Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/12
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2025 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive December 2015
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted as copyvio, may also be deleted. Contains only empty cats. Wrong spelled anyway. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Missspelled dublicate of Category:Tractors, contains only empty cats, content was deleted as copyvio. Should be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for licensing/copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Contains only empty cats. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dublicate of Category:BTR-152 were it is sorted in, content was deleted as copyvio. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, content was deleted for copyright reasons. May also be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 2 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Grenzstein Wambe78 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo Wambe78, was möchtest du denn hier diskutieren? --Achim (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo, war ein Versehen,sorry.Bin neu hier und kenne mich noch nicht so richtig aus.--Wambe78 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Kein Problem. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo, war ein Versehen,sorry.Bin neu hier und kenne mich noch nicht so richtig aus.--Wambe78 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do, CfD created erroneously. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Women it is a subcategory of Category:Female humans, and this is a subcategory of Category:Females. The model of the main categories is this, therefore Category:Women of Spain should be as a subdirectory of Category:Females of Spain. --JT Curses (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jtcurses: If you think that "Category:Women of Spain should be as a subdirectory of Category:Females of Spain" then why have you removed that parent category from Women of Spain ? Unless I've somehow become confused by the reverts, you seem to be doing the opposite what of your argument here would suggest. -Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I realized my error and corrected in later editions.--JT Curses (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems the cfd was the result of confusion/miscommunication. No need for further discussion. Closing - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Benzo(a)pyrene would be closer to the correct name that is not possible due to technical restrictions. Leyo 23:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm no scientist, so please excuse my ignorance, but the English wikipedia article suggests to me that Benzopyrene includes both Benzo[a]pyrene and Benzo[e]pyrene. Do we really need to separate these? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they are constitutional isomers but different compounds. Category:Benzo(e)pyrene needs to be created as another subcategory of Category:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. --Leyo 16:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Will the parent categories change? Or you'll split a category with only 22 images into two different categories, each with the same parent categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The parent category of Category:Benzo(a)pyrene and Category:Benzo(e)pyrene will be Category:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The current category name won't be needed any longer. --Leyo 22:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you understand my question. I understand there are different compounds of Benzopyrene. I'm suggesting that maybe they don't each need their own category. Is there any real reason they do? Why can't they all just share Category:Benzopyrene ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are different benzopyrenes. As you may read, there are also benzo[b]pyrene, benzo[c]pyrene
and benzo[d]pyrene. The creator of the category clearly intended to have it for benzo[a]pyrene only. He just couldn't use this name for technical reasons. Among others, it's useful to have compound-specific categories, e.g. to be linked from Wikidata and Wikipedia. --Leyo 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Leyo's point of view. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are different benzopyrenes. As you may read, there are also benzo[b]pyrene, benzo[c]pyrene
- I wouldn't say I have a point of view, I'm just asking questions. @Leyo: To be clear, we'll just create Category:Benzo(c)pyrene and Category:Benzo(d)pyrene categories as well when the need arises? (From what I see, we have no such images at the moment.) Also, where will the English wikipedia article en:Benzopyrene and other equivalent articles in other languages link on commons? Might it be useful to rename this Category:Benzopyerenes and create subcategories? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- In brief, see d:Q306051 and d:Q2645019. --Leyo 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but that wasn't my question, was it? See d:Q1501961. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- In brief, see d:Q306051 and d:Q2645019. --Leyo 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support subcats for each specific compound...break up a general name with lots of files that have all sorts of different names to help find each. But support retaining a parent cat for this class (Category:Benzopyrene). I ordinarily don't like overly deep cat trees when there are so few sibling cats, but in this case, the string "Benzopyrene" doesn't appear in the specific chemicals' names. Having a cat that does contain that string makes it easier to use search tools to discover what we have on the topic. It gives a natural place to accumulate images for the other variations in a way that they can be found if editors don't know to create a new cat or don't think one is justified if we only have one image of it. But given that the parent cat is a class that contains several members, should it instead be Category:Benzopyrenes? DMacks (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble finding actual information about the [b], [c], and [d] isomers. @Leyo: , are you able to access the actual refs cited by that report you linked? I can't find them by name in SciFinder. Based on File:Pyrene numbered.png, [a] and [b] would be equivalent. Drawing the [c] and [d] forms, which have the fifth ring spiro, I don't really have a "benzo", and SciFinder gives me no hits for it as a core structure either. DMacks (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't have access to the original literature. Among them, there are two papers (DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0668.1991.00015.x and DOI:10.1007/BF00194673) and a book written in German (ISBN 3883142867). --Leyo 00:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble finding actual information about the [b], [c], and [d] isomers. @Leyo: , are you able to access the actual refs cited by that report you linked? I can't find them by name in SciFinder. Based on File:Pyrene numbered.png, [a] and [b] would be equivalent. Drawing the [c] and [d] forms, which have the fifth ring spiro, I don't really have a "benzo", and SciFinder gives me no hits for it as a core structure either. DMacks (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Renamed to Category:Benzopyrenes, recommended subcategories created, images sorted accordingly. Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
please delete. misspelling of Othniel Looker House Roseohioresident (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a typo. Added {{Bad name}} so it should be deleted soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, needs deletion. Elements have been transferred into Category:Giuseppe De Nittis (correct spelling of the name). 82.124.45.224 17:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Next time please move instead of creating new. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Giuseppe De Nittis. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- This new category was created by User:0x010C (a Wikipedia administrator !) on November 3rd. Thank you anyway. --83.204.211.196 21:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- IP, you're right. --Achim (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This category should be changed to use capital letters, so to Category:Seoul Lantern Festival Misokkkim (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable to me. It's a formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Seoul Lantern Festival and gallery as well. --Achim (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"Nawn's Yard" as referenced in the photograph was a temporary construction staging area used by Hugh Nawn, a contractor performing landscaping and bridge work in the Charlesgate area. It was not of any significance nor was it a shipyard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- So, you think the category should be discussed... Did you have a suggestion? Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support deletion. As Pi said, "Nawn's Yard" is not a proper name, and doesn't IMO warrant a category. Choess (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
move to 2009 Fort Hood shooting, to differ from 2014 Fort Hood shooting 578985s (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. en:Fort Hood shooting has a disambiguation page. I guess we should do the same? -Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:2009 Fort Hood shooting, created Category:2014 Fort Hood shooting and set a disambiguation on Category:Fort Hood shooting. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is already a similar category, Category:Companies of Madeira. --Jotagueerrepe (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Request made by category creator after only a few days. I've created a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a vestige of something no longer used. Pete F (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Orphaned category redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
see Category:Na-Na GAndy (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty, req by author. --Achim (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
There is only one fortress in Smederevo. Zoupan (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- That seems to be true of most subcategories of Category:Fortresses in Serbia by location. Could they be grouped regionally (Belgrade, Vojvodina, Kosovo and Metohija, Southern and Eastern Serbia, & Šumadija and Western Serbia), instead of by municipality? Otherwise, maybe that parent category should be deleted, along with its subs. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think Category:Fortresses in Serbia should house all fortresses, instead of dividing them into statistical regions. Delete Category:Fortresses in Serbia by location and its subs.--Zoupan (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, but that means deleting Category:Fortresses in Vojvodina too. I've added a link to this discussion there. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support upmerge of these categories into Category:Fortresses in Serbia. It looks like there are about 15 subcategories, which seems like a reasonable number and doesn't really warrant being broken down by region (there are 1-2 categories/region at present). Choess (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the right initiative.--Zoupan (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Cleaned up per above suggestions. One thing still might be resolved by someone who is familiar with these locations: Category:Kalemegdan and Category:Belgrade Fortress which are both listed in Category:Fortresses in Serbia.
- Split off Category:Fortresses in Vojvodina and added it to Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Fortresses in Kosovo, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Should I close or is there still something left to be discussed here? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Might be closed I think. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Category upmerged to Category:Fortresses in Serbia by Achim55. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
merge to Category:Bladed weapons? 578985s (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me. Themightyquill (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support and change Category:Deaths by blade weapons to Category:Deaths by bladed weapons. Choess (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Done as suggested above. --Achim (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Blank category. Edgars2007 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Recently created dupe of Category:Museums in Isère. --Achim (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Rašo, Zoupan, what's going on here? Achim (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I think that Zoupan made a mistake. This monastery is located in Macedonia in the village of Matejče in ethnographic region of Žegligovo. So, the monastery is named after those names. Zoupan try to use a serbian name (i think) and use the therm serbian monastery. In Macedonia all orthodox churches and monasteries are under jurisdiction od Macedonian orthodox church.--Rašo
16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it has been Serbian from 1920 to 1967 only. So we might keep a redirect as from Category:Matejče Monastery. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yee, but more common name is Žegligovo Monastery. Zumindest, Einheimischen nutzen dieser Name.--Rašo 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes of course, Matejče M. redirects to Žegligovo M., and Matejić M. should do the same. --Achim (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Matejić Monastery to Category:Žegligovo Monastery. --Achim (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is terribly wrong. The monastery is not known as the "Žegligovo Monastery", please see Talk:Matejić Monastery. Zoupan (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The monastery is known as Matejić, and never as Žegligovo Monastery. As per Raso mk himself, "Žegligovo" is an ethnographic region; could you please show me one example of a monastery that is named after an ethnographic region? Zoupan try to use a serbian name (i think) and use the therm serbian monastery
, If you're not sure, don't accuse me.--Zoupan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- In Macedonia several monasteries are named after a region. We have Poreče Monastery, Mariovo Monastery, after mountain like Osogovo and so on....--Rašo 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Robert G. Ousterhout (1987) The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks, p. 156 ISBN: 978-0-88402-165-0. "Matejić Monastery church"
- Cecil Stewart (1959) Serbian Legacy, George Allen and Unwin, p. 134 "Matejic' (monastery)"
- Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales) (January 1977) Youth hosteler's guide to Europe, Collier Books "7 miles W. among mountains is remote Matejic Monastery"
- (2003) Abstracts of Papers - Byzantine Studies Conference, Byzantine Studies Conference. "Byzantine foundations - the imperial church at Matejic monastery"
- (1971) Byzantine Studies, Научно дело "Of all Serbian five-domed churches only one, that of the Matejic Monastery (after 1355),"
Please don't mistake my judgement, I have done countless of proper moves and discussions for Commons categories.--Zoupan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to be motivated by different points of view regarding political and ethnical positions. Additionally the status of the Macedonian church is a difficult thing. Based on the medieval independent Archbishopric of Ohrid they proclaimed Autocephaly in 1967 but the Serbian mother church doesn't agree with that. Today even some of the bishops of the Macedonian church told they would prefer returning to the Serbian church. To make it short: We won't find a solution everyone will be satisfied with (see also The Wrong Version), so I will restore the oldest variant, keeping redirects and close this case due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Via redirections the information is accessible, so which way round that is done plays a minor role. Feel free to start a new cfd request, I won't notice that... --Achim (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Restored the status of September 2009 due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Copy of Category:Subdivisions of Austria-Hungary. Zoupan (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Redirect to "Subdivisions of Austria-Hungary" - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, content moved to Category:Subdivisions of Austria-Hungary. --Achim (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
At present only contains two images of Raspberry Pi, neither particularly specific to the "IT @ School" project itself (i.e. just one of many photos of Pi with and without case).
Category used to contain many more images, but most were deleted as they were simply images of generic box packaging and/or copyvios of packaging artwork. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raspberry Pi Kit by IT@School).
