Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/02
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive February 2016
This category appears to be redundant Rsteen (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete definitely. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat. --Achim (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This category (and all children categories) should be renamed as Ignatius of Antioch, according to the spelling of w:Ignatius of Antioch and Antioch Place Clichy 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose- @Achim55: Correct, but Ignatius and of are in English, so it is logical to have the full name in English. BTW, Commons:Naming categories states: Proper names of individual people [...] should in general use the name most frequently used in English-language literature, and none of the exceptions apply. Current name Igniatius of Antiochie does not mean anything, in any language. Per d:Q200441, sco.wp and ga.wp also use Antioch, while only cs uses Antiochie, but then the name should be changed to Ignác z Antiochie. Place Clichy 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Support nominator. Place Clichy 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Place Clichy, thinking about it, we could create some redirects if needed. Btw, this is not a voting, in case of no consensus it is kept as it is. --Achim (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Which redirect would you like to create? I have no opposition to leave a redirect from the current name to new name Ignatius of Antioch, but the other way around is not justified imho. I know that WP is run by consensus, not voting (thank you) but consensus, and discussion closure, stems from the debate on arguments, not counting people. Therefore, I kindly invite you to reply to the points I raised above so that we can progress. Place Clichy 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, changed my mind as we have already Category:Antioch. So I also suggest moving to Category:Ignatius of Antioch leaving a redirect to satisfy other projects like s:en:Author:Ignatius of Antioch linking there. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Empty category. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, req by author. --Achim (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate category, should be merged to parent Category:Images_by_user:Atsme. (The user requested my help at en:User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Category_move.) Fayenatic london (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support - As the clueless creator of that category, I am happy that someone who actually knows what they're doing has proposed the merge. Atsme 📞 22:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved content and deleted cat, great images, Betty! --Achim (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Empty category Thymepeekk (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete, wrong date format Avron (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There is already a category Category:Photographs taken on 2012-05-21 Estormiz (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes there already is that Category and others actually. I found these images while cleaning up Category:Media needing categories in use in galleries . There was not a lot of information to go on except probably the uploaders own User: category or Gallery. Just unlink it and they will go back to being uncategorized. How else can we organize images of this tupe. I think I made a second one as well Category:Andrew Filer from Seattle (ex-Minneapolis) photos and I think some of the other Cat photos are his. Should they both be moved into the one you mention aboveCategory:Photographs taken on 2012-05-21 WayneRay (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the photos from the "20120521 photos" -category. I already moved some of them to the category mentioned above by adding "Taken on" -template on the pictures. However the photos can not really have been taken at the time, rather they are older slides that have been "digitized" using digital camera. Estormiz (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks I will avoid improperly labeled images and continue correcting User:Fae's Bot mistakes and problems. I was just taking a break when I did the above. WayneRay (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not a big problem at all, I will ask the category to be deleted. --Estormiz (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty now. --Achim (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This category should be deleted as Commons uses Category:Towns and villages in ... Dudley Miles (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- It does? Someone should tell all the categories in Category:Villages_by_country! =)
- I'm not saying Commons shouldn't use Category:Towns and villages in x but I don't know that's been established as a naming convention anywhere. Perhaps I've just missed it though. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think it is established practice. Wikipedia has separate categories for town and village, which is better in my opinion. My point is that we need to be consistent, and almost all British towns and villages are categorised in Commons in one category for both. Changing it would be a vast amount of work, which I am not prepared to undertake, and I doubt whether anyone else is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- If most of Britain is categories into Category:Towns and villages in x, then I'm okay with a move. I'm not sure international consistency is always so important, but within a country, it's probably a worthy goal. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to redirect it for it's empty and a well-populated Category:Towns and villages in Essex exists since 2006. Same for Herefordshire. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- If most of Britain is categories into Category:Towns and villages in x, then I'm okay with a move. I'm not sure international consistency is always so important, but within a country, it's probably a worthy goal. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think it is established practice. Wikipedia has separate categories for town and village, which is better in my opinion. My point is that we need to be consistent, and almost all British towns and villages are categorised in Commons in one category for both. Changing it would be a vast amount of work, which I am not prepared to undertake, and I doubt whether anyone else is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Towns and villages in Essex. --Achim (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This category should be deleted as Commons uses category:Towns and villages in ... Dudley Miles (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Villages in Essex. --Achim (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Towns and villages in Herefordshire. --Achim (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This category should be deleted as Commons uses category:Towns and villages in ... Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Towns and villages on the Isle of Wight by NeverDoING 5 February 2016. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This category should be deleted as Commons uses category:Towns and villages in ... Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
empty category Appleincguy (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Contains 5 files now. --Achim (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No content, per other politicians generally having a "by year" category, etc. instead of "before 1982" or something along those lines. MB298 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's no content because, of course, you moved the pre-2015 images out of that category, e.g. here. That seems okay, because you first moved the 2015 images into a category for 2015, e.g. here. The problem is that people very soon are inevitably going to start dumping new images into the main Marco Rubio category (because they are lazy and they do not want to bother putting them into the 2016 sub-category). The sooner you clear out the main Marco Rubio category, the better, by moving those images to respective subcategories. Otherwise, the main Marco Rubio category will become a mess that's full of brand new pictures mixed together with old pictures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be doing that over the next few days, hopefully creating Category:Marco Rubio in 2014, etc. MB298 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, if you're willing to do the work, then I support deleting "Category:Marco Rubio before 2015". The previous categorization system avoided that problem, but admittedly was less specific than your new system. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's empty now and could IMO be deleted. --Achim (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, if you're willing to do the work, then I support deleting "Category:Marco Rubio before 2015". The previous categorization system avoided that problem, but admittedly was less specific than your new system. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be doing that over the next few days, hopefully creating Category:Marco Rubio in 2014, etc. MB298 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat. --Achim (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This category is potentially very libelous, as it includes many people whose contacts with the communist secret services were not proven in any scientifically or legally acceptable way. What's more, it includes people who have actively fought against such accusations in courts (for example, Lech Wałęsa). In many cases it's based only on rumour or some untrustworthy, far-right publications. In my view it should be deleted immediately, before it causes media uproar or legal action. Powerek38 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have a double problem with this category. First is what Powerek mentioned above, lack of proof that the people listed in the category actually committed acts of informing to the secret services. Second, I definitely think this is not the idea of Wikimedia Commons to categorise images based on such criteria; it is rather the work of other projects, most notably Wikipedias, where such claims need to be backed up with definitely unquestionable sources. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The choice of people include this category is founded by partial criteria. It have not nothing in common with historical facts and judgement. In my opinion Wikimedia Commons is not a place to investigation those rights. The category is unnecessary and advantages is doubtful. Rybulo7 (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not the category itself that is the problem. The problem is that there are people that shouldn't be there.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but as Wpedzich pointed out above - this issue is far too complex to be investigated and explained properly at Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia has better tools and procedures to check each case individually. In my view the risks of keeping this category are far greater than possible benefits. Powerek38 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult to proove who sholud be in this category. There's no need to sort people by such unsafe criterium. Ludmiła Pilecka (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I strongly support deletion, for reasons mentioned above. Pibwl (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Maciej and Adrian for statements as this category is going to be deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think everything has already been said. This is beyond the scope of our project to judge who was and who was not a collaborator of communist secret police. This category should be deleted. Boston9 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete and pretend it was never there. Just to put this matter into some perspective for all non-Poles out there, think Category:Nazi sympathisers. Equally hard to prove, equally heavy accusation, Some people in such a category might indeed be sympathisers of the Nazi party, some might be wrongly accused of being Nazi, while most would probably be just a random collection of people thrown mud at. And there is no way to check who is who since we can't add references to categories in Commons. Halibutt (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Cleared and deleted speedily per snowball consensus. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems terribly subjective and not at all obviously useful. Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can tell, multiple layers of empty sub-categories all lead to categories for images of people whose smiles reveal teeth, such as Category:Smiling men (toothy). But in that category, it's the smile that's being described toothy, not the people. And that's already sufficiently categorized under Category:Smiling (toothy). - Themightyquill (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I find even those subcats a objectionable: "toothy" is often seen as an insult, is quite subjective, and it's hard to see a legitimate educational reason anyone would be looking for this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- That was my first reaction too, but I think in this case, it was only meant to indicate that the smiles show teeth, rather than closed smiles. If anyone wants to keep them, they could be renamed to Category:Men with smiles showing teeth and Category:Smiling with teeth or some equivalents? I'm pretty neutral as to their existence. It's not the *most* useful categorization, but this is Commons, so I've seen worse. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I find even those subcats a objectionable: "toothy" is often seen as an insult, is quite subjective, and it's hard to see a legitimate educational reason anyone would be looking for this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete OK, favor of deletion. (also Category:Toothy men / Category:Toothy women / Category:Toothy mature women)
- Sorry, Category:Toothy people was Inappropriate title. I mean Category:Faces showing teeth. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)--Benzoyl (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- As original nominator, I can accept "showing teeth". Unlike the other, it's objective. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Toothy people and all of its subcats as they are empty now. --Achim (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bad name, should be Category:Holy Trinity in art. Zoupan (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support proper capitalization. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Bad name, should be Category:Holy Trinity in architecture. Zoupan (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support proper capitalization. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Misspelled, category with the correct spelling exists Zanhe (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: For obvious spelling mistakes like these, feel free to move the category yourself without discussion (if the properly spelled category doesn't exist) or use {{Bad name}} if the properly spelled category does exist. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Using {{Badname}} in favour of Category:Bronzes of the Dian Kingdom. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
copy of Category:Monasteries in Greece. Zoupan (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a proper name so there's no reason to have the category in Greek. Redirected to Category:Monasteries in Greece. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
copy of Category:Monasteries in Corfu. Zoupan (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a proper name so there's no possible reason to have the category in Greek. Redirected to Category:Monasteries in Corfu. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate/unnecessary subcategory of Category:Hama (Company). Delete or redirect? El Grafo (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat containig a 2-image gallery only, bad name. --Achim (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate/unnecessary subcategory of Category:Hama (Company). Delete or redirect? El Grafo (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please, wait until CommonsDelinker has moved Category:Hama (Company) to Category:Hama (company), then the content of Category:Hama (Unternehmen) can be moved to Category:Hama (company) leaving a redirect. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Done per above. --Achim (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Contents moved to Category:Monopods, don't think we need a redirect here, right? El Grafo (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to El Grafo! Redirect should be kept for User:RussBot. --Achim (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected by El Grafo 12 February 2016. --Achim (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
wrong title, ... Ost- und Westpreussischen ... is right Kopiersperre (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Kopiersperre, das hättest du doch selber verschieben können. --Achim (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved without redirect to Category:Die Trilobiten-Fauna der Ost- und Westpreussischen Diluvialgeschiebe. --Achim (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
close category Salambir (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Salambir. I'm a little confused. Is it just the stop signs of Canada that you don't think should be categorized together, or you're opposed to all 29 sub-categories of Category:Stop signs by country? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why? I see no obvious problem.
