Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/04
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 April 2016
Emty category, pictures moved to proper (singularis, as there is only one church) Ciacho5 (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted unneeded redirect per author's request. --Achim (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
НЕПУ345ЕНШ89769Н7 9856РЛАПГЕВКАЕАВК6ЕКАДЩ6ЕАЩНР6Е5НР6К5 ЬТИИН6756К9 ЕАНАНГАНГА НГЕИГШЕГНП 54548 ВНЕВЕКВК190804РаорымфРОПаф фыукнепаепвынфагвпенгф 176.195.116.223 12:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Unclear nomination. Nothing to do. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a poorly populated duplicate of Category:Diseases and disorders of animals by host? El Grafo (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as above, I'd say redirect to Category:Diseases and disorders of animals by host. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree Redirect to Category:Diseases and disorders of animals by host. Riley Huntley (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
seems uncontroversial → 
Done --El Grafo (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Diseases and disorders of animals? El Grafo (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say redirect to Category:Diseases and disorders of animals. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree To redirect to Category:Diseases and disorders of animals. --Smooth_O (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with above, redirect needed. Riley Huntley (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
seems uncontroversial → Done --El Grafo (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no canals or canal locks in the Vale of Glamorgan. The files in this category are sea locks at the Cardiff Bay Barrage, and are already appropriately categorised. --Sionk (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Removed wrong categories and deleted as empty category Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary container for two neighbouring municipalities each having its own category. Breaks systematics as it is neither a city nor a region. I propose to delete it. Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Gmünd-Millstatt is apparently a Roman Catholic deanery which makes it a perfectly appropriate category to organize churches, but a rather strange one to organize geography. I suspect it was created in error. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep For the most part, yes, but files like File:French doodle for Tunisian Independance Day.png are, in my opinion, below the threshold of originality required for copyright. I've nominated the rest of the images for deletion, but the category itself isn't inherently problematic. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
ResolvedThis can be deleted, as Category: Books in Gujarati is more appropriate. KartikMistry (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Nomination is by category creator, and the category was created earlier today. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Books in Kannada. Achim (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, looks to be duplicate of Category:Books in Kannada. But can we put redirect to Category:Books in Kannada.? Csyogi (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Books in Kannada. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Books in Afrikaans. Achim (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Books in Afrikaans. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved from Category talk:Capitelles --Achim (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Are you sure this shouldn't be just Category:Capitals (architecture) in France? Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No, they are quite different. The English en:Capital (architecture) translates to French as fr:Chapiteau (architecture), whereas a fr:Capitelle is a stone hut, similar to Irish en:Clochán. But there were some pictures of capitals/Chapiteau in the Capitelles category, so I can understand your confusion, Federico Leva (BEIC). I've moved them. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah thanks, I was indeed confused by those images. Is this similar to w:fr:Nuraghe? BTW a "categories for discussion" seems overkill to me, but thanks for looking into my message. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nuraghes seem to be quite a bit older, as well as being from Sardinia, and serving a different purpose? I'm no expert - I've never heard of any of these things before today. I didn't even know that the top of a column was called a capital. I'm glad you nominated it though - learn something new everyday. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Was experimental, IMO to be deleted incl subcats. Achim (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Though I'm not sure where we'll put all these pictures featuring exactly 13% of a horse statue... ;) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this "experimental category". Riley Huntley (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just found another 'experimental' corresponding one: Category:Equestrian statues by image size in pixels to be deleted as well. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted both. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Was populated by one copyvio and one other file that has found a better home. If more pictures of the site should come in, it can be reestablished in a more suitable place. Latebird (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