Is this category still useful or meaningful? Ubcule (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Any objections to deleting this category? --Achim (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Lazistan Zoupan (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the reverse. All the other Sanjak categories in Category:Sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire include the word Sanjak. It also clarifies that the category is for a specific time period. According to en:Lazistan Sanjak, the word Lazistan in Persian refers to en:Lazica (the same area but in a different period). Why not avoid any potential confusion? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- True, merge into Lazistan Sanjak.--Zoupan (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Merged Category:Lazistan into Category:Lazistan Sanjak after temp deletion. --Achim (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Rašo, Zoupan, what's going on here? Achim (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I think that Zoupan made a mistake. This monastery is located in Macedonia in the village of Matejče in ethnographic region of Žegligovo. So, the monastery is named after those names. Zoupan try to use a serbian name (i think) and use the therm serbian monastery. In Macedonia all orthodox churches and monasteries are under jurisdiction od Macedonian orthodox church.--Rašo 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it has been Serbian from 1920 to 1967 only. So we might keep a redirect as from Category:Matejče Monastery. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yee, but more common name is Žegligovo Monastery. Zumindest, Einheimischen nutzen dieser Name.--Rašo 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes of course, Matejče M. redirects to Žegligovo M., and Matejić M. should do the same. --Achim (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Matejić Monastery to Category:Žegligovo Monastery. --Achim (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is terribly wrong. The monastery is not known as the "Žegligovo Monastery", please see Talk:Matejić Monastery. Zoupan (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The monastery is known as Matejić, and never as Žegligovo Monastery. As per Raso mk himself, "Žegligovo" is an ethnographic region; could you please show me one example of a monastery that is named after an ethnographic region? Zoupan try to use a serbian name (i think) and use the therm serbian monastery
, If you're not sure, don't accuse me.--Zoupan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- In Macedonia several monasteries are named after a region. We have Poreče Monastery, Mariovo Monastery, after mountain like Osogovo and so on....--Rašo 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Robert G. Ousterhout (1987) The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks, p. 156 ISBN: 978-0-88402-165-0. "Matejić Monastery church"
- Cecil Stewart (1959) Serbian Legacy, George Allen and Unwin, p. 134 "Matejic' (monastery)"
- Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales) (January 1977) Youth hosteler's guide to Europe, Collier Books "7 miles W. among mountains is remote Matejic Monastery"
- (2003) Abstracts of Papers - Byzantine Studies Conference, Byzantine Studies Conference. "Byzantine foundations - the imperial church at Matejic monastery"
- (1971) Byzantine Studies, Научно дело "Of all Serbian five-domed churches only one, that of the Matejic Monastery (after 1355),"
Please don't mistake my judgement, I have done countless of proper moves and discussions for Commons categories.--Zoupan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to be motivated by different points of view regarding political and ethnical positions. Additionally the status of the Macedonian church is a difficult thing. Based on the medieval independent Archbishopric of Ohrid they proclaimed Autocephaly in 1967 but the Serbian mother church doesn't agree with that. Today even some of the bishops of the Macedonian church told they would prefer returning to the Serbian church. To make it short: We won't find a solution everyone will be satisfied with (see also The Wrong Version), so I will restore the oldest variant, keeping redirects and close this case due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Via redirections the information is accessible, so which way round that is done plays a minor role. Feel free to start a new cfd request, I won't notice that... --Achim (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Restored the status of September 2009 due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of Category:Poil (Nièvre). I've moved all the files to the previously existing category. El pitareio (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected. In the future, El pitareio feel free to be bold and make uncontroversial changes like this yourself with {{Category redirect}} instead of proposing discussion. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
sex video more please 36.252.141.246 06:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Nothing to discuss (or at least not the right place), and Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Awkward name. Upmerge to Category:Šumadija District. Zoupan (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, content upmerged. --Achim (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Minor mispelling to be fixed: Valley not Vally (the English Wikipedia article was mispelled and I created this category before looking at the name closely...) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Category moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Todos os usuarios que fazem contribuições na página Iraquara vem parar aqui e são bloqueados OCivil (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Nothing to discuss. User blocked. Yann (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This is Nanjing Road, not Luhe Road Fayhoo (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fayhoo seems to know Shanhai, and by my look at google street view, I'd agree it's Nanjing Road. The two streets intersect, so the photographer may have seen the sign for the cross street and misunderstood? I don't know. If we had any photos of Luhe Road, it would be worth keeping, but I don't see any. I'd suggest deletion, though of course, it could be recreated if images of Luhe Road are uplaoded in the future. @Fayhoo: Can you propose renaming for each of these mistitled files, and move them to Category:Nanjing Road by night? Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, was empty now. Files renamed and moved to Category:Nanjing Road by night. --Achim (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Michawl's Bay Town Site 66.186.66.244 12:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific about why you think this category needs discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do, no answer for 2 weeks. --Achim (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Petar I Petrović Njegoš. He was a person before sainthood. Zoupan (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, but I don't get it. Becoming a saint always happens after the death of a person, so the reason fits every saint. --Achim (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Apparently we have no naming scheme for Saint categories, as some start with "Saint" and some omit the word. English Wikipedia's en:MOS:SAINTS says to omit the "Saint" unless it's absolutely necessary for identification. If we accept that, we're left with the options of Category:Petar I Petrović Njegoš or Category:Peter of Cetinje. Italian and Croatian wikipedias refer to him by the latter name, whereas all the others (including English, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian) refer to him by the former. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to not split the bio-category into two, have one category for one person. Petar I Petrović Njegoš.--Zoupan (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Apparently we have no naming scheme for Saint categories, as some start with "Saint" and some omit the word. English Wikipedia's en:MOS:SAINTS says to omit the "Saint" unless it's absolutely necessary for identification. If we accept that, we're left with the options of Category:Petar I Petrović Njegoš or Category:Peter of Cetinje. Italian and Croatian wikipedias refer to him by the latter name, whereas all the others (including English, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian) refer to him by the former. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Merged and redirected to Category:Petar I Petrović Njegoš. --Achim (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Follow up from Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Fortresses in Smederevo. Achim (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Due to its status Kosovo has to be treated specially and imo Category:Fortresses in Kosovo (8 subcats now) should be kept anyway. There are two possible ways to categorize these 8 subcats: Either they are kept in Category:Fortresses in Kosovo only and Category:Fortresses in Kosovo is a subcat of Category:Fortresses in Serbia or the other way round each of these 8 subcats is kept in Category:Fortresses in Kosovo and Category:Fortresses in Serbia as well. --Achim (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- First suggestion, makes it clear that they are located within Kosovo.--Zoupan (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Zoupan, kept also Category:Fortresses in Vojvodina as it is now. --Achim (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Tresije Monastery Zoupan (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tresije Monastery and kept a redirect. --Achim (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The "h" in "Jahn" is wrong - it has to be Jan -> Jan-Peter Frahm 92.73.70.204 10:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, was empty. --Achim (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete all contents. Vocalist asked in court that his biography was deleted in Portuguese Wikipedia. Yanguas (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Out of process scope. Feel free to do a deletion request. --Achim (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Ežerėlis Powermelon (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have accidentally created this category without knowing about Category:Ežerėlis. Please delete Category:Ežerėlis (city). Powermelon (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Topčider Zoupan (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Done, to fix typo and use better format (comma before the location name). --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
And also:
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2003
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2004
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2005
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2007
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2008
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2009
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2010
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2011
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2012
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2013
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2014
- Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2015
she wasn't queen yet in 2002. She became queen in 2013. Should it be "Princes" befor that or should the title be left out entirely? I think I prefer the second option. Vera (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Per d:Q460960 almost all projects (except en:wp and simple:wp) read Máxima of the Netherlands (translated, respectively). So I think it should be preferred here too. --Achim (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Achim's suggestion makes sense to me. It's also the pattern followed by most of the subcategory of Category:Queens of the Netherlands. It seems to me this might be a problem for several categories. It might be worth making this a part of a Commons category naming scheme for people, as English wikipedia has done, so I'll bring it up there.- Themightyquill (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are there tools to automate this sort of thing? I also wanted to ad "Royalty in 20##" and "People of the Netherlands in 20##" to these categories and add a {{Decade years navbox}}. Doing so one by one is a bit tedious. --Vera (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Achim's suggestion makes sense to me. It's also the pattern followed by most of the subcategory of Category:Queens of the Netherlands. It seems to me this might be a problem for several categories. It might be worth making this a part of a Commons category naming scheme for people, as English wikipedia has done, so I'll bring it up there.- Themightyquill (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved cats as suggested and added navboxes (special service to Vera). --Achim (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
the category you want to delete. category empty. street renamed in 2015 (see Category:Nazarbayev street (Kazan) GAndy (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Several of the images actually include signage (etc.) reading "Esperanto street". Maybe it's worth keeping as a subcategory of Category:Nazarbayev street (Kazan)? At very least, the a redirect should be kept and the latter category should feature a comment explaining that it was renamed from "Esperanto" in 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Nazarbayev street (Kazan). --Achim (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can you explain what "Spomenici kulture" means? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Monuments of culture" = Cultural heritage monuments in Serbia.--Zoupan (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Leave redirect for Serbian users?--Zoupan (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Monuments of culture" = Cultural heritage monuments in Serbia.--Zoupan (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Yes, absolutely. This probably didn't require discussion either. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Serbia and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Croatia respectively and set a {{Disambig}}. --Achim (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Was passiert beim füllen von Luftballons kann es eine statische aufladung geben mit Funkübersprung 87.150.197.77 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Out of process scope. Cfd req reverted. --Achim (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the proper name for this category should be official and original name "Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus" Sturm (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think we should leave it as it is now because of the English named subcats and en:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. I undeleted Category:Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus and set a redirect so everyone can find it. Additionally I put the Portuguese title + link onto the category page. --Achim (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus here. --Achim (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty. No files. GRuban (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm sure there was at least one image when I created the category... Anyway, I don't bother a lot if you remove this category. Pmau (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @GRuban: Sorry, I could'nt find the associated image. Perhaps it has been removed. Feel free to remove this categ if needed. Pmau (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Feel free to recreate it if needed. --Achim (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This may be a bit nerdy, but in the Star Wars universe, "clone troopers" only refers to the soldier clones seen in the prequel films. Those in the original films and the new one are stormtroopers, which are not clones. Most of our images show "stormtroopers". Is a large scale recategorization warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK. You are right but "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" I made also Category:Imperial stormtroopers for this purpose... which was closed down 2 year ago by Cathy Richards. To say the throuth I don't know, why? The soldiers of these formations are not similar characters. Electron ツ ➧☎ 22:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Electron, suggestions how to go on now would be helpful. Reactivate Category:Imperial stormtroopers? --Achim (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it is the best option. Electron ツ ➧☎ 20:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, unless we want to make a more generic/inclusive category for both... FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, let's wait until Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Clone troopers is done. --Achim (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Seems those files were deleted, but there are still hundreds of images in the categories... FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, let's wait until Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Clone troopers is done. --Achim (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, unless we want to make a more generic/inclusive category for both... FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it is the best option. Electron ツ ➧☎ 20:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Electron, suggestions how to go on now would be helpful. Reactivate Category:Imperial stormtroopers? --Achim (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