Keep unless good reason for deletion is offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Closing as Kept. No explanation nor other edits from nominator, no additional discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a dupe of Category:Dinitrophenols. Leyo, your assistance is welcome! Achim (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- It may look like, but actually it's not. Category:Dinitrophenol is for dinitrophenol isomers (see e.g. de:Dinitrophenole), whereas Category:Dinitrophenols is for derivatives, i.e. substituted dinitrophenols. To make this clear, it may be an option to use a naming like e.g. Category:Benzene derivatives. --Leyo 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that these are different, and strongly support some solution that clarifies it. It's especially useful to use a disambiguation word (not just plural vs singular) in this case becaue "dinitrophenol" (singular word) is actually already a set of different chemicals.
- But also, Category:Dinitrophenols already has subcats for individual isomers of dintrophenol, for example, Category:2,3-dinitrophenol, so an alternate solution is to diffuse Category:Dinitrophenol into them and scrap that mixture-of-isomers cat itself. That would leave just the plural-word to contain all related chemicals (isomers and derivatives thereof, possibly with subcats for individual chemicals in some cases).
- But but also, all those single-isomer subcats were merged back into the unified Category:Dinitrophenol by User:JWBE without explanation but leaving those now-empty cats still present. So if we keep a unified cat for the various isomers, we should scrap the individual isomers' subcats. DMacks (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since "dintrophenol" does not refer to a single chemical compound, I think a category for it does not make sense and should be Category:Dinitrophenols instead. DMacks' suggestion above is the best: diffuse Category:Dinitrophenol into the categories for specific isomers (Category:2,3-dinitrophenol, etc.) and then redirect Category:Dinitrophenol to Category:Dinitrophenols. Category:Dinitrophenols would contain the subcategories for isomers as well as all the files that pertain to derivatives of dinitrophenols. Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, done per Ed's suggestions. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Bad name, should be either Category:Icons of the Holy Trinity or Category:Holy Trinity icons. Zoupan (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support A brief look suggests Category:Icons of X is the more common format. Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Icons of the Holy Trinity via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Christ Great Hierophant. Zoupan (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christ the King, that's a clear case. --Achim (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved its content and redirected to Category:Christ the King. --Achim (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Stratocumulus fractus referrer to a inesistent cloud species; here a complete list of official names (from World Meteorological Organization). I propose to delete it. Daniele.Brundu (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Stratus fractus or deletion? --Achim (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to delete it, because Statocumulus fractus would generate misunderstandings --Daniele.Brundu (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK for any of the proposition. Pierre cb (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Cumulus fractus and Category:Stratus fractus are well populated, so I will delete. --Achim (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
te defenderei com minha propria vida, agradeço o meu mestre eduardo takasshiii...vem comigo te protegerei, honrarei mercia...nosso segredo, paquito de meu pai... 187.22.194.180 22:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Closed, irrelevant comments. Infrogmation (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Jawaharlal Nehru died in 1964. This category should be deleted. FlickrWarrior (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleting empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Bad name. Category:Maps of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- As Serbian maps might be understood as maps by Serbian authorities (not necessarily depicting Serbia): Support deletion after having moved its content. --Achim (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree to delete WayneRay (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks to Wayne. --Achim (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If I look to the images in this category it seems to me that the most people mean category:springs.
So what exactly is the difference between both? Can we merge them? W like wiki (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's currently a sub-category of springs, and I guess not all springs are sources for rivers, so from a quick glance, the current set-up seems reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think so, too. Let's keep it as it doesn't hurt. --Achim (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept. --Achim (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a category that does not readily lend itself to categorizing images. While many organisms may have been studied via DNA barcoding (indeed, in the open access journals from where the contained images derive), DNA barcoding is a process, not capturable in a static image of an organism, and should be deleted. Animalparty (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, it's a process, and if that process were illustrated in the media in there, I think the category should stay. However, none of the current media seem to do that, so I'm fine with this category being deleted until relevant media come around to actually fill it usefully. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, it should be recreated if it's needed. --Achim (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted per above. --Achim (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Empty category, and it appears as though it was never populated in the first place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Contains 2 images now. --Achim (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Er bestaan twee categorieën bestaan over de gemeente Domleschg Zie hier. Grasmat (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Domleschg GR = politische Gemeinde (communes, municipalities, gemeente), Category:Domleschg = geografische Region, Tal, Category:Domleschg (circle) = politische Gebietseinteilung in der Verwaltungseinheit Bezirk Hinterrhein Category:Hinterrhein (district). Siehe auch: en:Domleschg (valley). --Schofför (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Schofför who added some info to the cat pages. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Can be merged with Category:Bigfoot. Essentially the same creature. MB298 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Bigfoot (with redirect!), as per w:Bigfoot and because Category:Bigfoot is older. --rimshottalk 08:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged and redirected per above, additionally {{Catseealso}} to Category:Yeti. --Achim (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Subcategories of Category:Birds of Pirna
[edit]Cats (not media) to be deleted (all of these had already been deleted on 24 January 2016):
- Category:Anser anser from Pirna
- Category:Buteo buteo from Pirna
- Category:Columba livia domestica from Pirna
- Category:Falco tinnunculus from Pirna
- Category:Milvus milvus from Pirna
for there exists no category branch taxon by city nor should it IMO be created. --Achim (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Edit: There are Taxon by country with possible subcats, so the content of (for example) Category:Anser anser from Pirna could be moved to Category:Anser anser in Saxony. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Info User:Kuothij seems to be a reincarnation of User:Blackwhiteupl. The latter one was blocked indefinitely on January 7, 2016, Kuothij restarted his activities on January 9, 2016 - both mostly in Category:Pirna and its subcategories. The above mentioned categories are not the only ones which were recreated by User:Kuothij after they had been deleted before. --78.53.80.108 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not, Kuothij's account is older and he made useful edits during the past days. --Achim (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Can be kept as far as they are not direct subs of taxon cats. Did some cleanup. --Achim (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete as not-useful. "resembling" is rather subjective. Both contained images fit well under Category:Anti logos. Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved files to Category:Anti logos and deleted cat. --Achim (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Just asking Tiberioclaudio99 for the reason of this category move. On en:wp we have en:Category:Grand Inquisitors of Spain and en:Grand Inquisitor. Achim (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- In Spain, your verity name is inquisitor general or general inquisitor, but no Grand inquisitor.--Tiberioclaudio99 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's an English category name. Therefore I reverted your category move and added Category:Inquisidores generales de España redirecting there. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's too specific. Damiens.rf 20:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, Delete. --Achim (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per above - No need for specific cats - "Cat:Body art" will do just fine, Nice boobs tho!. –Davey2010Talk 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. FredWalsh (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved file to Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and added Category:Female body painting. Cat deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Theodore R. Davis Rettinghaus (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- En:wp article reads en:Theodore R. Davis, and Category:Theodore Russell Davis seems to have been created as home cat of Creator:Theodore Russell Davis, both created in 2011, Category:Theodore R. Davis is the older one. So the simplest way to get off this case is changing the home cat of Creator:Theodore Russell Davis and leaving a redirect pointing from Category:Theodore Russell Davis to Category:Theodore R. Davis. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I moved the creator page and redirected Category:Theodore Russell Davis to Category:Theodore R. Davis. Thanks for pointing this out. --Jarekt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"Vocalists" does not make sense. I think this should be deleted Yanguas (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Likely a typo. Deleted with {{Bad name}} in favour of Category:Roberto Carlos (vocalist). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
s********0@hotmail.com 1.1.248.111 10:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do, reverted. --Achim (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Freedom of panorama#Uzbekistan на фотографирование таких объектов и людей нужно разрешение. Bobyrr (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: No reason to delete. --Yann (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
