many native modern and ancient architectures in Shanghai.--Fayhoo (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (i.e. don't delete) and then merge the contents into Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture. There's no reason to have both categories, and the other one has a better name. As long as this is intended to contain only the 1,058 sites on the list, it's a good category: historic sites are likely topics for browsing or searching, and officially designated historic sites have clear definitions. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Fayhoo: Is there a separate list for Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Shanghai or could the two be merged? Or could Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture go inside Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Shanghai? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, there are separate lists for 29 sites of Major National Historical and Cultural Sites in Shanghai(it was issued by State Council of China) and a list for 238 sites of Cultural heritage monuments in Shanghai(=Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the Provincial Level) that issue by Shanghai Municipal Peoples' Government, it include archaeology sites, famous people former residence or tombs, revolutionary or historical memorial sites,etc, meanwhile it also include some architectures, but it still have some difference with Shanghai Heritage Architecture.--Fayhoo (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fayhoo: Thanks for the explanation! Sorry to be so demanding. It obviously makes sense to redirect this category to Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture as you suggested, but I was wondering if there is a way to put the latter into an existing category tree, instead of creating a hole new one. If we divide Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Shanghai into federal, municipal and heritage architecture sub-categories, does that work? I've created (and filled) Category:Major National Historical and Cultural Sites (Shanghai), but would it be reasonable to put Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture as a parallel category? If not, that's fine, but it would make it easier to find. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank you for creating and filed Category:Major National Historical and Cultural Sites (Shanghai), I think can we also create a Category:Shanghai Municipal Historical and Cultural Sites(or other name?) to file the 238 sites of Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the Provincial Level in Shanghai? And I agree with to put Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture as a parallel category,thank you!--Fayhoo (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Happy to help. I'm so impressed by the number of registered sites in Shanghai, and China generally. It inspires me to see some in person. I'll move the categories as discussed. Maybe Category:Municipal Historical and Cultural Sites in Shanghai or even Category: Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the Provincial Level in Shanghai? I understand that Shanghai is a municipality, not a province, but it effectively has the status of a province? I'd be happy to create it, but I'll need help adding files and categories since I can't read the Chinese list. We could also make Category:Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the Provincial Level as a base category for other provincial site categories in China. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Info: Redirected empty Category:Shanghai heritage Architecture to Category:Shanghai Heritage Architecture. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Done: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we want to keep this category, when most architectural heritage is already categorized under "Cultural heritage monuments" ? And if so, what should the relationship be between this category and Category:Cultural heritage monuments ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Still, IMHO let's leave it as it is (although sort of ... minuscule) for the Cultural Heritage monuments is TOO large, too general, no? --Ecce Ego (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Most cultural heritage monuments are architectural. Keeping both would result in a widespread and unnecessary duplication. Cultural heritage monuments that are buildings can always be categorized under "Buildings in XX" and by architectural style. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: closing stale discussion without consensus. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
There are 2 categories :
- manual : Category:Images including source code in their description
- automatic ( template) : Category:Created with code
It seems to be a duplication. Am I right ? --Adam majewski (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Images including source code in their description was created in Jan 2010, Category:Created with code in Oct 2014. The real duplication doesn't seem to be between those two, but between categories such as "Images with Matlab source code" and "Created with MATLAB code", etc. It seems a little unfortunate that when Sarang set his stuff up, he didn't slot it into the already-existing hierarchy, but instead set up a whole new hierarchy of categories. AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- This duplication as shown at the example of MATLAB results from the fact that the category diffusion performed in the "Created ..." did not fit into the system of the "Images ..." categories. This problem is solved by setting up the 'new' system.
- The 'new' category follows another concept. Instead of collecting all files in one very large category, a system of subcategories diffuses the large number of SVG files: the appropriate category "..valid SVG created with ... code" is contained in a hierarchy of several supercategories, one of them the mentioned Created with ... code.
- Besides of the automatic assignement, this rather stringent systems seems to me better than the insular solution. It is intended to replace the use of categories like "Images with xxx source code" by the new "Created with xxx code". Currently both ideas coexist, and the "new" category is a subcategory of the 'old' one.
- It will be not any problem to dispense with the diffusion and change to the categorization into the 'old' category, if the new one seems nonsense. Or to change the template following any other category concept. -- sarang♥사랑 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Images including source code in their description is also a "meta-category" (currently directly contains exactly one file). And speaking of duplication, there certainly seems to be some w.r.t. Category:PNG created with MATLAB code and Category:SVG created with MATLAB code vs Category:PNG created with MATLAB and Category:SVG created with MATLAB... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi AnonMoos, the mentioned Dykstra algorithm.svg had been "hard" categorized by Jochen - this can happen to every Metacat. As another small problem, there exists no category "Images with XML code" or "SVG created with XML code", nor are Inkscape-SVGs assumed to be created with any code. I do not know of any other file with this problem, that let me hesitate to establish a quick solution.