FunkMonk, Electron, feel free to recategorize the images, I'm not a Star Wars specialist. --Achim (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Changed {{Category redirect}} to {{Catseealso}}. --Achim (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Names in Arabic calligraphy Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be over-categorized, but I can't figure out what it is meant to contain. Help? Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think so, it's obviously a name. Perhaps Category:"Moalla" calligraphy like Category:"Umar" medallion in Hagia Sophia and others? --Achim (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was wrong, it's a special style, see [1]. So let's close it as kept. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Library of the City of Belgrade Zoupan (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Belgrade City Library" is its formal name in English, see [2] --Djordjes (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Move to Category:Belgrade City Library.--Zoupan (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Belgrade City Library leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Digital National Library of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, though it looks like there's a template that places images in this category, so it should be changed too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree.--Zoupan (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I also Agree. Don't worry, because of the template I have to move some images temporarily the wrong way first. --Achim (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I also
- Agree.--Zoupan (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Digital National Library of Serbia, {{NLS Digital Library}} adjusted. --Achim (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
DELETE. Category is empty, and vocalist has not a biography in Wikipedia. Yanguas (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Eastern Orthodox frescos. Awkward title. Zoupan (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I doubt this warrants further discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It needs: Can for example Byzantine be treated as eastern orthodox? --Achim (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes.--Zoupan (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see, the Byzantine/Greek part as of 1054. Well, then let's move. --Achim (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes.--Zoupan (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It needs: Can for example Byzantine be treated as eastern orthodox? --Achim (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Eastern Orthodox frescos and left a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Arabic calligraphy tables Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This one should be deleted, as both of the tables show the alphabet and nothing specific calligraphic. --Achim (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. The images should fit fine in Category:Arabic alphabet charts. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty and out of naming scheme. --Achim (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:1896 books in Bohemia (1867-1918) Zoupan (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd 21 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Žiča Monastery. There is a village Žiča (abt 3900 inhabitants, belonging to Kraljevo municipality, see d:Q246794) and the Žiča Monastery (see d:Q1283823). By now there are no images of the village Žiča, so I suggest merging the content of Category:Žiča into Category:Žiča Monastery. Either we leave a redirect from Category:Žiča to Category:Žiča Monastery or we keep Category:Žiča Monastery as a subcat of Category:Žiča. Or 3rd variant: Category:Žiča is made a redirect pointing to Category:Žiča (Kraljevo) which keeps Category:Žiča Monastery. Zoupan, what do you think? Achim (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Leave redirect to Žiča Monastery.--Zoupan (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Merged Category:Žiča into Category:Žiča Monastery and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty empty Yanguas (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd 1 January 2016. --Achim (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
veronique j ai un an de moins que toi et je t adore aujourd hui c est le reveillon et je suis seule te regarder avec patrick sebastien tu me donnes la peche gracea toi je ne suis pas triste 92.135.158.246 21:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Serbia in World War II as per other categories. Zoupan (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - Matches with all the other parallel categories. I don't think this one really needed discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, added to CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hollow! Empty! Yanguas (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe some photos of Ramon Pereira have been deleted... I don't know. And I don't care.--ProfessorX (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – leftovers from a Brazilian spamming/sockpuppetry/vanity/copyvio upload campaign. See Special:Log/Bestmodellbrazil, pt:Usuário(a) Discussão:Bestmodellbrazil, Special:Log/Brazilmodels, pt:Usuário Discussão:Brazilmodels, pt:Usuário Discussão:Allaboutmodel. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Test of MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/hr.js Ma▀▄Ga 19:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1848 as per Hungarian Revolution of 1848 Zoupan (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, sounds better and most of d:Q473716 entries say so. --Achim (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Thirty-third Street Bridge; I don't expect there are enough of those to need disambiguation. Choess (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support The closest I can find is Category:B&O Railroad Bridge at 33rd Street which seems unlikely to cause confusion. Also, Category:Thirty-third Street Bridge was set up years before Category:Thirty-third Street Bridge in Philadelphia and doesn't seem to have caused any problems. I'd keep a redirect in case anyone gets confused though. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved content to Category:Thirty-third Street Bridge keeping a redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of any particularly good reason to organize university and college presidents by continent Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, 2 entries only. --Achim (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
English please! And please, take a look at other categories under "Wikipedia i utbildning"... Sturm (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- As it is a conference in Sweden with a Swedish name I can't really see why I should come up with a translation for this. Same with most of the other categories under "Wikipedia i utbildning". A can agree on adding a description in English to categories with names in other languages, but making up translations is a bad idea. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Proper name & lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Arabic calligraphy in applied art to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Inscriptions in Arabic calligraphy to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Inscriptions in Arabic calligraphy in India to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Manuscripts in Arabic calligraphy to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Arabic calligraphy tools to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no image. Yanguas (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are two images in the category, and Aline Muniz has an article on Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Aline Muniz. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept. --Achim (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Mountains of Cantal. Achim (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can't quite tell but it seems to be that "Monts du Cantal" refers to a specific group of mountains (either a range or a subsection of a range) from which the Cantal department gets its name. It might be that these particular mountains are the only ones in the department, but there might be others as well. See fr:Monts du Cantal. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, you're right, per File:Cantal department relief location map.svg and File:MC Cantal.jpg not exactly the same. I changed a few subcats. --Achim (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept. --Achim (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Basmalas to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I'd prefer Category:Basmala in calligraphy. And Category:Bismillah Calligraphy (similar but different) should be dealt with the same way: Category:Bismillah in calligraphy. --Achim (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- That works for me. Thanks for the suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewed and changed my mind: Category:Bismillah Calligraphy contains mostly complete Basmalas, so I'd like to merge it to Category:Basmala in Arabic calligraphy leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- That works for me. Thanks for the suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Done via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Zoomorphic Arabic calligraphy Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Done via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Overcategorization. Zoupan (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete and move the single image to Category:Paintings of John of Nepomuk and Category:Paintings of Christian saints in Serbia. I'm not sure why the latter category is so underpopulated. There must be more that fit that description. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will populate Paintings of Christian saints in Serbia now.--Zoupan (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Single File:SvJurajSamostanSvIvanNepomuka.jpg moved per above. --Achim (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Overcategorization, empty. Zoupan (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, but I think the image(s) you moved out of this category should still be in Category:Icons of saints - A. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done.--Zoupan (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The older and more precise category Category:GLOBAL CLIMATE MARCH in Berlin am 29.11.2015 exists since 29 November 2015 and is better categorized and descripted! Please move the photos from here to that category, or move that Cat to a subcategory, for example Category:Global Climate March in Berlin (2015-11-29) German language banners, because some photos need a better description about what is written on the banners, and to use globally, a translation in English language. See also Category:Banners and signs at demonstrations and protests in German. LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @LudwigSebastianMicheler: I agree the latter is older and more precise, but is there a reason for the capital letters, or for using the German language to date it? Wouldn't Category:Global Climate March in Berlin (2015-11-29) fit better with Commons categorization schemes? Maybe that's what you're suggesting? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not notice the previous categorization. Anyway, the use of capital letters and the German language to date it are still a problem that must be solved. Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturm: All is okay, thanks for the upload of the photos! @Themightyquill: The description in German language with the format(s) of the calendar date(s) used in Germany is sufficient, so we should use the english format "(2015-11-29)" in the category-name. But only one category for all that photos is a bit overcrowded. Move both categories to the redlinks above, or merge both in only one? --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @LudwigSebastianMicheler: Hum, I have also created this cat and its sub-cat, that deals to the same broad context of the Global Climate March in Berlin. Regards, Sturm (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturm: All is okay, thanks for the upload of the photos! @Themightyquill: The description in German language with the format(s) of the calendar date(s) used in Germany is sufficient, so we should use the english format "(2015-11-29)" in the category-name. But only one category for all that photos is a bit overcrowded. Move both categories to the redlinks above, or merge both in only one? --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not notice the previous categorization. Anyway, the use of capital letters and the German language to date it are still a problem that must be solved. Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @LudwigSebastianMicheler: Sorry, I misunderstood. Now your initial question makes sense. I'm not sure how best to subdivide these photos, or if it's even necessary. 150 photos (if no more are added) is quite a lot, but they would all fit on a single page. Anyway, I'll let you and Sturm discuss it. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- So, I have moved the old cat with the photos to Category:Global Climate March in Berlin (2015-11-29) for the first. @Sturm: so with How to use Cat-a-lot (Video) you may move some or all photos to that category. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks! Done, @Sturm: Okay so? (Textübersetzungen in den Foto-Beschreibungsseiten, ergänzende Cat's und WP+Commons-Einbindungen wären jetzt wichtiger als eine Unterkategorie).--LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just perfect! :) Sturm (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks!
- So, I have moved the old cat with the photos to Category:Global Climate March in Berlin (2015-11-29) for the first. @Sturm: so with How to use Cat-a-lot (Video) you may move some or all photos to that category. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Global Climate March in Berlin (2015-11-29). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:19th century in Serbia (overcategorization) Zoupan (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Same with Category:Belgrade in 1821. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved this request to Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:1821 in Serbia, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Category only contains personal photos, both of which have been requested for deletion by the uploader. Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valeman 2010.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valeman 2015.png.