category is possibly redundant; it already exists a category "Renault Alpine A610/GTA", so there are two possible categories to assign a file showing an Alpine GTA. It should be discussed if there ought to be different categories for Alpine GTA and the successor Alpine A610 Purzelbier (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Conclusion: After two weeks, no one participated in the discussion. The original creator of the category was contacted but didn't respond. I'll clean up the redundance by making "Alpine GTA" a sub-category of "Renault Alpine A610/GTA", creating a new sub-category "Alpine A610" and categorizing the files appropriately.--Purzelbier (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The category title is misleading, as the depicted automobile isn't one of the brand "American Simplex" but of the brand "Simplex". The named brands are completely unrelated and often confused. "American Simplex" was a brand from Mishawaka IN existing from 1906 to 1913, specialising in two-cycle-engined cars. "Simplex" was a brand from New York later New Brunswick NJ existing from 1907 to 1919 and one of the leading US luxury cars of the time. The shown car definitely is a "Simplex" as can be seen from the radiator emblem. Compare the emblem with that visible on the image of the (Crane-)Simplex in the superordinate category "Simplex automobiles". Purzelbier (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there, I created the category, and your proposal seems reasonable to me. I'd just copied the words from the museum's description, and would be very glad to have them corrected. best wishes, Daderot (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The original creator of the category gave his o.k. to correcting the category title. --Purzelbier (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
category is obviously redundant; there already exists the category "Austin 7 Big Seven" as a sub-category of "Austin 7", which has exactly the same subject. It should be discussed which category to delete. Purzelbier (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- The correct name of the car is "Austin Big 7" or "Austin Big Seven". A model "Austin 7 Big Seven" never existed. The Big 7 was a model totally different from the 7. Therefore, the category "Austin 7 Big Seven" is redundant and should be deleted and its photos transferred to the category "Austin Big 7". --MartinHansV (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is correct. Here is the (very) small Austin part of the advertised catalogue in July 1938:
- Austin Baby '7'
-
- Ruby fixed-head saloon (no sunroof)
- Ruby saloon (sliding sunroof)
- Pearl cabriolet
- Open Road tourer
- two-seater
- Austin Big '7'
-
- Forlite fixed-head saloon
- Forlite saloon
- Sixlite fixed-head saloon
- Sixlite saloon
- Then in the same large display ad it goes into detail about "Baby Seven", "Big Seven", "Ten" etc right through the whole range to (one word this) "Twentyeight". So this cat should stay and mine should go. Thanks Purzelbier for letting me know. Maybe Category:Austin 7 should be renamed Austin Baby 7? Eddaido (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Post script. Does the world realise I made the cat Austin 7 Big Seven because I could not find Austin Big 7? I've now made a see also on Austin 7. Eddaido (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Both creators of categories "Austin Big 7" and "Austin 7 Big Seven" consensually decided to retain the correctly named "Austin Big 7" and to delete the redundant "Austin 7 Big Seven" after transferring all files. --Purzelbier (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
On January 29, the Federal District was abolished and replaced with a new Mexico City with more autonomy. A change to move Category:Mexico, D.F. to Category:Mexico City would be fitting, but it would also be large, affecting 18 immediate subcategories and at least 40 other categories, so I figured I would put it forth here. Raymie (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Any objections? No problem for CommonsDelinker to perform the move. --Achim (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Main cat done via CommonsDelinker, still 17 subcats to move. --Achim (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- 37 subcats of 1st and 2nd level below done. --Achim (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved cat to Category:Mexico City, most subcats moved as well. --Achim (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be just a mis-spelling or varaint spelling of existing Category:Pittosporum phillyreoides Mark Marathon (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, per Category:Pittosporum GRIN says phillyreoides, Plant List, Tropicos and wikispecies say phillyraeoides. --Achim (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Point being they are variant spellings. One of them needs to be redirected to the other. No comment on which needs to go, but one of them does. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Animalparty, your opinion is welcome. Not for this special case but is there a place (biology portal?) where such matter can be linked for assistance? I know of the chemists who do so. --Achim (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Point being they are variant spellings. One of them needs to be redirected to the other. No comment on which needs to go, but one of them does. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Pittosporum phillyreoides. --Achim (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This category will be set about eight years since it was created, but belong to file File:HIH Princess Kan'in Naoko.jpg only not. Since the File:HIH Princess Kan'in Naoko.jpg no longer required in order to move to the Category:Kanin no miya in the upper level, I propose the deletion of this category.
In addition deletion of a redirect has Category:Kanin Naoko to this category also will propose.--M-sho-gun (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted both of them, empty. --Achim (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This category is the lower category of Category:Kanin no miya. Only one file that has been registered, I propose the deletion as was over-classified category. Files that were in the category is already been moved to Category:Kanin no miya.
Even conjunction with I request removal of Category:Princess Shigeko Sueko and Category:Princess Kanin Yukiko for the same reason.--M-sho-gun (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted 3 empty cats. --Achim (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There are no 11th-century churches in Hamburg. From the wooden Sinstorf church, considered to have been built in the 11th century, only some wooden poles in the ground survived and could be inspected during a digging in the 1960ies. The stone church, parts of which (mainly the northern wall) are preserved in the still existing church building, was erected around the year 1200. Vsop.de (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Cat is empty now, content had been moved. --Achim (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest to move it to category category:GAZ-69. From what I read in Russian publications, it seems, that the official name of the car was just GAZ-69, no matter, if it was made by GAZ or UAZ. UAZ-69 seems to be an invention of authors, who try to be over-correct. Russian wiki doesn't use UAZ-69 name at all [1]. Now it causes unnecesary confusion, and the files are categorized as GAZ or UAZ if they have a hood stamp visible, the rest goes to GAZ/UAZ category (where 95% of cars are surely made by UAZ anyway). Pibwl (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Done per above leaving redirects. --Achim (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Zoupan, the special thing of these images is Mary being depicted as Queen to the right of the King. So an appropriate cat has to be added. I don't know if this cat should be renamed or not. Achim (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Predsta Tzaritsa" (ru:Предста Царица) is the Russian term for this iconography. If there's an universal term - it could be renamed. But I don't know such. --Shakko (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- As there is no useful translation of this term and I didn't find a matching cat of Marian icons I'd leave it as it is. --Achim (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Same situation as the category deleted via Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Cities in Hardin County, Ohio: Upper Sandusky is the only city in Wyandot County, and this category just produces an extraneous layer of navigation. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support as per precedent. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted per above. --Achim (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Same situation as the category deleted via Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Cities in Hardin County, Ohio: Defiance is the only city in Defiance County, and this category just produces an extraneous layer of navigation. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support recategorizing the subcategory and deleting this category. I don't see the need for much discussion, given the precedent. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Done per above. --Achim (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This miscapitalised and redundantly-worded "Images of.." category should, so far as I can tell, have its content merged into Category:People associated with film industry. McGeddon (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes and my bad for the spelling. I didn't find the other Cat so by all means merge them for me. I was just trying to clean up the crowded Cat. Thanks for noticing WayneRay (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged content to Category:People associated with film industry. --Achim (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems redundant to Category:Forts in India by state or territory. Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Redirect there, or delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Delete, no redirect needed. Category is also empty. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer redirecting to avoid that somebody recreates it. --Achim (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirected empty category. --Achim (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. The sub-categories in this category should be renamed into English. Aqueduto -> Aqueduct. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree - Those subcategories are the proper names of the aqueducts, and in no way should be translated into English. That's both against "no original research" rule, and the rule of the use of the title with the most common usage.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, because (unlike in the parent cat. Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal) the word "Aqueduto" here is part of the name, a proper noun. (Just like it’s Category:Pontevedra, not Category:Oldbridge.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per DarwIn and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)- Comment: and now moved to Commons:Village_pump#User:Cookie_and_unjustified_cat._name_anglicization_attempts. I don't particularly like that non-neutral title for the section, but that's where it is. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus.--Achim (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. The sub-categories in this category should be renamed into English. Aqueduto ->Aqueduct. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per Darwinius and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The word "aqueduto" isn't a proper name, but a common one and as you can see in the World Monuments Fund is perfectly translated into English, as it is not part of proper name Água da Prata.
- The same with Category:Aqueduto romano de Conímbriga that should read "Roman aqueduct in Conímbriga"
- Of course there are many categories badly named in other languages and they should be renamed as well. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- First Category:Aqueduto romano de Conímbriga is not translatable as "Roman aqueduct in Conímbriga". Second No, this is not correct as aqueduct in portuguese is always part of the proper name of any singular aqueduct, as any native speaker of portuguese would know, and per Commons policies and practices per Commons:Categories#Category_names "Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form" and per pratice every european language keeps the names of its structures in its native(s) language(s), and are not "badly named in other languages".
- And if you claim that "I don't understand Portuguese", how do you know if this is or is not a proper name in portuguese, contradicting three native speakers of portuguese?