- Your example e.g. SVG created with MATLAB code, the metacat of "Valid/Invalid SVG created with MATLAB code", is not a duplication but a hierarchy: it is subcat of SVG created with MATLAB (and of Created with MATLAB code and SVG created with ... code).
- Is this category structure too fine? -- sarang♥사랑 08:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pages : Images created with code my or may not contain code used to create such image. Category Images including src code is IMHO very important and should not be deleted. --Adam majewski (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Adam majewski, AnonMoos, Sarang, and Adam majewski: Closed (no consensus to delete/merge, further proposals can be raised in a new CfD) Josh (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
They only contain 1 category each and there are only 7 8 common lands in England, we don't need a county category for each county. If there is evidence that that there are many in a county then I would withdraw but as there only appear to be a total of 7 with just 1 in Cumbria and North Yorkshire, they might as well be redirected to Category:Common lands in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment The fact there is only one in an area isn't a big deal - I'm fine with a category having one member if that makes the structure more helpful. These are unusual areas, so that separate categorisation allows for the special treatment involved. What is a big deal is the name. This is (asserted to be) a distinct concept from common land. However two questions:
- Please indicate any evidence of "common lands" being used in legislation etc to refer to land common to multiple civil parishes, as opposed to the normal meaning of common land.
- Secondly - Multiple parcels of common land are referred to as common lands. That alternative meaning is, clearly, much more common, so this is an inherently confusing name.
These two points suggest to me the categories should be renamed to something unambiguous - "Land common to multiple parishes in <county>" is awkward but is both unambiguous and accurate. I would want to see evidence that land common to different parishes is called "common lands", and that when that term is used it does not mean the normal meaning of Common land. In any case, 5 of the 8 of the areas in England are registered common land. The 3 areas that are not registered as common land are Axminster/Kilmington, Broughton Gifford/Melksham Without and Brancepeth/Brandon and Byshottles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- The main category was kept at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Common lands in England, if you look on the Ordnance Survey maps and census data they are separate parishes anyway. My argument here was that for common lands there isn't any need for separate cats when there only appear to be a total of 7. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's 8 of these things and given their unique status, I have no problem with a distinct category for them (though I am concerned about the name).
- However, they are not civil parishes, but shared between the civil parishes they are common to. To quote Ordnance Survey: "Lands Common to - These are areas where the limits of the parishes concerned have not been determined and the area itself is common to (or belongs to) two or more parishes. In Boundary-Line they are classified as separate parishes..." Classified as separate parishes means they are treated as parish-level units for mapping, but does not mean they are parishes.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with Nilfanion on this. Perhaps move to Category:Land common to multiple civil parishes in XXX. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't simply having them all in Category:Common lands in England better (noting that there are also some in Wales). Apart from the ones already in Category:Common lands in England, there is alos Lands cmn to the parishes of Brancepeth and Brandon and Byshottles (which has no images) and formally Lands Common To Orton and Crosby Ravensworth, Lands Common To Frodsham and Frodsham Lordship, Lands Common To Witton le Wear and North Bedburn, Lands Common To Badby and Newnham, Lands Common To Potterspury and Yardley Gobion, Lands Common To the Townships of Woodmansey and Thearne, Lands Common To Lowick and Subberthwaite, Intermixed Lands Common To Rothbury and Snitter, Lands Common To Grewelthorpe Kirkby Malzeard and Laverton, Undivided Lands Common To Llaneilian and Llanwenllwyfo, Lands Common To Clarborough and Hayton, Land Common To Begbroke and Yarnton Pixey Mead, Land Common To Begbroke Yarnton and Yarnton Or West Mead Oxney Mead, Land Common To Ely Trinity and Ely St Mary and Moorland Common To the Townships of Hexham (and possibly more), even if we had categories on them would we still need to categorize them by county as well, I think probably not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no harm to categorising by county - there is no rule against having a category with a single member. However, there are benefits - chiefly that we can correctly describe the status of these unusual areas within each county. Without the common in North Yorks category, its harder to accurately place Fylingdales Moor in the civil parishes in Yorks - its not a civil parish.
- Also note there are NO civil parishes in Wales, nevermind common areas, and the former areas in England are not significant for Commons (we do not locate modern photos in historical units). The only realistic reason Commons would care about those units is if someone uploaded historical maps showing them.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having a North Yorkshire category? Lands common to Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre and the 2 main parish while Common lands in North Yorkshire is in Civil parishes in North Yorkshire and Common lands in England. The only benefit I can think of is that it is categorized under Civil parishes in North Yorkshire. As I said there are only 8 current ones in England and as you pointed out there is probably little point on creating cats for the ones that no longer exist (unless as you pointed out, someone adds something specific like maps of them).