MikeStefan, thank you for fixing the DRs, but if you fix a malformed DR please check afterwards if it is listed in the corresponding by-day-list (here Commons:Deletion requests/2015/12/28) or fix the date the other way round, thanks. Yours --Achim (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)- I discovered the DRs because they hadn't been included any daily DR list. I could have added them to Commons:Deletion requests/2015/12/28, but as I didn't spot the deletion requests until the following date, I added them to Commons:Deletion requests/2015/12/29 instead, as I thought that this would make the requests more visible to users who wish to comment on deletion requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- This category should only be deleted if empty. Since the files have been nominated for deletion, we should await the closure of those DRs before taking action here. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty now. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose a move to Category:Qur'an in Arabic calligraphy to avoid the slash-separated category name Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Dukat (mountain). Zoupan (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Dukat (mountain). --Achim (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Draža Mihailović as per Draža Mihailović Zoupan (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion no need to. His name was Dragoljub Mihailović and his nickname Čiča Draža. --Achim (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- His common name has always been Draža. Why not be consistent? Leave a redirect.--Zoupan (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, per Google books and wikipedias (d:Q156122). --Achim (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- His common name has always been Draža. Why not be consistent? Leave a redirect.--Zoupan (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Draža Mihailović leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Parent categories are Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by date Category:Aviation by year, Category:Transport accidents by year. How did we get from accidents to disasters? Were do we put images of a plane crash where no one is even injured? Rename to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by year, likewise with sub-categories? Themightyquill (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support renaming to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by year. "Disaster" is a subjective term. De728631 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The following categories should be renamed as well:
- Category:Air disasters in <YEAR> → Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in <YEAR>
- Category:Air disasters by decade → Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by decade
- Category:Air disasters in the <DECADE> → Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the <DECADE>
- Done.--Morio (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No opposition and the move of category and sub-categories was completed with a heroic amount of work by Morio. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the sub-categories go like Churches dedicated to..., there is a confusion over whether the churches are founded by or dedicated to these saints. Zoupan (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- If there are less of them, it might be easier to create a separate category tree of "Churches founded by x" and leave this category alone. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I share Zoupan's concern but am not sure that any particular change would be an improvement. Saying "by" works as a catch-all. I agree with Themightyquill - it is likely that a small number of them could be forked into their own category, as probably fewer than 1% of these were actually founded by the namesake. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Austrian Empire as per Austrian Empire Zoupan (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Support The proposed name would match with common English usage and with the other subcategories of Category:Empires. I would propose that Category:Coats of arms of the Empire of Austria, Category:Economy of the Empire of Austria, Category:Transport in the Empire of Austria be altered accordingly, as well as the galleries Stamps of the Empire of Austria, 1850, Stamps of the Empire of Austria, 1858, Stamps of the Empire of Austria, 1861, and Stamps of the Empire of Austria, 1863 - Themightyquill (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, support above.--Zoupan (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, Google books c. 3:1. --Achim (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved cats and galleries per above. --Achim (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Modern cameras embed the model number into the exif data of each image. I have argued that it is a mistake for us to conflate different models of cameras, based on assertions the models are "identical". First, such assertions are unverifiable. Second such assertions are patently incorrect because the different models differ, at least, in their firmware. Third, categorizing them by the name embedded in their exif data is unambiguous, requires no expert knowledge, and could be performed by a robot, not a human being. Therefore I suggest this category should no longer be a redirect to another category. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, if a {{Catseealso}} were put there I had no problem with that, but who will sort out the matching ones out of 1329 files? --Achim (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Couldn't a bot read the exif data, and reclassify the images based on the embedded model name? Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
wrong capitalization (Church Bodies vs. church bodies) Zoupan (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: If it's in reference to en:Eastern Orthodox Church, shouldn't it be "Eastern Orthodox Church bodies" ? The parent category could be renamed too. Btw, I'm not sure why you proposed it for discussion, then went ahead and created the redirect without waiting for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- They are church bodies, not bodies of the Eastern Orthodox Church. See Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies.--Zoupan (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay then. I think you're okay to move, since it has been months without opposition. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems overspecific to me. Can we discuss this? KDS4444 (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
To repeat some of what I said about the category Greyhounds in art in Tapestry I am the creator of Greyhounds in Art and either all or most of its subcategories, including this one. The specificity or maybe granularity of Wiki categories often surprises me, e.g. the various rooms in the Louvre as opposed to schools of art and countries of artists. I have a databank of greyhounds in art, 1442 images of which there are 241 with a classical theme. Of these, 112 show Diana, just less than half, a neat subdivision it seems to me. User:henrytow
- @Henrytow: I alluded to this in the other CfD discussion, but just to be more clear - Commons normally doesn't organize images by what doesn't appear. We just categorize things as precisely as possible by what does appear. There's no category for "Photos of Paris that don't include the Eiffel Tower" there's jut Category:Paris and those images that do contain the Eiffel tower get put in a sub-category Category:Eiffel Tower. So if you haves 112 photos with a classical theme and Diana, you make something like "Category:Diana with greyhounds in classical art" and put them there. That category also goes in "Category:Greyhounds in classical art" along with the rest of your 129 classical theme images that don't include Diana. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Themightyquill. There have been other cases where we deleted categories named for what wasn't shown. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Wrongly named category Zoupan (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hard to know what to do with this, since all the files have been removed. Where did you put them, Zoupan? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- That seems quite reasonable. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleting in favour of Category:Maps of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Should be Category:Maps of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages Zoupan (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Maps of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Maps of the history of Bosnia (XIVth-century). - Themightyquill (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Senjak Monastery. Zoupan (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Diclonius is a "tooth taxon" which is based on undiagnostic type material and which therefore is long considered a nomen dubium (see Brett-Surman, 1989, PhD thesis p. 75 ff.). There is no need for such a category. It should be deleted Gretarsson (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC); subsequently edited by --Gretarsson (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well we have pictures of it that can be categorized together, so I think we should do so. Its taxonomic value is irrelevant to its historical value. Abyssal (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- We have one single historical drawing showing a skull which then, in the late 19th century, was (more or less accidently) published under the name “Diclonius”. However, that specimen hasn’t been referred to as “Diclonius” since at least 1901! There is no need for a category Diclonius at all! --Gretarsson (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about synonym categories here[3], but since it was only me and Abyssal, it should probably have a wider discussion... As noted there, I think they should be redirects at most. They just make it harder to find the files; the purpose of having categories should be to make finding usable files easy, not force one to wade through a maze of subcategories. And the standards should be the same for extinct animals as extant ones, which never use synonyms. Also, I'm not sure single file categories are a good idea... I think there are Commons guidelines that discourage that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- We have one single historical drawing showing a skull which then, in the late 19th century, was (more or less accidently) published under the name “Diclonius”. However, that specimen hasn’t been referred to as “Diclonius” since at least 1901! There is no need for a category Diclonius at all! --Gretarsson (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Overcategorization, very far-fetched. Zoupan (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Books in Bohemia # historical and actual country or part
Books in Bohemia by year
1850 books in Bohemia # Before Austria-Hungary
1867 books in Bohemia # Austria-Hungary
1883 books in Bohemia # Austria-Hungary
1918 books in Bohemia # Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia
1920 books in Bohemia # Czechoslovakia
Books in Moravia # historical and actual country or part
Books in Moravia by year
1850 books in Moravia # Before Austria-Hungary
1867 books in Moravia # Austria-Hungary
1883 books in Moravia # Austria-Hungary
1918 books in Moravia # Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia
1920 books in Moravia # Czechoslovakia
Books in Austria-Hungary # historical country
Books in Austria-Hungary by year
1867 books in Austria-Hungary
1867 books in Bohemia
1867 books in Moravia
1883 books in Austria-Hungary
1883 books in Bohemia
1883 books in Moravia
1918 books in Austria-Hungary
1918 books in Bohemia
1918 books in Moravia
Books in Austria-Hungary by land
?
Books in Czechoslovakia (first republic)
Books in Czechoslovakia (first republic) by year
1918 books in Czechoslovakia (first republic)
1918 books in Bohemia
1918 books in Moravia
1920 books in Czechoslovakia (first republic)
1920 books in Bohemia
1920 books in Moravia
Skim (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that these aren't photographs taken in 1820 in Bohemia, so at very least, it should be Category:1920 books from Bohemia. And unless I've missed it, it doesn't look as though Commons generally categorizes books by year and place of publication. That exists for Russian books and Ukrainian books, but no where else. I'm not sure it's a good idea. At the moment, I only count images from a maximum of 32 books published in Bohemia between 1896 and 1918. That could easily fit in one category (with sub-categories for individual books). - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think, that categories by year are usefull. But when i see to Category:1898 books and i read "2 586 files in this category", then i think that's very bad. I cannot searching in this category. When i have a category "by lang" and "by >>land or territory<<", then i can search in this more pragmatically. Number of metacat categories growing with number of items in it. Yes, there are no categories "by lang", but this is problem of no interest in this category now. In other themes are similar categories. Problem of books in Czech lands is, that many books is in German and many in Czech. When i sort books by language, i haven't resolution between Germany books and Czech books in German. In this time is only 32 books in these categories, because no proofreading in cs.wiktionary.org. I want to change this.Skim (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Although I'm not very familiar with the categorization principles on this wiki, I'll try to share some observations:
- I can't see, why do we need a categorization for "Books from Bohemia" and "Books from Moravia". Theoretically, it could be done for "Moravian" books before December 1928 and "Bohemian" books before 1949 (with considerable difficulties in the time of WWII), but is it worth the effort? On the other hand, a separated categorization for "Austrian" and "Hungarian" books (in the time of monarchy) or "Bohemian + Moravian + CS-Silesian" and "Slovak" books (in the time of Czechoslovakia) could be useful because of differention in copyright law...
- If we'd have Category:Books from Moravia, it can't be neither subcategory of Category:Books from Austria-Hungary or one of Category:Books from Czechoslovakia, since it would contain both Austro-Hungarian and Czechoslovakian books. We'll have the same problem with the particular subcategory Category:1918 books from Moravia, as well as with the corresponding "Bohemian" categories.
- It seems to me, that having a possibility to look for books on intersection of several categories, categorization to simple categories would be an easier way. If we('d) have Category:Books from Austria-Hungary, Category:1893 books, Category:Books in Czech, and Category:Scanned books in pdf, we won't need categories like Category:Scanned 1893 Czech books from Austria-Hungary in pdf...--Shlomo (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Shlomo: I think, that main principle of categorization is number of items in category and posibility of searching in it. I want category for books in Czech lands before Czechoslovakia (in German, Czech language). And this (Bohemia and Moravia) is simple. I don't see simple alternative.
- BTW: see Category:Margraviate of Moravia, Category:Moravian Land (1918-1928) and similar. Will be fine, if each period category have got books, works, buildings, paintings etc. This is important to understand each epoch.Skim (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see you do want such categorization, I just don't understand what it is good for. What makes a book published in (austro-hungarian) Olmütz so different from those published in Troppau, Pilsen or Innsbruck, but simmilar to those published in Znaim or Nikolsburg.
- Anyway, if I understand Zoupan correctly, he (unlike me) doesn't object against categorization of books after lands (and he seems to agree even to a categorization after "lands & periods"), he just objects against categories after "lands & year" (and even "country & year", per above), so let's start with this. Would the categories like Category:Books from the Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918) a.s.o. as proposed below satisfy your needs? If you need a filter by year and language, you still can get it via the Magnus Manske's tool.--Shlomo (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Shlomo: Difference in publication place of book is not a sense of this categorization. For this you can go to author of publication or name of publication. The sense is process of looking in category with many items. I see Category:Books from the Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918) and looking for books published in Brno. This category has thousands of books (in future), why i cannot create "by" category by place, year, publisher, lang? This is trivial and very useful. I won't to use another tool. Yes, this categorization can be automatic by system (i am programmer :-). Skim (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Until then, avoid overcategorization. Keep it simple.--Zoupan (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Skim: Now I'm really confused. You say you don't suppose this categorization to differentiate the books by place of publication, but you insert the description "in Bohemia", "in Moravia" to the names of the categories. You say you don't want to use the external tool, but you put links to exactly the same tool to the help page on cs Wikisource (N. B. in a situation where a simple link to a category is possible...) The remark about looking for books published in Brno in a category of books from Bohemia is completly incomprehensible to me (why should anybody look for Brno in a "Bohemian" category?...) If you intend to make category for every possible combination of year, place, publisher, language, it will mean thousands of categories just for the Crown lands of Cisleithania. Ten-thousands, if you add file format as a criterion. It doesn't seem meaningful to me until we have thousands of books to categorize...--Shlomo (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Shlomo: 1) About "put links to exactly the same tool to the help page on cs Wikisource". First i created s:cs:Kategorie:Index, that's same. We can improve this page. 2) Brno in Bohemia category: Ups? I added this books to Category:Books_in_Moravia_(1867-1918). Resolution between Bohemia and Moravia is enough now. 3) Ad concept of Commons categorization: Categorization by hand is bad, i am sure. But why not categorize items in this idea? Skim (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Shlomo: Difference in publication place of book is not a sense of this categorization. For this you can go to author of publication or name of publication. The sense is process of looking in category with many items. I see Category:Books from the Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918) and looking for books published in Brno. This category has thousands of books (in future), why i cannot create "by" category by place, year, publisher, lang? This is trivial and very useful. I won't to use another tool. Yes, this categorization can be automatic by system (i am programmer :-). Skim (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Upmerge all sub-categories to Category:Books from the Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918). If Skim insists, create a gallery including these works by year. Add Category:Books in Czech where needs to. I have moved Category:Bohemia (1867-1918) to the proper name Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918).--Zoupan (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. We can do it. I understand fact, that category "by year" with small number of books are bad. We can create it in future. BTW: I think that galleries in Commons are a bad idea. Skim (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, shouldn't Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918) be a subcategory of Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1848-1918) (if we insist to keep both of them...)? And Category:Kingdom of Bohemia in the 1900s a subcategory of Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918)? Or merged with Category:Bohemia in the 1900s?--Shlomo (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I recategorize to this: Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918). Skim (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Why have two categories, with almost same name? Category:Invalid SVG created with Inkscape-CoA Josve05a (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could we please postpone the discussion until Sarang returns in April? -- @MaxxL: - talk 10:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Manfred. Though I am still far away (balls under water) I gave it a look.