- Also if, as you claim that the categories should be all in english, can you explain why did you create new categories in spanish for the last six years, of the same kind of subjects, such as Category:Museo Nacional de Cerámica y de las Artes Suntuarias González Martí (this one moved by you from the Catalan Category:Museu de Ceràmica), Category:Peña Ezkaurre moved from Category:Ezkaurre to Category:Teatro Apolo (Madrid), Category:La Revoltosa, Category:Lagunas del Canal de Castilla, Category:Rías Occidentales y Duna de Oyambre, Category:Reserva Natural Parcial de Cueva Rosa, Category:Parque natural de Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche, Category:Puertos de Áliva, Category:Serra do Careón, Category:Río Gévora Bajo (site of community importance), Category:Torre de los Horcados Rojos, Category:Casa de Manuel Díez Quijada Alcalde, Cigales, Category:Museo Taurino de Valencia, Category:Estanca de los Dos Reinos, Category:Sierra de Leyre, Category:Foz de Lumbier, and one in portuguese of the brazilian Category:Parque Estadual Pico Marumbi.
- Why the double standard? Tm (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus.--Achim (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. This category should be renamed into English. Aqueduto ->Aqueduct. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, because it is part of a name, a proper noun. (Just like it’s Category:Pontevedra, not Category:Oldbridge.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree This category is the proper name of the aqueduct, and in no way should be translated into English. That's both against "no original research" rule, and the rule of the use of the title with the most common usage.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per DarwIn and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is just one aqueduct located in Pontes, a freguesia in Castro Laboreiro, isn't? Then aqueduct here isn't a proper name either. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, this is not just one aqueduct located in Pontes, as this is the proper name, given by the locals and the portuguese cultural heritage authorities. And if you claim that "I don't understand Portuguese", how do you know if this is or is not a proper name in portuguese, contradicting three native speakers of portuguese?
- Also if, as you claim that the categories should be all in english, can you explain why did you create new categories in spanish for the last six years, of the same kind of subjects, such as Category:Museo Nacional de Cerámica y de las Artes Suntuarias González Martí (this one moved by you from the Catalan Category:Museu de Ceràmica), Category:Peña Ezkaurre moved from Category:Ezkaurre to Category:Teatro Apolo (Madrid), Category:La Revoltosa, Category:Lagunas del Canal de Castilla, Category:Rías Occidentales y Duna de Oyambre, Category:Reserva Natural Parcial de Cueva Rosa, Category:Parque natural de Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche, Category:Puertos de Áliva, Category:Serra do Careón, Category:Río Gévora Bajo (site of community importance), Category:Torre de los Horcados Rojos, Category:Casa de Manuel Díez Quijada Alcalde, Cigales, Category:Museo Taurino de Valencia, Category:Estanca de los Dos Reinos, Category:Sierra de Leyre, Category:Foz de Lumbier, and one in portuguese of the brazilian Category:Parque Estadual Pico Marumbi.
- Why the double standard? Tm (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree As per disagrees above. --Kusurija (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. The sub-categories in this category should be renamed into English. Necrópole->Necropolis. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per Darwinius and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. This category should be renamed to Cemetery. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per Darwinius and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. The sub-categories should be renamed to Cemetery. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Those subcategories are the proper names of the cemeteries, and in no way should be translated into English. That's both against "no original research" rule, and the rule of the use of the title with the most common usage. It would be absolutely ridiculous to have something as "Cemetery of the Sorrows" instead of "Cemitério das Angústias". Please stop nominating this kind of categories for discussion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto (that’s Italian, by the way; means "likewise"). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per DarwIn and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Tm#nombres de categorías. See also: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. Many sub-categories in this meta category should be renamed. Igreja ->Church. Capel->Chapel. Mosteiro ->Monastery Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree Per policy in Commons:Categories#Category_names stating that "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form", per Darwinius and my talk page, and several other categories of other countries as France, Germany, Belgium (in Flemish and French), Spain (in Spanish, Galician, Catalan, etc), there are several countries that have the proper names in their languages per . Also why the spreading of this discussion in to several other categories like:
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Classified aqueducts in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemitério de Aldeia de Santa Margarida
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Cemeteries in Funchal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Necropolises in Portugal
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Aqueduto de Pontes
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Ancient Roman aqueducts in Portugal
- Why not concentrate into one site? Tm (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree You are probably talking about categories for particular individual objects. Please be refered to Commons:Categories#Category names. Quote, emphasis is mine:
- Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form – Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script.
- Categories like Category:Igreja Matriz de Alvito fall under this clause, i.e. they are not to be translated ad-hoc into English but instead the original form is to be retained. For the same reason, Category:Chartres Cathedral was renamed to Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres (see this discussion). --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, ditto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Centralized discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment:It depends on the interpretation of the rule. If you consider that a church with Saint Peter advocation in Spain —"iglesia de San Pedro"— is an specific building name, the rule says what you are saying. But I don't think "iglesia de San Pedro en Villavieja" was a specific name (although it was a name of an specific building), but general, very general. There are a lot of "iglesias de San Pedro" around the world, which can be perfectly translated into English. I think taht Particular individual object refers to buildings (or other things) like "Casa Rosada", "Palacio de la Zarzuela"... I disagree with the change Chartres Cathedral to Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, for instance, but I accept the change. Anyway, the name of the categories must be so that everyone can find what he's searching, so could be possible to create pages redirecting categories? I mean, to access "Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres" can I create a redirect page called "Catedral de Nuestra Señora en Chartres"? --DPC (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC) PS. When I write "page" I mean "gallery".
- @David Perez: I guess that you will hardly find any church category named “iglesia de San Pedro” below Category:Churches in Portugal, do you? In general, it is best to include the name of the city or town within the category name for a church or cathedral like it was done for Category:Igreja de São Pedro de Roriz or Category:Igreja de São Pedro de Tarouca. If you want to include the Spanish name of Chartres Cathedral at Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, please add a description using the {{Es}} template. Then a search using the Spanish name will be successful. There exists, BTW, a plan to support the internationalization of Commons categories (see T120451) which made it into the top-ten of the recent community wishlist (see for the proposal and the supporting votes). It will take its time, though, as there is still an open discussion on how this should be implemented. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Iglesia de san Pedro is an example, I won't try to search it in Portuguese categories. Please read what I've written. And, if people who create categories must include the names in other languages with the {{Es}} template to facilitate the search for others... that's utopic! --DPC (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @David Perez: I guess that you will hardly find any church category named “iglesia de San Pedro” below Category:Churches in Portugal, do you? In general, it is best to include the name of the city or town within the category name for a church or cathedral like it was done for Category:Igreja de São Pedro de Roriz or Category:Igreja de São Pedro de Tarouca. If you want to include the Spanish name of Chartres Cathedral at Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, please add a description using the {{Es}} template. Then a search using the Spanish name will be successful. There exists, BTW, a plan to support the internationalization of Commons categories (see T120451) which made it into the top-ten of the recent community wishlist (see for the proposal and the supporting votes). It will take its time, though, as there is still an open discussion on how this should be implemented. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Should be Category:Polish Orthodox Church as per Polish Orthodox Church Zoupan (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support, and maybe Category:Priests of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church should be adjusted on the fly? --Achim (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Support.
Question What about Category:Orthodox Church in Poland by city?.--Zoupan (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep it because of its 46 subcats. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- ^
Moved per above. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Economic maps of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Economic maps of Serbia via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Maps of subdivisions of Serbia. Leave redirect. Zoupan (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Maps of subdivisions of Serbia via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Not used correctly and already exists as Category:Raphael (given name) Reguyla (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant to Category:Ogv videos ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirecting. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Copy of Category:Monastery of Panagia Vlachernas - Skripero (Corfu) Zoupan (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't this also redundant with Category:Moni ton Vlachernon (Corfu)? None of these names seems great to me. It seems there is more than one Monastery of Panagia Vlacherna(s?) in Greece (not to mention one in Florida), but only one on Corfu, and as far as I can tell, there's only one Skripero, so simply disambiguating with either (Skipero) or (Corfu) should be sufficient. (There is a Category:Church of Agioi Pantes and Panagia Vlacherna (Corfu) but I think it's unrelated.) We could translate to "Monastery of Panagia Vlacherna" or "Monastery of Panagia Vlahernon", or try to keep the full proper name by transliterating to "Moni ton Panagia Vlacherna" or "Moni ton Panagia Vlahernon" or something like "Moní Panagías tis Vlachérnas" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Monastery of Vlachernon, Skripero, or simply "Skripero monastery"?--Zoupan (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course Category:Ιερά Μονή της Παναγίας της Βλαχέρνας – Σκριπερό (Κέρκυρας) is a dupe of Category:Monastery of Panagia Vlachernas - Skripero (Corfu), created by the same author. But there are several locations that carry Βλαχέρνας or Βλαχέρνων in their names.
- Category:Monastery of Panagia Vlachernas - Skripero (Corfu) is listed here
- The quite famous Category:Moni ton Vlachernon (Corfu) is a different one not listed there because it isn't used as a monastery anymore, for its name see here.
- Finally there is this church not far away also in Corfu city, see also here. Maybe it's the one of Category:Church of Agioi Pantes and Panagia Vlacherna (Corfu).
- --Achim (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course Category:Ιερά Μονή της Παναγίας της Βλαχέρνας – Σκριπερό (Κέρκυρας) is a dupe of Category:Monastery of Panagia Vlachernas - Skripero (Corfu), created by the same author. But there are several locations that carry Βλαχέρνας or Βλαχέρνων in their names.