To be deleted, replaced by: Category:Notmark-Hundslev Station Beethoven9 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Paisaje Cultural Cafetero. Seems to be a dupe of Category:Parque Nacional del Café. Achim (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think Category:Parque Nacional del Café is just poorly described. The article for en:Colombian coffee growing axis describes a much larger area, inscribed in 2011, that includes "six farming landscapes, which include 18 urban centres" totalling 141,120 ha. Within that area are a number of tourist attractions, including the National Coffee Park. The article for en:National Coffee Park describes a theme park founded in 1995 (and incidentally, makes no mention of UNESCO. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept and set {{Catseealso}}. --Achim (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
B757-400は存在しない 58.88.61.198 08:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Machine-translated: B757-400 does not exist. --Achim (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can see, this statement is correct: a "400" variant of the 757 doesn't seem to exist (compare en:Boeing_757#Variants). --El Grafo (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted after having moved a single image one level up. --Achim (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please delete this category. Hier ist die Art Jatropha podagrica gemeint. Die Kategorie Jatropha podagrica gibt es bereits. Und das einzige Bild in der Kategorie Jatropha popagrica zeigt mit Sicherheit keine Jatropha. Eher eine Aloe oder Agave. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- No objection the cat was only based on the sign prentent on the photo. It might be wrong. Mirgolth (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the sign is wrong. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A google search reveals no other references to "Jatropha popagrica" so it's definitely not an alternate spelling, or even a common misspelling. I've fixed the image description to indicate the issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the sign is wrong. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleting category as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No idea what to do with this category Takeaway (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- It should probably be redirected to Category:Errors, but I couldn't find a really suitable subcategory for the one image. --rimshottalk 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- When i created this cat i wasn't aware of Category:Failures ... --Itu (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Failures. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty category; all files which were in it have been deleted per discussion. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 11:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted empty category as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Private gategory, not needed, pictures can be under usergallery Motopark (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Category deleted by Túrelio. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
INCIDENTS ABOARD BAINBRIDGE 2605:6000:62D5:3B00:F586:5A64:8DC0:5E66 15:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand what you are proposing. This category doesn't need to be deleted. Add a sub-category if you feel there needs to be one. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
because of the corruption of the company's owners 78.186.55.101 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason to exclude an airline that existed and operated services and should, therefore, be recorded. Cannot agree with such censorship. Ardfern (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
hotelpictures 173.218.96.62 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do, nonsense nomination. --Achim (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Joining/intersecting category out of naming scheme. Achim (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted after having moved its content one level up. --Achim (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Cement tankers keep only the former one. ErickAgain 06:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, can be a redirect to Category:Cement tankers. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete
I commenced this category due to all marine ships specialized for cement cargp only have type cement carrier' and not cement tanker. it is also mentioned in the ships certificates. As confirmation you can see:
- http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1528146
- http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:461008/mmsi:371573000/imo:8517592/vessel:LEPTIS_STAR
- http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:461008/mmsi:371573000/imo:8517592/vessel:LEPTIS_STAR
- http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1376009
- http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1376009
- http://maritime-connector.com/ship/trader-arrow-7125964/print/
e.t.c.
I do not lnow about river cement carriers in USA. Can be only river ships have name cement tankers - You have to check it. But all cement carried sea going ships has type cement carrier only and as per ship's certificates also. Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have started the discussion on the Cement tanker catogory in order to get it renamed to cement carrier. Two categories for the same is too much. One or the other should be a redirect. Fine by me to redirect vice versa if desired--ErickAgain 11:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC).