- As often this nonsense is a result of historical development, luckily Josve05a saw it. When Jarekt changed the {{COAInformation}} different former categories are merged into one, making obsolete the distinction where they come from.
- Now I moved all the "Category:Invalid SVG created with Inkscape-CoA" files into the " :" category, it needed some tasks. Now finally the obsolete "Category:Invalid SVG created with Inkscape-CoA" can be deleted. sarang♥사랑 19:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Closed by Sarang 7 March 2016. --Achim (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This category is a mess. It seems to have started as a category for a mononymous Venezuelan singer, but it's currently being used as a catch-all category for images of women named Melissa. Do we generally have first-name categories? It seems useful, but I don't want to convert this into one if it would be the only one. Either we could restore it to being just the Venezuelan singer, emptying out the unrelated images in the process, or we could create a subcategory for the Venezuelan and convert this into a first-name category. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably similar to Category:Madonna (entertainer) and Category:Cher (singer), right? Perhaps it should redirect it to Category:Melissa (singer), to make it more immediately obvious that pics of your sister Melissa are not appropriate.– Quadell (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Quadell's suggestion seems logical to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Melissa should be transformed in a disambiguation (pseudo-)category, splitting to both Category:Melissa (Lamiaceae) and Category:Melissa (Italy), but also to categories about people named Melissa: Jugding from the parent categories used in this category, there are more than one singer by that name, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the Madonna idea. Interestingly, both es:Melissa and en:Melissa (singer) are articles about the Lebanese singer, while the Venezuelan singer is at es:Melissa Griffiths and doesn't have any English article. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- So maybe Category:Melissa (Venezuelan singer) and Category:Melissa (Lebanese singer) are necessary? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Only if both are really better idntified by that mononym; if not (or for those which not), Category:Melissa Surname (occupation) is a better category name. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- So maybe Category:Melissa (Venezuelan singer) and Category:Melissa (Lebanese singer) are necessary? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I second Tuvalkin, Melissa should be a disambiguation, and all the images moved to proper categories as the ones proposed above, if applicable, or removed from that category (as in the case of Melissas not especially known by that name).-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree It should indeed be a disambiguation: there are a lot of terms bound to Melissa and noone is dominant. --Ruthven (msg) 10:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I've turned the category into a disambiguation page, though the Italian and Dutch descriptions need to be updated (anyone?). I also created Category:Melissa (singer) for the Lebanese singer before realizing that I could find no photos of her on commons. I'll speedy delete it, but if any photos do appear, it can be re-created. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Created with Mathematica. Was a category move request by Geek3. I'm not sure which way to merge. Achim (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Yep. Category:Images by software used seems to favour "Created with" sub-categories. But delete or redirect? Should Category:Created with Mathematica be added to Category:Mathematical diagrams? And if not, should all the images in Category:Mathematica diagrams be individually added to Category:Mathematical diagrams, before (hopefully) being diffused into its more specific content-based sub-categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Created with Mathematica since that it what is used by {{Mathematica}}. Since Mathematica creates mathematical diagrams, I added it to Category:Mathematical diagrams. Royalbroil 02:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Improperly named category. If a file is in the public domain, then it doesn't need a licence. A licence is something which can be granted for something which is not in the public domain. Should be renamed to Category:Flickr public domain images needing specific copyright tags or something. Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Indeed, I think Josve05a was using the 'commons-specific' meaning of 'license tags' for PD works, but the name is indeed inaccurate. Revent (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. "Copyright tags" is more accurate than "licenses" for public domain images. --★ Poké95 08:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
--- Moved and {{Flickr-public domain mark}} updated. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Should it be "Divisions of states and union territories of India"? 578985s (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the parent category and sub-categories all use divisions in plural. It could also be renamed Category:Subdivisions of states and union territories of India if people like that better - Themightyquill (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Subdivisions of states and union territories of India. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Should be Category:Maps of subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire. Zoupan (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we can have Category:Administrative maps of the Ottoman Empire, with maps showing all administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire, while maps of specific subdivisions be put in Category:Maps of subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire?--Zoupan (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Superceded by Category:Maps of administrative entities of the Ottoman Empire, created by FixFixer in November 2016. In the future, better not to empty out categories while they are under discussion. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
English please! :) Sturm (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Move to Category:German Public Service Strike (2006)? Riley Huntley (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:German Public Service Strike (2006) as suggested by Riley Huntley, along with Category:German Strikes - Öffentlicher Dienst 2008 - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:National parks of Serbia Zoupan (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Subdividing a country's parks by location might make sense, but not national parks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Upmerged and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Blagoveštenje Monastery, Petrovac na Mlavi Zoupan (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Modern period per scope. Zoupan (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Linguistic maps of Europe Zoupan (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Superceded by Category:Linguistic maps of Europe by region. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Overcategorization, there is already categorization into centuries. Zoupan (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not only is there already categorization of frescos by century, there is also Category:Paintings in Baden-Württemberg by year. To subdivide that into frescos by year is huge overkill. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Kill it.--Zoupan (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No opposition. Upmerging. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Pannonian Slavic Duchy. Zoupan (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirecting. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Pannonian Slavic Duchy. Zoupan (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirecting. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Kremna (Užice). Zoupan (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can we move both to Category:Kremna, Užice as standard style? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes.--Zoupan (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Initially moved to Category:Kremna (Užice) in January 2017 while still under discussion. (Please don't do that, Tiefkuehlfan.) Now moved to Category:Kremna, Užice. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Propose merger with Category:Cobbled streets as there appears to be no practical difference. Merged name to be agreed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, Rodhullandemu. Given en:Cobblestone, I'd suggest we go that direction, rather than "Cobbled". I'd also suggest a further merger with Category:Cobblestone roads. According to the description at the top of Category:Streets, that category is for "for primarily urban and residential roads" whereas Category:Roads is intended for "bigger roads like freeways and highways." Since I don't see there being a lot of cobblestone freeways, streets seems to make sense. Or Category:Cobblestone roads and streets ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Closed as merge - Category:Cobbled streets into Category:Cobblestone streets. Several of the subcategories of cobblestone roads include images of rural cobblestone roads, not city streets, so didn't merge. No prejudice against opening a different deletion request with a discussion including all subcategories of Category:Cobblestone roads. Royalbroil 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Atlantic Forest by year" and have subcategories. Josve05a (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sub-categorizing by year seems unnecessary to me. I don't imagine there's a lot of obvious change from one year to the next. I can't find any other examples of a forest being categorized by year on commons. Perhaps Category:Historical images of Atlantic forest would suffice? There is no Category:Historical images of forests but one could be created? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have not seen any subcat that is named "in the past" or "historical images", but I've seen a lot of subcats sorted by years, decade and centuries. See e.g Category:1915 in New York. Josve05a (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: Sorry, I should have provided a link to indicate where I was proposing to put it: Category:Historical images of forests in Category:Historical images by subject. There are many other similar subcats. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: , you haven't seen it because all pictures here are in the past, be it centuries, months, or seconds -- unless there are real-time images I don't know about. Because of that, I agree that "in the past" is not a good phrase to use in a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have not seen any subcat that is named "in the past" or "historical images", but I've seen a lot of subcats sorted by years, decade and centuries. See e.g Category:1915 in New York. Josve05a (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Since it's a subcategory of Category:Brazil in art, and only contains paintings, I'll rename it to Category:Atlantic Forest in art. --ghouston (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Move to category:Monument to Prince Mihailo. Zoupan (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: No reply, thus closing. Please crate a new CFD is discussion is still needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Danubian Principalities as per Danubian Principalities Zoupan (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support It makes sense to follow the wikipedia example here. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Upmerge subcategories to Category:Velika Plana Zoupan (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, but as mentioned elsewhere, it seems like Category:Buildings in Podunavlje District might make sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, because monuments and memorials aren't always buildings, so they don't belong under a buildings category. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)- It looks like the content of this cat has changed. It now looks appropriate to me, so I'm changing my input to leave as is. @Zoupan and Themightyquill: what do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I see what you're saying, but it still only has pictures of three buildings. I really think organizing Buildings in Serbia by district first and only by city if necessary would make more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Upmerge subcategories to Category:Buildings in Petrovac na Mlavi Zoupan (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Same with Category:Monasteries in the municipality of Petrovac na Mlavi. I'm not sure about Category:Monasteries in Serbia by location. Most of Category:Buildings in Serbia by location by function probably overcategorization. Could they be recategorized and upmerged along the lines of Category:Buildings in Serbia by district, unless one city/town has multiple examples of a certain type of building? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's probably a good idea for now.--Zoupan (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Monasteries in Braničevo District along with Category: Monasteries in Golubac, and Category:Monasteries in Žagubica. Then group all other subcategories of Category:Monasteries in Serbia by location by district instead of by village or city as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Buildings in Petrovac na Mlavi and Category:Monasteries in Braničevo District. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Overcategorization, upmerge. Zoupan (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It does have three images, and there could potentially be more, no? Why is this overcategorization? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but Category:Saint Basil of Ostrog has no media. Add relevant categories to the files.--Zoupan (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It now has Category:Saint Basil of Ostrog churches - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:Saint Basil of Ostrog now has three separate sub-categories. If there was a problem, it seems to have been remedied. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Who is old women? there is no definition. This kind of category may harm feelings of people. -- Geagea (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
(moved the discussion from village pump to her)
This kind of categories may harm feelings of the depicted people or their families. In my opinion the only files that may included in that kind of categories are artworks of old men or old women which are not identified persons.
There is no one definition of an old person and it may depend of cultural view. young wikipedian may said that 30 years old woman is old woman and we can't even argue with him. old person can be defined in a diverse ways: age, person with wrinkles, people with a gray or white hair or other ways. -- Geagea (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The definition is spelled out in Category:Old women, which might be a better category to discuss than this one. Or perhaps Category:Old people, to be more inclusive? Though it might make sense to create a template with those definitions and place it in each subcategory. As for your concerns about feelings, I think that, yes, it is generally considered more polite to say "elderly" than old. I'm not sure that's a good justification to change this category, but I'm not necessarily opposed either. Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the old woman is one who is more than ca 60-70 years old or just looks as "old women" ;) I have nothig againts "elderly" but the word elderly is more sophisticated and less known for people that come from not English language country than the word "old"... Electron ツ ➧☎ 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I agree with you. I started a new discussion in the village pump. -- Geagea (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep --Achim (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Achim55 and User:Electron please read my arguments above. I am not suggesting to delete the category but to define what should be included in. Your opinion is appreciated. -- Geagea (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I find this a bit odd. Are people saying that this category should be used for any recent photo of Patti Smith, Hillary Clinton, Angele Merkel, etc.? And that Mick Jagger, Bill Clinton, and Vladimir Putin should be similarly tagged as "old men"? Feels wrong to me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Achim55 and User:Electron please read my arguments above. I am not suggesting to delete the category but to define what should be included in. Your opinion is appreciated. -- Geagea (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I agree with you. I started a new discussion in the village pump. -- Geagea (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hah! Interesting point, Jmabel. I noticed that this image of Dick Cheney is in Category:Old people of the United States, but technically, all the "by year" subcategories of Category:Dick Cheney after 2011 could be placed in Category:Old men of the United States. It definitely does seem a little weird, though I'm still not sure it's a bad thing. It does make sense to categorize images of people by age group. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- If we want people by age group then let's add to each photo the age of people included (group age if you wish - 60-70, 71-80 ect.) but let's not describe them as old. Should we decide which age is old. Categories people by young or old (what about middle ages?) seems to me as absurd. Define people as old may depend on how they look. Some women with the same age looks older then others and that is the point.