- Move to Category:Monastery of Vlachernon, Skripero, or simply "Skripero monastery"?--Zoupan (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for making sense of that when I couldn't, Achim55 Should we follow the name from orthodox-world.org and move to Category:Yperageia Theotokos Vlachernon Orthodox Monastery, Skripero ? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to confirm: I moved the little content of this category to Category:Rank insignia and created a corresponding redirect. Hope that's ok. By the way: please have a look to Category:Shoulder marks discussion. Thx! W like wiki (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Rail vehicle wheels Oxyman (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged content to Category:Rail vehicle wheels leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
mistake (typo) in name Patrol110 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ist leer. Kann gelöscht werden. Category:Dorfkirche Wusterwitz existiert. Haster (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 1 March 2016. --Achim (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a discussion for deletion for files inside this category and NOT only for the category itself. I filed Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Power Party Logo Without Text.jpg for deletion and it got passed. If that's a valid reason it would apply to all files inside this category. Liangent (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- List of files:
- File:Logo with text 2.jpg (needs renaming if kept)
- File:Logo with text y.jpg (needs renaming if kept)
- File:New Power Party Logo Without Text.svg
- File:New Power Party logo.jpg
- File:New Power Party Logo.png
- File:New Power Party logo.svg
- File:Npp hor01.png
- File:Npp logo withtext.png
- File:Npp logo.jpg
Deleted: Copyrighted logo's. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Files, I agreed with Revent that categories for media types (e.g. Category:PNG files) should not be in the same category tree as content-related categories (e.g. Category:Icons representing PNG files). That separation kind of breaks down here, because there is a logic to having both the examples above in Category:PNG, along with any diagrams/illustrations of how PNG works. That doesn't have to be the case though Category:PNG files could be removed from Category:PNG (and so on...). It also might make sense to rename categories like Category:PNG as Category:PNG file format for clarity. Any thoughts on any of this? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been thinking more about this, and I believe the current system needs to change. With the current setup, a .PNG file that illustrates the PNG file format would need to be both in the parent Category:PNG and the child Category:PNG files. The same goes for a JPG image about the JPG file image, or an SVG file about the SVG file format. So, I propose the following:
- Move all "extension acronym" categories (e.g. Category:PNG to either Category:PNG file format or a spelled out Category:Portable Network Graphics (which seems to be more common on wikipedia).
- Remove the "media type" categories (e.g. Category:PNG files from those categories, but leave a {{See also}} note on both page directing users to the alternative category
- In some cases, this will mean creating a new "media type" category and moving files appropriately, or simple renaming (e.g. Category:Fireworks PNG -> Category:Fireworks PNG files because it contains no media about Fireworks PNG, and possibly the same for Category:XCF as well.)
I think that should do it. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
With no opposition, I've slowly made these changes and although it's not perfect, it's now sufficiently complete for me to close discussion. Categories renamed, and sorted between Category:File formats and Category:Media by file format. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Cathedral of Christ's Resurrection, Tirana. There is no other Cathedral of Christ's Resurrection in Tirana, so there's no need to disambiguate further. Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- It could also go to Category:Resurrection of Christ Orthodox Cathedral of Tirana to match en:Resurrection of Christ Orthodox Cathedral of Tirana. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Resurrection of Christ Orthodox Cathedral of Tirana. --Achim (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
this is a fake personalitie André Koehne TALK TO ME 06:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- This claim came up in the discussion at en:Talk:Konstantin Tsiolkovsky#William Tetly. Do you have additional evidence? If the two radio pictures in Category:William Tetly (physicist) don't belong there, where do the belong? If the article pt:William Tetly is deleted, the category should be deleted, too. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The two radio images are very small and contain no exif data, yet are claimed as "own work" by User:Pierre_de_coubertin, (along with the image of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky misidentified as Tetly). I suspect they can be safely deleted as copyright violations. There's no need of evidence that Tetly does not exist (what would such evidence look like, anyway?). There is need of evidence that he did exist to justify keeping this category. If Pierre de coubertin does not provide any, the category and his images can safely be deleted, and appropriate administrator actions can be taken against him for hoaxing. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Trick in Portuguese Wikipedia ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- DeleteMeanwhile, pt:William Tetly has been deleted and redirected to pt:Wikipédia:Lista de artigos falsos na Wikipédia. So I agree to remove Category:William Tetly (physicist) as well. To begin with, I'll remove that categorization from the two Tsiolkovsky images there. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've nominated the two remaining images for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The remaining files have been deleted. Category is empty, and rather unlikely to fill, since no such person exists. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The entirety of this category consists of bulk-imported images by User:Co9man. All we know is that they were taken on an aeroplane on his trip to Bangalore. They're obviously not of Bangalore city itself, they might be of the surrounding district, but they totally lack any further location and background information that might render them useful. Without this, they're endless photos of unidentified landscape. Some of them are okay, some of them look quite good, but do we need them all? Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's definitely a lot of photos. I'm not sure this is the right space for discussion though, Ubcule. There's nothing wrong with the category per se, especially given the huge number of photos it currently holds. If you think some of these photos should be deleted, you should nominate them for deletion. You can just nominate one and mention others in your nomination, or perhaps use ViseualFileChange to do a batch nomination. Unless all or almost all of them are deleted, however, there's no need to change the category at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point; to be honest, I'd be slightly hesitant about nominating the lot as Deletion Requests often *do* end up with deletion even if the main intent was to spark a discussion which didn't happen. I'll probably nominate one sample, though. Thanks for the feedback, Ubcule (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
A great many images have been deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore) but not all, so I'm going to close this as a keep. I expect that's fine with everyone concerned. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Should be Category:Graves of Christians Zoupan (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Moved. I will ask an admin to close this (and perhaps delete the redirect). --Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Graves of Christians, as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Who uses this term? These objects are called "pews" both in North America and the UK; the en:wp article is entitled "Pew", and en:church bench doesn't even exist as a redirect. Therefore, proposing that this be moved to Category:Pews (currently a redirect to here) and that all "Church benches in X" subcategories be moved to "Pews in X". Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support as long as bench-ends don't become pew-ends. ;) --Achim (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support sounds sensible to me. Acabashi (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved files and redirected in opposite direction. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's empty. There were humorists from Spain and Italy, in which languages "comico" means "humorist". Yanguas (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why it's empty. I'm not in the habit of creating empty categories. Perhaps it had files or subcats in it when I created it, and they were moved or deleted. But if you want to delete the cat, I'm fine with that. Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yanguas & Nightscream: Until recently, the category also contained File:Comicologo.png. I've re-added that file to the category, but I'm somewhat skeptical about the existence of the category. Given that the comics are all under copyright, and that it wasn't a particularly prominent or long-lasting company, I have to wonder about the chances of more content ever being uploaded. If it is kept, I'd like to propose a rename to Category:Comico: The Comic Company or Category:Comico (publisher) to avoid the potential for overlap with Italian comedians. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree the rename to Category:Comico:The Comic Company. Yanguas (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Comico: The Comic Company as per discussion. --rimshottalk 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:Files changed by PokestarFan seems to be a mixture of user creations and images that PokestarFan has uploaded a new version of. While I have no opposition for a user category for uploads, it seems inappropriate to add a user category simply for uploading a new version of the file to remove a credit bar and/or watermark. For example, PokestarFan used croptool to remove a watermark and credit bar from File:Airbus A319-112, Mexicana AN1631058.jpg and then added the category. Thoughts? --Riley Huntley (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - While some of the files he uploads are admirable, I don't think a category for his files are needed. Nepaxt (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This kind of thing can be found by looking at the user's contributions. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As above. BMacZero (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Closing as delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