- Maybe they are not civil parishes but instead communities, see here but this says that it (at least was) a civil parish. According to w:Community (Wales) they were abolished in 1974. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The benefit is it allows the special status of this one area in North Yorkshire to be effectively managed. The harm is in making it harder to find, or incorrectly identifying it. A category with one member is not harmful.
- The real point with Wales is every single square inch of Wales is within a single community - this issue is irrelevant there.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying mainly for a subcat of civil parishes in North Yorkshire? I agree that does make it easier to manage is just that with such a small scope I didn't think that we are supposed to have cats with just 1 page.
- I agree it is irrelevant to this discussion, I was just listing them as well to give an example of how many there are outside England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't simply having them all in Category:Common lands in England better (noting that there are also some in Wales). Apart from the ones already in Category:Common lands in England, there is alos Lands cmn to the parishes of Brancepeth and Brandon and Byshottles (which has no images) and formally Lands Common To Orton and Crosby Ravensworth, Lands Common To Frodsham and Frodsham Lordship, Lands Common To Witton le Wear and North Bedburn, Lands Common To Badby and Newnham, Lands Common To Potterspury and Yardley Gobion, Lands Common To the Townships of Woodmansey and Thearne, Lands Common To Lowick and Subberthwaite, Intermixed Lands Common To Rothbury and Snitter, Lands Common To Grewelthorpe Kirkby Malzeard and Laverton, Undivided Lands Common To Llaneilian and Llanwenllwyfo, Lands Common To Clarborough and Hayton, Land Common To Begbroke and Yarnton Pixey Mead, Land Common To Begbroke Yarnton and Yarnton Or West Mead Oxney Mead, Land Common To Ely Trinity and Ely St Mary and Moorland Common To the Townships of Hexham (and possibly more), even if we had categories on them would we still need to categorize them by county as well, I think probably not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with Nilfanion on this. Perhaps move to Category:Land common to multiple civil parishes in XXX. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Nilfanion: Closed (no consensus to make specific changes) Josh (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10th_Hussars_Regiment_of_Polish_Army_of_Duchy_of_Warsaw.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Aeronova._(10349318446).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
All subcategories should be upmerged to Category:Churches dedicated to Saint Sava as per precision. There is no need listing churches by countries. Some of the churches seem to be dedicated to Sabbas the Sanctified, hence, I will need to go through the category later. Zoupan (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as it is. The current usage seems common enough: Category:Saints Peter and Paul churches, Category:Saint George churches. Are there even any that use the "dedicated to" locution? - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Still needs upmerging as the category confuses churches dedicated to, founded by, and not dedicated to, founded by, Saint Sava.--Zoupan (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Zoupan has not edited in over four years, and is the only person who weighed in as believing something needed to happen here. Because this is such an old discussion, I'll give a week for anyone else to weigh in before I close it as "keep". - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept. The only person advocating for this change has been inactive over four years. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I've just added a lot of sub-categories to this category because it was empty and there are plenty of other categories focused on cultural heritage buildings. That said, Category:Heritage buildings by country currently redirects to Category:Cultural heritage monuments by country. Is it worth separating buildings from other heritage monuments, or would this just create a unnecessary added level of complexity? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, please have also a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/09/Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Toronto. --Achim (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm certainly not suggesting moving/renaming Category:Cultural heritage monuments because I know there are non-building monuments in that category. But if this Category:Heritage buildings is going to exist, it should naturally have some relation to Category:Cultural heritage monuments. It may be an unnecessary added level of complexity, but it might be useful to sub-categorize these monuments by type (building or non-building) rather than just by location. I didn't create Category:Heritage buildings. That's why I proposed the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is an unnecessary added level of complexity.
- I came here from Category:Heritage hotels -what are they?- with buildings that aren't hotels anymore. These buildings are already Cultural heritage monuments in CITY and former hotels or hotels. If you are looking for Cultural heritage monuments, that are churches or bridges or stations --> Use CatScan! --Anika (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I added many sub-categories to Category:Heritage hotels today (unfortunately, some of them incorrectly, since I forgot about things like "hôtel de ville" that aren't hotels but showed up in my search). But this category seems less unreasonable to me. We categorize images with compound categories like this all the time. Heritage hotels has only two descriptors, less than the (wikipedia?) maximum of three. If it's reasonable to subdivide Category:Hotels into somewhat arbitrary categories like Category:High-rise hotels and Category:Luxury hotels, why is it unreasonable that a regular user might want to look at hotels that are old enough to be considered cultural heritage monuments? I'm not dead-set on keeping it - I didn't create Category:Heritage hotels either (or Category:Hotels designated as cultural heritage monuments in Canada) - but it's worth discussing here too, so I'm glad you've brought it up. Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's also Category:Heritage registers, so we end up with both Category:Heritage registers of Australia and Category:Heritage buildings of Australia. When dealing with registers that include things other than buildings, I suppose we should avoid putting them in "buildings" category parents, but a building subcat would be OK. --ghouston (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close, stale discussion. Reopen if necessary. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)