- Even if we agree about definition of an old person. Lets say women more than 70 years old and men more 80 years old with wrinkles and with gray hair. It still won't be appropriate. In the same way we can open Category:ugly people. We might even agree about definition. Should we do so? I don't think so. We should take in our consideration cases which may harm feelings of people. -- Geagea (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you believe that the word old is insulting? Why should your personal value-judgment about this word be more important than other people's? עטרת תפארת שיבה and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- "עטרת תפארת שיבה" is a religious word. and beeing old is not a bad thing but for most women for example that kind of description might be considered an insult. -- Geagea (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, that "religious word" expresses a millenial-old cultural value, once shared by every culture, that being visibly "old" (having gray or white hair) is a dignified and desirable thing. I don't believe that any of us are able to prove that "most women" – worldwide – believe that it's an insult to describe some women as being "old", and it's certainly false that most people throughout history have subscribed to anti-maturity views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I don't think our personal feelings about the term are especially relevant. The term can be considered offensive or at least insensitive. That's one issue. As Gaagea has suggested, it is also largely arbitrary. At the same time, however, we don't have birth dates for everyone whose photo appears on commons, so categorizing by precise age, or even by decade, would frequently be impossible. Incidentally, I notice we don't have Category:Short people but we do have Category:Tall people and oddly, Category:Tall and short, which are even more arbitrary than "People over 60". - Themightyquill (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Some contributors' personal feelings appear to be the sole factor under consideration in this effort to rename or limit the category. This entire page appears to be based upon an assertion with no evidence that an alleged majority of women and/or their families will be insulted if their survival past youth is candidly acknowledged in the category name instead of hidden behind euphemisms. We have no proof that candid recognition of the existence of "old age" is an insult beyond the personal belief of the nominator.
- Actual "old people" don't seem to share this view. See, e.g., ISBN 978-1439908242 page 142 on a long-term research project in a retirement home: "In retrospect...my students and I thought we were going to need to keep the 'secret' of their old age from residents. Naive indeed. Age and the fact of death come up in almost every conversation here, not in macabre or sad ways but rather in frank and clear ways."
- The Library of Congress (2012) uses "Older women" and "Older people".
- As you can tell, I've got no sympathy for this proposal. Old isn't an insult, and the category name shouldn't be changed. As always, contributors should use their best judgment when deciding whether any given image belongs in a category. There is certainly no rule that every single person must be placed under one of the four age-based groups.
- (BTW, elderly is insulting to at least a few people, because that implies frailness instead of mere calendar years.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're being hostile for no reason, WhatamIdoing. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone suggested that a majority of women would be insulted. If a terminology can be found that is precise and less likely to be offensive, wouldn't that be better for everyone (especially if redirects are kept)? That said, you're apparently right about elderly. Apparently, the American Psychological Association things elderly isn't acceptable, and that "older person" is preferred. That's quite likely part of the reason the Library of Congress uses it. Sure, it's up to contributors to use their judgement, but if Geagea went around adding every photo of someone over 60 to "Old people" and its sub-categories, would you disagree with the action? And would it not irritate other commons editors? If so, then I think the category is problematic. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- (late reply) I believe that if you look above, you will see Geagea use the words "most women" (most = more than 50%, a majority) in reference to Geagea's belief that this view of aging is widespread.
- I wouldn't object to Geagea adding this category to any photo of a person who was over the age of (approximately) 60 at the time the photo was taken. I might wonder whether it was a waste of time, because a person looking in this category is presumably looking for photos of people who subjectively look old, rather than people who have technically reached a certain birthday. But you would not hear me complain about such actions, and they might have the desirable effect of making the contents of the category more representative of actual old(ish) age. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're being hostile for no reason, WhatamIdoing. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone suggested that a majority of women would be insulted. If a terminology can be found that is precise and less likely to be offensive, wouldn't that be better for everyone (especially if redirects are kept)? That said, you're apparently right about elderly. Apparently, the American Psychological Association things elderly isn't acceptable, and that "older person" is preferred. That's quite likely part of the reason the Library of Congress uses it. Sure, it's up to contributors to use their judgement, but if Geagea went around adding every photo of someone over 60 to "Old people" and its sub-categories, would you disagree with the action? And would it not irritate other commons editors? If so, then I think the category is problematic. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, We have two kind of things to categorize. Categories by people and single photographs.
- In a categories of people we have the birthdate so in those categories we can easily add category of old man or woman automatically. I personally don't think we need this. If somebody looking for a photo of an old man/woman he can simply jump to the category 1950 births or earlier.
- Single photographs are different thing. when we have a photo we should describe it in the best way. In that matter the age is irrelevant as we can't see it in the photo. We only can see if he/she have wrinkles, if he/she have white or gray hair etc. So categories like "people with a white hair" seems to be more accurate to the goal of describe the photo (I'm not sure about category of "people with wrinkles").
- WhatamIdoing, I'm sorry. I did not said old=bad. The idiom "old woman" is not new and it certainly exist. And I'm sure you can find as well "pretty woman", "fat woman", "black woman" etc. Does photographs in Commons should have categories with the above description. I don't think so. The description are general and may dependent on point of view of people. I added photos below to explain my self and I apologize in advance for my English:
- Why do you believe that the word old is insulting? Why should your personal value-judgment about this word be more important than other people's? עטרת תפארת שיבה and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
should we add to this photo a category "old man" -
Bill Clinton in the age of 60. Should it be categorized with "old man" -
"An old man with old women" (should we made new category?) -
"old woman"?
- Geagea, if we were to just delete Category:Old people (and to be clear, I'm not endorsing that, at least not at the moment) what would you suggest we do with the many legitimate subcategories? It seems to be there should be some kind of broad category to link together Category:Retirement, Category:Geriatrics, Category:Supercentenarians, etc. It's funny that Category:Grandparents is in here, since you could technically be a grandparent at, what, 30? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- At least "Old people in art" should stay in the same category. We don't have to delete the category but to agree what should be included in it. Category:Retirement, Category:Geriatrics, Category:Supercentenarians can stay as well. But Category:Old people by country including all sub categories, should be deleted as they are dealing with identify people. We can add on the top of Category:Old people template that says "This category should be only files XYZ" upon what we agree her. it also can be linked to this discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously we have to have categories for geriatrics, retirement, etc., and there's nothing wrong with having these images themselves on Commons. Given those facts, a lot of those images will be put into the geriatrics etc. categories if we don't also have categories specifically for old people as well as categories for old age. In many of these cases, it's easy to say that they're old despite the absence of age figures: we can say that the subject of File:ElderlyWomanInGlasses.jpg is an old woman, but how are you going to put her into anything more specific? Is she a septagenarian, octagenerian (or however you spell it), or younger but prematurely aged? Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would also describe her as old, but which of her objective characteristics indicates that she is old? I think Geagea is suggesting that photo in Category:Women with white (grey?) hair. That does seem to be a more objective characteristic than her age, since, as you say, we don't know how old she is. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- It may be more objective, but it is less useful. Imagine that you are writing about aging, and you want to illustrate it with photos of women who are definitely older, but you don't want to include photos of frail white-haired women. You're looking for racially diverse photos of women who dye their hair. Where would you go to find that, if not to Category:Old women? Category:Women of a certain age who dye their hair doesn't exist. (The awkwardly named Category:Female white hair and Category:Female gray hair do exist, but also contain younger people, e.g., in costumes with fake white hair.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would also describe her as old, but which of her objective characteristics indicates that she is old? I think Geagea is suggesting that photo in Category:Women with white (grey?) hair. That does seem to be a more objective characteristic than her age, since, as you say, we don't know how old she is. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I can certainly understand your argument generally, even if I think your hypothetical argument is rather specific, and I don't think Category:Old women would actually help in that situation anyway (Which women have died hair? I've known women in their 80s with natural jet-black hair.) That said, I can foresee someone wanting to browse photos of women over 60, but wouldn't a category of images of people whose ages are known fulfil that need? Even if we agreed not to categorize people whose ages we don't know by their age, we could still have plenty of photos of people categorized by their age. Good to see that the women with white/grey hair categories exist. More use could be made of them, for sure.
- Here's an example that shows the problem with the ambiguity of the "Old Women" category. A very quick glance through the category finds images like this. It's certainly questionable, isn't it? I can't tell if she's over 60. If I remove the category because she looks like she's in her 50s (or younger!) to me, and someone else disagrees (because of the title?), how do we resolve the problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep --Allforrous (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete Unnecessary and discriminatory categories, created by an young male "Macho" or "Want-like-Macho"; Where shall be the border beween an young woman and an old women? Attention, what you answer now! It's depending from the position of the viewer. --Katharinaiv (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for yours categorisation. I see you now better than me who I am ;) Btw. I am not young man, now. So maybe, I discriminate myselve? I am able to recognise who is old and who is young, no metter it is a man or women. That categories are useful eg. to find elder people when you want to find something to illustate an article. And for nothing more, especially discrimination. Electron ツ ➧☎ 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete Delete these categories. "Old" doesn't have a single definition, and chosing a particular age, like 60, is arbitrary. Since we already have a full range of categories like Category:60-year-old humans, these vague ones are redundant.--ghouston (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep I think Category:Old people in art (Mythology, Mural etc) is useful. Thereby, Category:Old people is also useful (Main category). --Benzoyl (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:Mid-aged people . But, "between 45 and 65" writen in Middle age. I'm having some trouble this definition of range. --Benzoyl (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Closed, categories kept. Agree that the definitions can be imprecise and fluid, but the concepts are culturally well established, and both categories in wide use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge subcategories to Category:Mountains of Serbia. Avoid overcategorization. Zoupan (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Mountains located in settlements should be included in "Geography of X".--Zoupan (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Serbia is too small and mountains are too big to be dividing them by location. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Changes implemented as per nomination. GFJ (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Mountains of Valjevo Zoupan (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Valjevo Mountains" seems to be the name of a mountain range that extends beyond Valjevo. I'd rather see the merge go the other way. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is especially true if we're going to delete Category:Mountains of Serbia by location and Category:Mountains of Valjevo as per your previous nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: Agreed? We keep the name of the range (which extends beyond the region) and delete the category for mountains in Valjevo? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As suggested by User:Themightyquill: Category:Valjevo Mountains kept, Category:Mountains of Valjevo deleted. GFJ (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Kopaonik. Zoupan (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why? It has an image and a sub-category with multiple images, and a parent category of Category:Religious buildings in Serbia. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: old discussion. No reason to upmerge per user:Themightyquill. This discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
No action taken. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC) – BMacZero (🗩) 03:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, categorize content into Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1867–1918) and Category:1908 in the Czech Republic. Zoupan (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Standard categories for Bohemia are formatted as Category:1908 in Bohemia. Czech Kingdom is an English name for Kingdom of Bohemia. For all Czech lands, Czechia is more appropriate name. --ŠJů (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: category renamed, rendering discussion moot. --ƏXPLICIT 01:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Overcategorization. Upmerge subcategories to Category:Bela Palanka. Zoupan (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Buildings in Pirot District ? It should be in a "buildings" category, but Category:Buildings in Serbia seems rather broad. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Zoupan and Themightyquill: old discussion. To change nothing seems OK. Category:Bela Palanka is quite well structured--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
no action, as per Estopedist1.--RZuo (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This category seems much too specific— "greyhouds in art" is pushing it... "Greyhouds in art in tapestry" is over the edge. KDS4444 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am the creator of Greyhounds in Art and either all or most of its subcategories, including this one. The specificity or maybe granularity of Wiki categories often surprises me, e.g. the various rooms in the Louvre as opposed to schools of art and countries of artists. Two factoids: Many, probably most of the greatest tapestries show hunting scenes, with deer hunting, coursing, hawking all having a common element, the use of greyhounds and no other breed of dog. Greyhounds in painting and sculpture are not at all the same as GHs in tapestry in theme, time, artist, or place of creation. A separate subcategory is needed. User:henrytow
- There are hundreds of images in Category:Greyhounds in art, and there are 34 subcategories in Category:Dogs in art by breed so I don't see how there's any "pushing" at all. I think Henrytow has put in a great amount of effort to organize the category, and should be thanked for it. That said, I think a lot of the sub-categories are poorly named and categorized. If I may make some suggestions, Henry, the point is to build a category tree that connects to other category trees so that the images can be found from many directions.