WayneRay has pointed out that the category contains no definition, though it's parent categories suggest it is for academic theses. Much of the content is images of published works (rather than complete works) and because of this, it's difficult to know if the publication was actually a thesis or a published book. There is a poorly named sub-category Category:PD Thesis which seems to contain actual academic theses, allegedly in the Public Domain, though this seems questionable to me. At very least, the category needs cleaning up. WayneRay has suggested deletion for the whole category, but theoretically, a doctoral or MA thesis could be uploaded to commons. Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- After a proper heading is added could most of the images go into a title like Images from Theses without text? or Although as I think about it most of the sub cats would go in there as well. The PD I think is not Public Domain but PDF as all are PDF files. I added that to Cat Education PDF files These are just images and could be redirected to Books by year etc. Maybe some Admin should tell Fae to smarten up and stop dumping files without putting them in accompanying Categories (nicely) WayneRay (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prior to the last hundred years, the word also had a very different meaning, see w:en:The Ninety-Five Theses. I suggest renaming the the cat to Category:Academic Theses and restricted to those works / PDFs which had author, year, degree name and institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree WayneRay (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Given the relatively small number of users in these disucssions I'd wait until the discussion had been open for a month before declaring a concensis. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Academic theses and dissertations. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Jeangagnon recently moved Category:Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization to Category:Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of History. That's understandable, since the name of the museum has changed, but I believe "Canada Hall" was closed when the museum was renamed "Canadian Museum of History" and a totally new exhibit, "Canadian History Hall", will open in July 2017. The contained images were therefore of an exhibit at the CMC not the CMH. I'm wondering if it was really appropriate to rename the category. Or is there some better alternative? Thoughts? Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Restored name, and created Category:Canadian History Hall at the Canadian Museum of History for new images. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The category hosts images on a mortuary cult event which took place at the wooden church in Totoreni, Bihor. My opinion is that the description is enough for these photos to be described, and we don't need a separate category. I suggest moving all these images to the parent category about the wooden church. // Gikü said done Monday, 22 February 2016 17:28 (UTC) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- A number of the contained images don't depict the church at all. It makes sense to me to keep them separate, though this category could be much better categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Close as keep, though category has been moved to Category:Paștele Morților, Totoreni, 2008
Redundant with Category:Grasslands in Slovenia. We should pick either "of" or "in. Themightyquill (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Grasslands in Denmark
- Category:Grasslands in Canada
- Category:Grasslands in the Philippines
- Category:Grasslands in Italy
- Category:Grasslands in Japan
- Category:Grasslands in Maroc
- Category:Grasslands in the Netherlands
- Category:Grasslands in Turkey
- Category:Grasslands of India
- Category:Grasslands of the United States
- Stylistically, I'm neutral as to which direction we move things. If no one else has an opinion, it's slightly less work to move 3 categories to "in" instead of 8 categories to "of". - Themightyquill (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Both ways are ok to me. I agree with the comment. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ii is a duplicate of category:Grasslands in Slovenia. I redirect. Pierre cb (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is much wider than this, because there are many other categories which have both "in" and "of". Things that correspond to countries often redirect "in" to "of", for example:
- Category:Hills in Greece redirects to Category:Hills of Greece
- Category:Hills in India redirects to Category:Hills of India
- Category:Wetlands in Germany redirects to Category:Wetlands of Germany
But in this example we have both:
It's not possible to unify this. Let it as it is. --ProfessorX (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The "National forests" category is slightly different because they are formally designated as national forests by the government, like national parks. The same isn't true of purely physical-geographic categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Moving to "in". - Themightyquill (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Stefan Dušan as per principles and WP use. Leave redirect. Zoupan (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirected to Category:Stefan Dušan. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it really necessary category, meeting categorisation guidelines? Or is this maybe only a joke? Karol Szapsza (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I created the category seriously. I was creating various subcategories of Category:Male toplessness at the time, and I thought this one would be useful (and, yes, slightly amusing). Of course, no one has added large numbers of additional files to it, and I certainly won't mind its being deleted if it's not wanted anymore. Thank you for asking the question, Karol. Gildir (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I also believe that it would be better to delete this cat. --E4024 (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This is only an example. I have put both codes on the one page. The difference between Works (from country) and books from country by year. Are works and books the same thing or are they different. Where do I put books by year by country from now on. User:Butko is giving me the codes for books by country by year which show up on each Books by year page. The works by country by year do not show up on Books by year. This also occurs in Works from Germany and Books from Germany.WayneRay (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- WayneRay, the Books level is below the Works level, because works can for example also be paintings, sculptures or buildings. --Achim (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I changed the template, so Category:1598 books from Sweden is now automatically listed in Category:1598 works in Sweden. --Achim (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hope it works for other countries. The only other one I ran into for books was Hungary. Where besides User:Butko do I get the books by country by year coding for all the countries. I am cleaning up all the books by year and other book related Cats. like Category:Books from the Netherlands by year Thanks WayneRay (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be Category:Icons of Christ the King as per Christ the King. Zoupan (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, it's a mess and a difficult thing which requires a closer look. But for now it's a good idea having a Category:Icons of Christ the King. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- In my living room there's a Pantocrator icon, so I think we should first have a look at the Pantocrator (=Almighty) who is always depicted with a gospel book. On the other hand the King is shown with insignia (at least a crown) but some depictions overlap:
-
King -
King -
King/Pantocrator ? -
King/Pantocrator ? -
Pantocrator -
Pantocrator
_by_shakko.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
So I suggest to add icons of the King/Pantocrator type to both categories. And King should not be a subcat of Pantocrator nor vice versa. But wait, it will become more complicated as we have for example this type of Pantocrator,
who is not a King but a High Priest. Oops. Next time more... --Achim (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Christ Great Hierophant" (Velikiy Arkhiyerey, ru:Великий Архиерей) is not about the King (Pantocrator). It is about the Bishop. He wears not crown, but Russian Orthodox Mitre, and the scarf with crosses on his shoulders is Omophorion - the element of bishop's dress. As I see now in the categories listed below everything is mess. --Shakko (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, btw, "Veliki Arkhiyerey" is translated as "Great Archpriest" (Arch-Hierarch), while "Great Hierophant" is not used anywhere. Move to Category:Icons of Christ the Great Archpriest?--Zoupan (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- On board again, Shakko is completely right, we have to look for liturgical clothing including mitra by means of which Christ is depicted as a en:High priest/bishop/hierophant (meaning the same here). The images above show some so that they are primarily not to be treated as King/Pantocrator. I think there is no need to rename this category, perhaps it might be Icons of.... So there remain very few King icons, so they could be moved to either Pantocrator or Hierophant as well. If it was renamed I'd prefer something like Christ the High priest per Hebrews 6:20 and others. --Achim (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Those depicting him as an archpriest should absolutely be housed at one category. This depiction of Jesus will have its own article on WP. I don't see how "Hierophant" would be plausible since it is a term used primarily for Ancient Greek history. So, either Archpriest or High priest. Archpriest goes in line with Christianity, high priest is more ambiguous, most oftenly used for ancient (pre-Christian) history. A note will take care of the different terms/translations.--Zoupan (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question Move to Category:Christ the Archpriest or Category:Icons of Christ the Archpriest?--Zoupan (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Those depicting him as an archpriest should absolutely be housed at one category. This depiction of Jesus will have its own article on WP. I don't see how "Hierophant" would be plausible since it is a term used primarily for Ancient Greek history. So, either Archpriest or High priest. Archpriest goes in line with Christianity, high priest is more ambiguous, most oftenly used for ancient (pre-Christian) history. A note will take care of the different terms/translations.--Zoupan (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- On board again, Shakko is completely right, we have to look for liturgical clothing including mitra by means of which Christ is depicted as a en:High priest/bishop/hierophant (meaning the same here). The images above show some so that they are primarily not to be treated as King/Pantocrator. I think there is no need to rename this category, perhaps it might be Icons of.... So there remain very few King icons, so they could be moved to either Pantocrator or Hierophant as well. If it was renamed I'd prefer something like Christ the High priest per Hebrews 6:20 and others. --Achim (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, btw, "Veliki Arkhiyerey" is translated as "Great Archpriest" (Arch-Hierarch), while "Great Hierophant" is not used anywhere. Move to Category:Icons of Christ the Great Archpriest?--Zoupan (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- as I see in Russian article, name goes from
- Psalms 109:4 (English 110): Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
- Jebrews 5:10: So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest.
- Zechariah 3:10: the high priest standing before the angel
- So in English maybe should be "high priest"? And with "Icons of..."
- Also it is said that exist sub-iconography "Great Archpriest+King of Kings" where Jesus is depicted with both signs of dignity. So maybe create the subcategory for mixed type?
- Category:Icons of Christ the King (=King of Kings) is ok, he is in crown and emperor's dress (dalmatic). Link to the icon encycl. with pictures, Russian descr.. Category:Predsta Tzaritsa they said is sub of it, as Deesis version.
- Pantocrator is with hair and Bible in hand, not orb--Shakko (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Shakko but I didn't like a separate mixed cat High priest/King. These images might be added to both categories and don't require an intersecting one. --Achim (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, archpriest is a title which is in orthodox churches in use today but in a somewhat different (more clergy-hierarchical) meaning, so I think the intention might be misunderstood. --Achim (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't support a mixed cat, simply add both cats to appropriate images. The icons are all Orthodox ones, would "Archpriest" really be a problem? OK, Category:Icons of Christ the High Priest it is?--Zoupan (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer this cat name because today an archpriest's rank is below a bishop's. --Achim (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Achim55: You mean you prefer "High Priest"? It isn't clear if you mean the latter or "Christ Great Hierophant", which is a non-existant terminology.--Zoupan (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, sorry, yes of course, High Priest was I meant. --Achim (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Great! .--Zoupan (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, sorry, yes of course, High Priest was I meant. --Achim (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Achim55: You mean you prefer "High Priest"? It isn't clear if you mean the latter or "Christ Great Hierophant", which is a non-existant terminology.--Zoupan (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer this cat name because today an archpriest's rank is below a bishop's. --Achim (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't support a mixed cat, simply add both cats to appropriate images. The icons are all Orthodox ones, would "Archpriest" really be a problem? OK, Category:Icons of Christ the High Priest it is?--Zoupan (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Zoupan and Achim55: Did you find a consensus here? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so, moving to Category:Icons of Christ the High Priest and redirecting there. --Achim (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Achim (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be good to rename all subcategories of this category consistent in the scheme "Bahnhof <station name>". Freddy2001 talk 09:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Freddy2001, no problem for me, the important thing is that whatever scheme is consistent. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's the list of categories I see, along with their replacements:
- Category:Wien Blumental train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Blumental
- Category:Wien Gersthof train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Gersthof
- Category:Wien Hadersdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hadersdorf
- Category:Wien Hausfeldstraße train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hausfeldstraße
- Category:Wien Hütteldorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hütteldorf
- Category:Wien Inzersdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Inzersdorf
- Category:Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz
- Category:Wien Meidling train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Meidling
- Category:Wien Mitte train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Mitte
- Category:Wien Nußdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Nußdorf
- Category:Wien Penzing train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Penzing
- Category:Wien Quartier Belvedere train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Quartier Belvedere
- Category:Wien Weidlingau train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Weidlingau
- Category:Wien Wolf in der Au train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Wolf in der Au
Does that look right, Freddy2001? As you can see, most have already been redirected in the opposite direction. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- On closer inspection those two that aren't redirected from "Bahnof X" are redirected from Category:Haltestelle Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz and Category:Haltestelle Wien Quartier Belvedere. Are those the categories we should be using, or the "Bahnhof X" categories above? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Themightyquill, Sorry for my late answer but the last days I was very busy and I had not the time for Commons. After a closer look I found out that there more stops are called "Haltestelle". Here's a list:
- Category:Wien Blumental train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Blumental > Haltestelle Wien Blumental[1]
- Category:Wien Gersthof train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Gersthof > Haltestelle Wien Gersthof[2]
- Category:Wien Hadersdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hadersdorf > Haltestelle Wien Hadersdorf[3]
- Category:Wien Hausfeldstraße train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hausfeldstraße > Haltestelle Wien Hausfeldstraße[4]
- Category:Wien Hütteldorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Hütteldorf > is ok[5]
- Category:Wien Inzersdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Inzersdorf > is ok
- Category:Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz > Haltestelle Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz[6]
- Category:Wien Meidling train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Meidling > is ok[7]
- Category:Wien Mitte train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Mitte > is ok[8]
- Category:Wien Nußdorf train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Nußdorf > is ok[9]
- Category:Wien Penzing train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Penzing > is ok[10]
- Category:Wien Quartier Belvedere train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Quartier Belvedere > Haltestelle Wien Quartier Belvedere[11]
- Category:Wien Weidlingau train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Weidlingau > Haltestelle Wien Weidlingau[12]
- Category:Wien Wolf in der Au train station > Category:Bahnhof Wien Wolf in der Au > Haltestelle Wien Wolf in der Au[13]
I think it is a good way to differ the railway stations with naming "Bahnhof *" and the train stops with naming "Haltestelle *", because there is a difference between the two types of train stations. Even it would be good to name the categories with the real names that the train stations were given by the operator. -- Freddy2001 talk 11:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- ↑ w:de:Liste der Wiener S-Bahn-Stationen
- ↑ w:de:Haltestelle Wien Gersthof
- ↑ w:de:Hadersdorf-Weidlingau#Verkehr
- ↑ w:de:U-Bahn-Station_Hausfeldstraße
- ↑ w:de:Bahnhof Wien Hütteldorf
- ↑ w:de:Haltestelle Wien Matzleinsdorfer Platz
- ↑ w:de:Bahnhof Wien Meidling
- ↑ w:de:Bahnhof Wien Mitte
- ↑ w:de:Bahnhof Wien Nußdorf
- ↑ w:de:Bahnhof Wien Penzing
- ↑ w:de:Haltestelle Wien Quartier Belvedere
- ↑ w:de:Westbahn (Österreich)
- ↑ w:de:Westbahn (Österreich)
- The above looks great to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: This is the first time I'm seeing this discussion, and I strongly disagree with using German category names again. Train stations aren't proper nouns and as such per our language policy need to be in English. FDMS 4 11:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: Why aren't they proper nouns? Certainly they could be considered proper nouns, no? Isn't that why the T is capitalized in en:Grand Central Terminal ? In Category:S-Bahn stations in Hamburg (just the first category I glanced at for comparison), both the English and the German are used, but when the English is used, Station is usually capitalized, indicating a proper noun. Given that they'll all be in an English-language category (Category:S-Bahn stations in Vienna) and all these moves above will result in redirects, I don't see this as a big problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Are you aware that all nouns are capitalised in German? I'm not saying that train station names cannot be proper nouns, just that names of ordinary train stations that are referred to using a variety of terms (Station Wien Hernals, Bahnhof Wien Hernals, Halt(-estelle/-epunkt) Wien Hernals etc.) generally aren't. This has been discussed many times before – the nominator was asked to stop renaming train station categories only a month ago by Gürbetaler. What "big problem" is there with category names being in a language not only DACH people understand? FDMS 4 12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: Why aren't they proper nouns? Certainly they could be considered proper nouns, no? Isn't that why the T is capitalized in en:Grand Central Terminal ? In Category:S-Bahn stations in Hamburg (just the first category I glanced at for comparison), both the English and the German are used, but when the English is used, Station is usually capitalized, indicating a proper noun. Given that they'll all be in an English-language category (Category:S-Bahn stations in Vienna) and all these moves above will result in redirects, I don't see this as a big problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Meh... we don't have a clear policy on this, I don't think there's a wholly valid argument one way or the other. I'd still say they are formal names because they must have formal names (at least the Bahnhofs), and what else could they be? And if, as you admit, some trainstations are going to have categories with "Bahnhof" then for me it makes sense to use bahnhof in all of them for consistency. But if you feel strongly about it, you can close this as no consensus. I certainly can't pretend there is consensus to change them (unless I go invite all those angry people commenting under the "Members of parliaments of Germany" to comment here, and I won't do that.) - Themightyquill (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing as no consensus as suggested above 18 months ago with no further input since then. FDMS 4 08:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Animations of Strokkur
I'd like to suggest we not categorize items by their specific filetype and their content. There are other types of animation files that can be uploaded to wikipedia. The contained GIF files should be in both Category:Animated GIF files and (the proposed) Category:Animations of Strokkur.
This also applies to:
- Category:Animated_gifs_of_orbits > Category:Animations of orbits
- Category:Historical film as animated gif > Category:Historical film as animation
Thanks for your input. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are there animations of orbits that are not GIF files? I see no reason why we cant have a Category:Animations of orbits with Category:Animated_gifs_of_orbits as a subcat. BD2412 T 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, BD2412. Perhaps there aren't currently animations of orbits that are not GIF files, but there certainly could be animations of orbits produced in ogv, svg and png formats. And the reasons for not creating Category:Animations of orbits with a subcat of Category:Animated gifs of orbits is to avoid mixing filetype category trees and content category trees - the same reason we don't have Category:JPEG photographs of dogs and Category:GIF photographs of dogs as a sub-categories of Category:Photographs of dogs. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
OK 3 year old discussion. I did redirect to Category:Animations of Strokkur as suggested by user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Merge ambiguous similar topics? djr13 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
These three categories cover similar ambiguous topics. The "logos" category currently has the vast majority of content in it, and the other two appear to have content which would probably be more applicable to the "logos" category anyway. There may be instances which are better suited to "mastheads" or "headers" but it isn't obvious, and sorting these would be a large task.
Note specifically the description provided by Category:Newspaper mastheads. djr13 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good nomination, Djr13. I have to admit, I also thought "masthead" meant the top part of the front page including the logo, etc. Is "header" the right word for that? Am I wrong that Category:Newspaper mastheads would be empty if all of its contents were properly sorted (to Category:Newspaper headers)? ie. Do we actually have any images of newspaper mastheads? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems possible, though it'd probably take quite some digging, just considering all the newspaper scans (and perhaps especially considering Wikisource). If all three were kept, we'd definitely need to put up some set of Template:Distinguish alongside longer explanations. djr13 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Upon reading en:Nameplate (publishing), I realized the category description at Category:Newspaper mastheads was just the American usage, but British usage is different - hence the confusion. I hope it's okay that I went ahead and acted to disambiguate "Mastheads" - the "header" definition of masthead is known as Category:Newspaper nameplates in American English, whereas the "editors/authors" definition of masthead is known as the "imprint" (Category:Newspaper imprints can be created if any are found.
- But while I've moved everything to Category:Newspaper nameplates, that doesn't mean it can't be deleted and/or merged with Category:Newspaper logos if that's what consensus dictates. I can see the benefits of a merger, but I can also see how nameplate is different from logo. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like a pretty good fix, thanks for helping sort it out! I'm tempted to also add Category:Newspaper front pages to the collection of categories. Sorting miscategorizations will probably be an endless problem regardless of how well we tag these. djr13 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know about good, but I don't think it hurt. I've added disambiguation links between nameplates and Category:Newspaper front pages at your suggestion, but as you say, this all will likely remain a bit of mess for the foreseeable future. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like a pretty good fix, thanks for helping sort it out! I'm tempted to also add Category:Newspaper front pages to the collection of categories. Sorting miscategorizations will probably be an endless problem regardless of how well we tag these. djr13 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Djr13 and Themightyquill: , what about a portmanteau category: "Logos of news media" so to encompass also TV news channel and such? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think this might already exist in Category:Logos associated with mass media, no? djr13 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not exactly, @Djr13: : news media is a subset of mass media, specifically meant for information. Mass media could be every radio or tv channel, or a newspaper, or even a gossip weekly magazine and so on. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think this might already exist in Category:Logos associated with mass media, no? djr13 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Irrespectively of the proposed merger, I hate headlinese (and, particularly, this noun–noun pattern) demonstrated by some Commons categorizers. Should be renamed to Logos of newspapers. English is not intended to conserve the count of words. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: already done. --ƏXPLICIT 00:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Upmerge, unneeded sub-categorization. Zoupan (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Should be Category:History of Germany by former state or Category:History of Germany by historical state. Zoupan (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it's fine the way it is. Your proposal to name it 'by state' has two issues: for one, in the context of Germany, state always refers to the w:German Länder. There already is a Category:Historical states of Germany which rightly also includes all those Category:Territories of the Holy Roman Empire. Besides, the cfd currently collects all sorts of historic political units, like Ancient Roman provinces, Frankish kingdoms, dependent Medieval territories, or the w:former eastern territories of Germany (or Prussia respectively). "History of Germany by historical state" is propably not a very desirable category, as it will most likely motivate user to create categories of the likes of "Category:History of Prussia" (what Germans call "Verschlimmbesserung-en"...: Prussia in her entirety should be archived as history). --88.69.88.161 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Per {{Automobile}}, this should be entitled "Veteran automobiles". Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The word "automobile" is a North American English term for "car". If anything, I would suggest that the word "automobile" be replaced everywhere by the more universally used English word- "car". DeFacto (talk). 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- No valid reason given in the nomination - a template of one author's personal opinion carries no weight. Particularly not when this is such a loaded term and so regularly political here. I would also note that en:WP has shifted from using "automobile" to "car".