- Suggestions
Category:Greyhounds in art with other religious scenes: Simply Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art is enough. This can be sub-categorized as below. If appropriate, it might be better off in Category:Religious art with greyhounds or Category:Religious paintings with greyhounds and appropriate parent categories leading back to Category:Religious art by subject DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in an adoration of Christ: Category:Greyhounds in adoration of Christ or, if applicable, Category:Adoration by the shepherds with greyhounds in paintings in Category:Adoration by the shepherds in paintings > Moved to Category:Nativity of Jesus Christ with greyhounds DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in antiquity: If it's appropriate, Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity is probably sufficient, in Category:Classical antiquity DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in landscapes: Category:Greyhounds in landscape in Category:Animals in landscape, or Category:Greyhounds in landscape paintings in Category:Landscape paintings with animals (to be created) in Category:Landscape paintings by subjectMoved to Category:Landscape paintings with greyhoundsCategory:Greyhounds in art in sculpture: Should be Category:Sculptures of greyhounds in Category:Sculptures of animals DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in tapestry: Should be Category:Greyhounds in tapestry in Category:Animals in tapestry Done- Category:Greyhounds in art with aristocrats: Should be "Greyhounds with aristocrats in art" or more better yet, "Aristocrats with greyhounds in art", although there doesn't seem to be a Category:Aristocrats - maybe a better word could be found? This would go in Category:People with greyhounds in art (to be created) in Category:People with dogs in art
Category:Greyhounds in art with a saint: Category:Saints with greyhounds in art in Category:People with greyhounds in art and Category:Saints in art DoneCategory:Greyhounds with Diana in art: Category:Diana with greyhounds in Category:People with greyhounds in art. Done Could this go in Category:Greyhounds in art in antiquity (or Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity, as I proposed)? DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with a classical theme, not with Diana: Could this simply be redirected to Category:Greyhounds in art in antiquity (or Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity, as I proposed)? DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with architecture, not in church: Simply Category:Greyhounds with architecture in art (in Category:Architecture in art) would be sufficient. This can be subdivided with Category:Greyhounds in churches in art or Category:Greyhounds in churches in paintings (in Category:Paintings of church interiors) DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art inside churches: As above. DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with hunting: Category:Hunting with greyhounds in art in Category:Hunting dogs in art (to be created) with Category:Hunting in art DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art, edited: I don't understand this category.Deleted.Category:Medieval greyhounds in art: Would Category:Greyhounds in medieval art (in Category:Dogs in medieval art) work here? DoneCategory:Portraits with greyhounds: Category:Portrait paintings with greyhounds, unless you'd like modern photos of people with their greyhounds here too. In Category:People with greyhounds in art, naturally. Done
- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think these suggestions are fine and may get to work on creating them. I would like, however, in most cases to add a category within another parent category rather than removing the category from Greyhounds in Art.User:henrytow
- Of course, henrytow. That was what I had in mind as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
My thanks and appreciation to Mr Quill for all of his good work. User:henrytow
- @Henrytow: No problem at all. Can you provide some extra input on the remaining categories? I don't want to move anything inappropriately. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Following on the top suggestion, I moved two subcategories from Category:Greyhounds in art with other religious scenes to Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art. That leaves behind quite a few files. Is there any way of moving all these files over from the first Category to the second? User:henrytow
- @Henrytow: Sorry I missed this until now - I forgot to "watch" this page. I've moved the files to Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art. Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Musing a bit on this category and its importance, note that if one visits the Cloisters at the Metropolitan Museum, the Louvre, the V&A, the French museums devoted to medieval and Renaissance art, and I could go on, in every case the most important set of tapestries are devoted to the hunt--and therefore have many greyhounds. These dogs are integral to the art of the tapestry. PS: In many cases, the images on Commons are mine, not that they are restricted for use in any way. For more here, see my comments on the Category Greyhounds in Art. Henrytow (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the only outstanding issue in this discussion is Category:Greyhounds in art with aristocrats which still doesn't fit the tree very well. I can't think of a better name though. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @KDS4444 and Henrytow: Would Category:Greyhounds with nobility in art satisfy everyone? If we have images of non-noble aristocrats, I guess we'd have to to remove/upmerge them, but that seems to be a minority of images. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This category seems much too specific— "greyhouds in art" is pushing it... "Greyhouds in art in tapestry" is over the edge. KDS4444 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am the creator of Greyhounds in Art and either all or most of its subcategories, including this one. The specificity or maybe granularity of Wiki categories often surprises me, e.g. the various rooms in the Louvre as opposed to schools of art and countries of artists. Two factoids: Many, probably most of the greatest tapestries show hunting scenes, with deer hunting, coursing, hawking all having a common element, the use of greyhounds and no other breed of dog. Greyhounds in painting and sculpture are not at all the same as GHs in tapestry in theme, time, artist, or place of creation. A separate subcategory is needed. User:henrytow
- There are hundreds of images in Category:Greyhounds in art, and there are 34 subcategories in Category:Dogs in art by breed so I don't see how there's any "pushing" at all. I think Henrytow has put in a great amount of effort to organize the category, and should be thanked for it. That said, I think a lot of the sub-categories are poorly named and categorized. If I may make some suggestions, Henry, the point is to build a category tree that connects to other category trees so that the images can be found from many directions.
- Suggestions
Category:Greyhounds in art with other religious scenes: Simply Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art is enough. This can be sub-categorized as below. If appropriate, it might be better off in Category:Religious art with greyhounds or Category:Religious paintings with greyhounds and appropriate parent categories leading back to Category:Religious art by subject DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in an adoration of Christ: Category:Greyhounds in adoration of Christ or, if applicable, Category:Adoration by the shepherds with greyhounds in paintings in Category:Adoration by the shepherds in paintings > Moved to Category:Nativity of Jesus Christ with greyhounds DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in antiquity: If it's appropriate, Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity is probably sufficient, in Category:Classical antiquity DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in landscapes: Category:Greyhounds in landscape in Category:Animals in landscape, or Category:Greyhounds in landscape paintings in Category:Landscape paintings with animals (to be created) in Category:Landscape paintings by subjectMoved to Category:Landscape paintings with greyhoundsCategory:Greyhounds in art in sculpture: Should be Category:Sculptures of greyhounds in Category:Sculptures of animals DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art in tapestry: Should be Category:Greyhounds in tapestry in Category:Animals in tapestry Done- Category:Greyhounds in art with aristocrats: Should be "Greyhounds with aristocrats in art" or more better yet, "Aristocrats with greyhounds in art", although there doesn't seem to be a Category:Aristocrats - maybe a better word could be found? This would go in Category:People with greyhounds in art (to be created) in Category:People with dogs in art
Category:Greyhounds in art with a saint: Category:Saints with greyhounds in art in Category:People with greyhounds in art and Category:Saints in art DoneCategory:Greyhounds with Diana in art: Category:Diana with greyhounds in Category:People with greyhounds in art. Done Could this go in Category:Greyhounds in art in antiquity (or Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity, as I proposed)? DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with a classical theme, not with Diana: Could this simply be redirected to Category:Greyhounds in art in antiquity (or Category:Greyhounds in classical antiquity, as I proposed)? DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with architecture, not in church: Simply Category:Greyhounds with architecture in art (in Category:Architecture in art) would be sufficient. This can be subdivided with Category:Greyhounds in churches in art or Category:Greyhounds in churches in paintings (in Category:Paintings of church interiors) DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art inside churches: As above. DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art with hunting: Category:Hunting with greyhounds in art in Category:Hunting dogs in art (to be created) with Category:Hunting in art DoneCategory:Greyhounds in art, edited: I don't understand this category.Deleted.Category:Medieval greyhounds in art: Would Category:Greyhounds in medieval art (in Category:Dogs in medieval art) work here? DoneCategory:Portraits with greyhounds: Category:Portrait paintings with greyhounds, unless you'd like modern photos of people with their greyhounds here too. In Category:People with greyhounds in art, naturally. Done
- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think these suggestions are fine and may get to work on creating them. I would like, however, in most cases to add a category within another parent category rather than removing the category from Greyhounds in Art.User:henrytow
- Of course, henrytow. That was what I had in mind as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
My thanks and appreciation to Mr Quill for all of his good work. User:henrytow
- @Henrytow: No problem at all. Can you provide some extra input on the remaining categories? I don't want to move anything inappropriately. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Following on the top suggestion, I moved two subcategories from Category:Greyhounds in art with other religious scenes to Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art. That leaves behind quite a few files. Is there any way of moving all these files over from the first Category to the second? User:henrytow
- @Henrytow: Sorry I missed this until now - I forgot to "watch" this page. I've moved the files to Category:Greyhounds in religious scenes in art. Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Musing a bit on this category and its importance, note that if one visits the Cloisters at the Metropolitan Museum, the Louvre, the V&A, the French museums devoted to medieval and Renaissance art, and I could go on, in every case the most important set of tapestries are devoted to the hunt--and therefore have many greyhounds. These dogs are integral to the art of the tapestry. PS: In many cases, the images on Commons are mine, not that they are restricted for use in any way. For more here, see my comments on the Category Greyhounds in Art. Henrytow (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the only outstanding issue in this discussion is Category:Greyhounds in art with aristocrats which still doesn't fit the tree very well. I can't think of a better name though. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @KDS4444 and Henrytow: Would Category:Greyhounds with nobility in art satisfy everyone? If we have images of non-noble aristocrats, I guess we'd have to to remove/upmerge them, but that seems to be a minority of images. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Shod proti korupciji in za javni interes, Koalicija proti korupciji (13 December 2013)
[edit]Errrr... What?!?! :) English please! ;) Sturm (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @MZaplotnik: : How does Category:Rally against corruption and for the public interest, Ljubljana (2013-12-13) sound? Or simply Category:Anti-corruption rally, Ljubljana (2013-12-13)? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment December 2013 Ljubljana rally against corruption and for the public interest would be preferable in my opinion. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- It can be translated either way however current category is an unique proper name of an event as it is listed here: w:sl:Protesti v Sloveniji (2012–2014). I believe no one will search and find this category in English translation because as far as I know no official English translation of this event's name exist. Per COM:CAT#Category names there's no need for English category in such cases. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 07:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturm, Themightyquill, and MZaplotnik: since the current title could be a proper name, and no official english title exists, and an english translation has been included on the page, shall we keep the category as it is?--RZuo (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Eleassar: .--RZuo (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @TadejM: .--RZuo (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, yes. MZaplotnik(talk) 09:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is most important that category names are self-explanatory and consistent. Most people would find it easier to navigate the English name and barely anyone remembers the Slovene name of the event either. --TadejM (t/p) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Stale discussion. This title is definitley not a proper name. Solution per user:TadejM (also noticing user:RZuo) and per user:Themightyquill's suggestion: Category:Rally against corruption and for the public interest, Ljubljana (2013-12-13)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Somewhat redundant to Cemeteries/Burial grounds in the United Kingdom. There's no practical difference these days and the cat itself seems underused. Propose moving content to appropriate subcats. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support This category makes no distinction from cemeteries and burial grounds. It would be better to move content to subcats. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Necropolis has a description that reads "A necropolis ... is a burial ground for an ancient civilization which includes structural tombs." Category:Necropolis is also a sub-category of Category:Archaeological sites, which Category:Cemeteries is not. Surely that suggests there is a distinction between that and contemporary cemeteries. It's a type of burial ground, but not a type of cemetery, so Category:Necropolises in the United Kingdom should definitely not be a sub-category of Category:Cemeteries in the United Kingdom. Another question, however, is whether there are any Necropolises in the United Kingdom? The English wikipedia article describes en:Sutton Hoo as a cemetery but also an archeological site - it's hardly a typical cemetery. Do Anglo-Saxons from the 6th and 7th centuries count as "Ancient Civilizations" ? I'm not sure. But apparently Category:Lindholm Høje (burial place for 10th century vikings) counts in Denmark. And apparently necropolis means something entirely different in France because Category:Nécropole nationale de Suippes-Ville (WWI cemetery) is in Category:Necropolises in France. In short, this category tree is unclear and as a result, a mess. Maybe we can give it some order?
- Billinghurst, Elkost, G.dallorto, Verica Atrebatum and Jacklee: You have all been involved in maintaining this category tree over the years. Would you like to help by providing some input? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- In ancient times, a "Necropolis" was a "city for the dead". It was a cemetery, of course. But it had a structure of its own, with roads, squares, entrance doors & re., but above all, buildings raising from the ground and not within or inside the ground. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamiamaria/4496782184 . I am ignorant about archaeological sites in the UK but I notice the English seem to use the name as a mere synonym for "cemetery": http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/2000488/GLASGOW%20WESTERN%20NECROPOLIS Hence the problem, I assume. In my opinion if it only creates confusion for the Brittons, the category may be suppressed, we can always create it again should it emerge that there are ancient necropoleis in the UK as well. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, G.dallorto. "City for the dead" is certainly the Greek origin of the word, and surely the Greek understanding of the place. If we want to restrict the term to simply Greek necropolises (or even Greek and Roman ones), that wouldn't be a problem, we might find a clearer way than using the world "ancient." If we're going to include non-Greek/Roman burial complexes (including the Giza Pyramid complex which predates Greek civilization), that definition could pose a problem, since those civilizations may not have built what have since been called their necropolises as "cities for the dead". Surely, that's not the case with the Category:Nécropole nationale de Suippes-Ville. Does every cemetery with a Mausoleums qualify as a necropolis? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are (huge, and impressive) Etruscan necropoleis as well, Egyptian ones & re. The main difference is that in a necropolis the (affluent) dead were interred in "buildings", which could be as tall as two stories, whereas a "cemetery" can be any graveyard, without anything "built" apart for the grave marker (which may be not "built" at all, for instance a stone or a tree: this does not qualify as a necropolis for sure!). As told before, I am too ignorant about British archaeology to know whether there were necropoleis over there even during Roman times: a necropolis could only exist near a big town with a considerable disposable wealth, and I do not know whether any Roman town qualified, back then. However, necropoleis died out with Christianity, which buried the dead not all together in "their" town, but in small groups within and around churches scattered within and around towns. Therefore confusion is not possible. However, since I see that "necropolis" was also being used in the 19th century as an elegant name for a cemetery (something that in Italian does not happen: necropoleis being only ANCIENT cemeteries) perhaps yes, adding "Ancient" would clarify what the category was meant for. User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- 6 years old CFD. @G.dallorto@Themightyquill: I suggest to keep the only category (ie Category:Sutton Hoo) in this UK category. Although enwiki en:Sutton Hoo doesn't refer to be a necropolis, then Google gives many hits for "necropolis" & "Sutton Hoo". If we will get new data or new experts at necropolis stuff, then new CFD may be started Estopedist1 (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are (huge, and impressive) Etruscan necropoleis as well, Egyptian ones & re. The main difference is that in a necropolis the (affluent) dead were interred in "buildings", which could be as tall as two stories, whereas a "cemetery" can be any graveyard, without anything "built" apart for the grave marker (which may be not "built" at all, for instance a stone or a tree: this does not qualify as a necropolis for sure!). As told before, I am too ignorant about British archaeology to know whether there were necropoleis over there even during Roman times: a necropolis could only exist near a big town with a considerable disposable wealth, and I do not know whether any Roman town qualified, back then. However, necropoleis died out with Christianity, which buried the dead not all together in "their" town, but in small groups within and around churches scattered within and around towns. Therefore confusion is not possible. However, since I see that "necropolis" was also being used in the 19th century as an elegant name for a cemetery (something that in Italian does not happen: necropoleis being only ANCIENT cemeteries) perhaps yes, adding "Ancient" would clarify what the category was meant for. User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept, in accord with User:Estopedist1's last suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
Upmerge, overcategorization Zoupan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely. You mean upmerge to Category:Eparchy of Osječko polje and Baranja? Is it likely that it will have other images at some point? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would delete both, as it is unlikely the category will be populated to a category-worthy size. Categorize media simply to "Serbian Orthodox churches in Croatia".--Zoupan (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me, but I'm not exactly knowledgeable on this subject. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- 6 years later, the nominated category has even subcategories. Any oppose to keep the nominated category, @Zoupan? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Move to Category:Monument to Soviet war veterans, Belgrade Zoupan (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are no any another such monuments in the world, so no need to concretize the city, I think. Nickpo (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- That name is ambiguous.--Zoupan (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Show another examples (with links), please. Nickpo (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, are you seriously telling me to show examples of the use of an ambiguous term? It is ambiguous, search for it on Google (if you still don't get it).--Zoupan (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Show another examples (with links), please. Nickpo (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- That name is ambiguous.--Zoupan (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, though I'd suggest Category:Monument to Soviet war veterans (Belgrade) or possibly Category:Monument to Soviet War Veterans (Belgrade) if that's it's official title. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- What about Category:Monument to Soviet war veterans, Belgrade? Spomenik sovjetskim veteranima na Avali (Monument to Soviet veterans on the Avala) is used by the City of Belgrade.--Zoupan (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the latter is the title, that works best probably. I was under the impression that naming convention was to use a comma when the category is a location but parenthesis when the category is an object in a location... but perhaps that was just my imagination, because I can't find it written anywhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Zoupan: solution per en:Monument to Soviet War Veterans, Avala, hence category:Monument to Soviet War Veterans, Avala. However, even enwiki has red link to en:Monument to Soviet War Veterans. This means that in Commons the title category:Monument to Soviet War Veterans is also acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
In fact this monument is the single and only monument of this kind although there are many monuments to Soviet soldiers. That's why we can keep the category under its current name. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Obviously discussion required. Achim (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is the problem? Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are two categories "Category:Armenian frescos" and "Category:Frescos in Armenia", because the Armenian frescos is not only in Armenia, and there are no Armenian frescos, who are in Armenia. For example, the Armenian fresco File:WhiteMonasteryEastDome.jpg in Egypt. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Vahram's reply is hard to understand. By "Armenian frescos", do you mean frescos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, or a special Armenian design?--Zoupan (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which Armenian, not only on the walls of churches. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- For example File:Agnes Karikaturen Armenien Jerewan Erebuni Argishti.jpg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahram Mekhitarian (talk • contribs)
- File:WhiteMonasteryEastDome.jpg was made by an Armenian Orthodox painter in another country, but why would it be grouped together with an Urartian fresco in Armenia? File:Agnes Karikaturen Armenien Jerewan Erebuni Argishti.jpg belongs to Category:Frescos in Armenia. As the cat-name is ambiguous, redirect to Category:Frescos in Armenia, meanwhile a better named category should house Armenian works outside Armenia.--Zoupan (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- The Urartu is an Assiran name of Armenian kingdom:
- File:WhiteMonasteryEastDome.jpg was made by an Armenian Orthodox painter in another country, but why would it be grouped together with an Urartian fresco in Armenia? File:Agnes Karikaturen Armenien Jerewan Erebuni Argishti.jpg belongs to Category:Frescos in Armenia. As the cat-name is ambiguous, redirect to Category:Frescos in Armenia, meanwhile a better named category should house Armenian works outside Armenia.--Zoupan (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Vahram's reply is hard to understand. By "Armenian frescos", do you mean frescos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, or a special Armenian design?--Zoupan (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are two categories "Category:Armenian frescos" and "Category:Frescos in Armenia", because the Armenian frescos is not only in Armenia, and there are no Armenian frescos, who are in Armenia. For example, the Armenian fresco File:WhiteMonasteryEastDome.jpg in Egypt. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Urartu (Armenian: Ուրարտու - Urartu, Assyrian: māt Urarṭu; Babylonian: Urashtu), corresponding to the biblical Kingdom of Ararat (Armenian: Արարատյան Թագավորություն) or Kingdom of Van (Armenian: Վանի Թագավորություն, Urartian: Biai, Biainili) was an Iron Age kingdom centered on Lake Van in the Armenian Highlands. The heirs of Urartu are the Armenians and their successive kingdoms. The name Urartu comes from Assyrian sources: the Assyrian King Shalmaneser I (1263–1234 BC) recorded a campaign in which he subdued the entire territory of "Uruatri."[13][14] The Shalmaneser text uses the name Urartu to refer to a geographical region, not a kingdom, and names eight "lands" contained within Urartu ( which at the time of the campaign were still disunited ) . "Urartu" is cognate with the Biblical "Ararat," Akkadian "Urashtu," and Armenian "Ayrarat." The name used by the local population as a toponym was Biainili (or Biaineli), which forms the root of the Armenian Վան ("Van"),[15] hence the names "Kingdom of Van (Bianili)" or "Vannic Kingdom."
- Armenian cultural heritage scattered around the world. And after the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire (modern Turkey) in 1915, the Armenians were deprived of their historical homeland (Armenian Highlands, Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey). Modern Armenia - a tiny part of the territory, which is home to 20% of Armenians (from 10-15 million in the world). Thus, any categorization of Armenian heritage allows for this feature. For example, as in Category:Cross stones for Category:Khatchkars (Armenian Cross-stones).
Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Six years old CFD. @Vahram Mekhitarian@Zoupan: the term "Armenian fresco" seems to be suspicious. Maybe the term belongs here: Category:Frescos by period (compare eg Category:Slavic frescos 'frescoes of slavic culture'). It is also possible that "Armenian fresco" refers to be that done by an Armenian artist, or somehow related to Armenian Apostolic Church Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: I've categorised this category similar to Category:Slavic frescos, and have subcategorised Category:Frescos in Armenia under this. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Upmerge subcategories into Category:Cultural organizations of Serbia and Category:Buildings in X. Zoupan (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: questionable? It fits to Category:Culture of Serbia by location--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: seems to be a difficult situation. Due to uniqueness (= only category with the name "cultural organizations ... by location"), I recommend to upmerge. But because of the parent Category:Cultural organizations by country, I see some potential here--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)