- "Consistency" carries little weight - MediaWiki just doesn't need it. Category membership is defined by membership, not by pattern-matching the names. Although a perennially popular misconception hereabouts, all it ever achieves is to shoehorn the loudest voice's subjective opinion into inappropriate contexts.
- "Category:Vintage cars" also has a different meaning to "Category:Vintage automobiles": "cars" would follow the accepted RAC definition of 1905 to 1930 (and "Veteran" before that). A "vintage auto", by contrast, is anything older than the last model year.
- "Veteran autombiles" isn't even widely used beyond Wikipedia - the more commonly-used corresponding term is "brass era". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree, per my and Andy Dingley's comments above. DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Should this category exist at all? This definition is a UK definition and "brass era" is a US definition. In an international forum such as Commons, I beleve that an internationally-agreed non-nationalistic categories should be used such as "Up to 1914", "1945-1942", "1945-1973" and "1973-current". I chose 1973 as this was the year of the first oil crisis. Martinvl (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: the category is valid as the term is widely used to categorise cars in the English-speaking world, particularly in the UK and other Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries. Whether additional age-related categories are also desirable, and what periods they should cover, is, I think, a different discussion. DeFacto (talk). 07:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus. --MB-one (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Per {{Automobile}}, this should be entitled "Vintage automobiles". Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The word "automobile" is a North American English term for "car". If anything, I would suggest that the word "automobile" be replaced everywhere by the more universally used English word - "car". DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- No valid reason given in the nomination - a template of one author's personal opinion carries no weight. Particularly not when this is such a loaded term and so regularly political here. I would also note that en:WP has shifted from using "automobile" to "car".
- "Consistency" carries little weight - MediaWiki just doesn't need it. Category membership is defined by membership, not by pattern-matching the names. Although a perennially popular misconception hereabouts, all it ever achieves is to shoehorn the loudest voice's subjective opinion into inappropriate contexts.
- "Category:Vintage cars" also has a different meaning to "Category:Vintage automobiles": "cars" would follow the accepted RAC definition of 1905 to 1930 (and "Veteran" before that). A "vintage auto", by contrast, is anything older than the last model year.
- "Veteran autombiles" isn't even widely used beyond Wikipedia - the more commonly-used corresponding term is "brass era". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree, per my and Andy Dingley's comments above. DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment My comments regarding veteran cars apply equally here. Martinvl (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: my response to your comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Veteran cars also apply here. DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Is there any consensus for using {{Automobile}} as a guideline that needs to be enforced? De728631 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment maybe we should move this discussion to Category talk:Automobiles, to find consensus for all. --MB-one (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --MB-one (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Per {{Automobile}}, this should be entitled "Valued images of automobiles". Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The word "automobile" is a North American English term for "car". If anything, I would suggest that the word "automobile" be replaced everywhere by the more universally used English word - "car". DeFacto (talk). 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Ingolfson. --Achim (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong disagree, per my comments above. DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support I looked at the names of the articles for car in top nine Wikipedia languages (languages with more than a million articles excluding English). The results were:
- German: Automobil
- Spanish: Automóvil
- French: Automobile
- Italian: Autovettura
- Japanese: 自動車
- Polish: Samochód
- Russian: Автомобиль
- Swedish: Bil
- Vietnamese: Ô tô
- Six of the eight (excluding Japanese which was meaningless to me) had variants of "Automobile" (I assume that the Vietnames is pronounced "Auto"). Since Commons uses English as a lingua franca with no preference for US or UK English, I believe it appropriate that when there is a choice between two English words, the word that is closest to the most widely used non-English word should be selected. Much as I would personally have preferred the word "car", in this case I concede that the more appropriate word is "automobile". Martinvl (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: your argument goes against Commons official policy. The policy clearly states:
- "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)."
- With "car" being the most commonly used English word for such vehicles in both American and British English, "cars" (and not "automobiles" or anything else) should be used here. DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Only 2 cents: in Polish "automobil" was also used, before World War I, now it's obsolete name ;) Although I only use "car", I have no preference here. Pibwl (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: your argument goes against Commons official policy. The policy clearly states:
- Disagree I prefer car. Charles (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral I have no opinion here (well, I tend to prefer car, but I shouldn't trust my English too much ;-)). However, given the strong opinions from both sides supporters, isn't it possible to simply have a #REDIRECT from one to another? --Mathieu MD (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support the term "car" is ambiguous, where "automobile" is clear. If anything, this discussion should take place at: Category talk:Automobiles. --MB-one (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support as in Category:Featured pictures of automobiles and Category:Quality images of automobiles. This should not be subject to discussion, as all auto categories on Commons use the "automobile" term, up to Category:Automobiles. Otherwise, it’s the whole auto naming policy that should be discussed. --Akela NDE (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support "Automobile" is the usual name in Commons, see Category talk:Automobiles and all the categories with automobiles in Commons. And the discussion should be finished. It is a very long time since 2016. --XRay talk 05:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Valued images of automobiles requested from delinker per consensus. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Wrong name: the media in the category documents the Pūčkoriai outcrop (Pūčkorių atodanga in Lithuanian). A category with the correct title already exists and the media is added to it. Powermelon (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weak disagree: Pūčkoriai outcrop is one (most famous, - even in whole Lithuania) of outcrops on Vilnia, so category Pūčkoriai outcrop should be subcategory. But maybe it can be re-created only after those photos will be added. --Kusurija (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, but in that case Category:Vilnia outcrop should be renamed to Category:Vilnia Outcrops (plural). This would be beneficial in case more photos of other outcrops of Vilnia (too bad I don't know them) would be added. What do you think? Powermelon (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for late answer. I'm not sure, if someone will find an take photos of other outcrops of Vilnia. Anyway, it would be OK to rename it to :Category:Vilnia Outcrops then. --Kusurija (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Powermelon and Kusurija: what is situation here? I found an analogue under name "category:Steep banks of Gauja".
Maybe, then category:Steep banks of Vilnia?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Powermelon and Kusurija: what is situation here? I found an analogue under name "category:Steep banks of Gauja".
- Sorry for late answer. I'm not sure, if someone will find an take photos of other outcrops of Vilnia. Anyway, it would be OK to rename it to :Category:Vilnia Outcrops then. --Kusurija (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but in that case Category:Vilnia outcrop should be renamed to Category:Vilnia Outcrops (plural). This would be beneficial in case more photos of other outcrops of Vilnia (too bad I don't know them) would be added. What do you think? Powermelon (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I propose status quo. And if we have files from another outcrops in Vilnia, we can create the parent category:Outcrops in Vilnia--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no actions taken, stale discussion. And this category was already redirected long ago. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this category is similar to Category:Fold mountains W like wiki (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Look2See1: Would you care to comment? Otherwise I'll merge Category:Orogenic belts into Category:Fold mountains. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, these are two terms for the same thing. Gillen C. (1982) Mountain building and metamorphic rocks. In: Metamorphic Geology. Springer, Dordrecht, ISBN 978-0-04-551058-0, doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5978-4_5 for example seems to use them pretty much interchangeably. However, en:Fold mountains suggests that this term is by now outdated, at least from a geologist's or geomorphologist's point of view (physical geographers are at the receiving end here, so it wouldn't be surprising if it took a bit longer for a change in terminology to make its way into their realm). I don't have the expertise/sources to provide hard facts, but my gut feeling would be to merge the other way round, redirecting Category:Fold mountains to Category:Orogenic belts. --El Grafo (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: closing stale discussion (Category:Fold mountains is a subcategory of this one anyway). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Newly-created category that conflates protests against government policy with protests against the country itself. Inaccurate and not NPOV. Were the Tiananmen Square protests "protests against the People's Republic of China"? No, they were protests for democracy. Similar problem with other subcategories. --Citobun (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Redirect Category:Demonstrations and protests against the People's Republic of China and Category:Demonstrations and protests against China to the existing Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to China. We might also redirect Category:Demonstrations and protests against countries and its subs to Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to countries, which allows for more nuance. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Most of these could, at very least, be merged into Category:Demonstrations and protests against governments. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. There are protests against a country. For instance, China has held several anti-Japan protests in 2000s, directed towards not just the govt but the country in general. I suggest the structure be adapted as follows:
- Demonstrations and protests against countries
- Demonstrations and protests against country XX
- Demonstrations and protests against country XX's govt
- Demonstrations and protests against country XX
- I'm pretty sure protests against countries were quite common in history.--Roy17 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus is to redirect Demonstrations and protests against the People's Republic of China to Demonstrations and protests against China. The proposed category scheme is adopted. Demonstrations and protests against the Government of China is there for protests against the Chinese government specifically. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)