- http://www.debinnenvaart.nl/schepen_home/?search_field=name&search_value=gracht gives a lot of poedertankers, the Dutch word for these ships. Two categories for the same is too much. I have no real preference. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe inland navigation vessels have to be treated separately, feel free to act accordingly. --Achim (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Cement carriers leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Please delete this category. I think this category is twice. See Category:Plaza Francia de Altamira, Caracas. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- To be disambiguated because of Category:Plaza Francia, Buenos Aires and Category:Plaza Francia, Junín. --Achim (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Merged the content to appropriate categories and disambig'd the page. --Achim (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Category with no items, apparently created as spam for external site. (the only content is a URL) — Rhododendrites talk | 01:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also nominated: Category:Hoon Chung, created, it seems just for the shoes category. Both are empty. (I haven't done a multiple nomination on Commons before, so apologies if I haven't done something correctly). — Rhododendrites talk | 01:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted as empty and as per above. Don't worry, Rhododendrites, there's no easy way (that I know of) to nominate multiple categories for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Please delete. I created it by mistake. Category already exists with a lower case "H". agr (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, no problem, Arnold. --Achim (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Computer science. Page pt:Ciência da computação links to Category:Computer science. Achim (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Computer science. --Achim (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Texel?? ↔ User: Perhelion 18:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Exact same subject. Move all content to Category: Texel and then Delete or redirect. -Takeaway (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted after having merged its content to Category:Texel, put {{Cat see also}} on top of the page. --Achim (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. Wrong order of the words. It is not Monge Gaspard, but Category:Gaspard Monge. Tangopaso (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Wrong name.The right name is Category:François-Xavier Donzelot Tangopaso (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty, redirected to Category:François-Xavier Donzelot. --Achim (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No media (well, there won't be any after the blatant copyvio image is deleted) and unlikely to be any new content any time soon IagoQnsi (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty category created by mistake, should be deleted Vzeebjtf (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
suggested renaming to Cameron Corner, Australia Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose renaming this category as, by their very nature, "corners" are in multiple states. This one is the corner of New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Good suggestion, Kerry Raymond. Apparently it's also "a locality in the Shire of Bulloo, Queensland" but if the category is going to serve two purposes, it should be named after the broader one. Either way, there's no reason for it to end with "South Australia." Move as suggested. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved as suggested tp Category:Cameron Corner, Australia - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Named poorly and dupe of Category:Salvator mundi in paintings, should be merged. Achim (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Name is much too ambiguous. - Takeaway (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cat is empty now, content has been moved. Thanks to Tuvalkin. --Achim (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It needs to be deleted because I had a typo in the category I created. I would like this to be deleted so that only the correct spelling of the category exists. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, PointsofNoReturn. Deleted. In the future, for simple spelling mistakes, you can use {{Bad name}} to delete a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This category should be discussed because it is an empty category. Previously, the only contents of this category were another category, Category:Ferries across the East River. epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- There seem to be enough images in the parent Category:East River that could be moved into it, including the above-mentioned Category:Ferries across the East River. - Takeaway (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please fix the capitalisation of this category before using it. FDMS 4 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Fix the category name (no cap "T" on "transport") and move all relevant images from Category:East River, with Category:Ferries across the East River as a sub-cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's renamed and now contains 31 images and 1 category. - Takeaway (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Fix the category name (no cap "T" on "transport") and move all relevant images from Category:East River, with Category:Ferries across the East River as a sub-cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please fix the capitalisation of this category before using it. FDMS 4 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Empty, deleted by Krd 1 May 2016. --Achim (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
relikt po přesunu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JirkaSv (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete Tagged with {{Bad name}}. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Destroyed aircraft currently contains over 200 aircraft registration sub-categories. Presently, there are over 63,000 such registration categories in Commons (a tiny percentage of candidate registrations), and most of those are potential additions to this and other sub-cats of "Aircraft by condition", because most aircraft have a finite life. The practice of placing registration cats into condition-related categories shows a fundamental misunderstanding of categories at Commons, which is a repository of media (eg static images), where categories form the structured catalogue, not the life histories of all real aircraft. All the images in a sub-cat should illustrate the parent category, and this category should contain only images qualifying as illustrations of already destroyed aircraft, not those of active aircraft. I propose we remove all sub-cats whose title and contents do not qualify as destroyed, scrapped, preserved, etc, that apply to real aircraft, and not necessarily any images at Commons. The classification as destroyed etc should then be applied only to individual images, unless new specific and relevant categories are created below a registration category. PeterWD (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Categories for individual aircraft should be removed since they contain media depicting the aircraft prior to its destruction (in most cases). Only media depicting aircraft in a destroyed state should be retained in this category. Josh (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree to Josh. --Achim (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No opposition, starting to remove registration sub-cats. PeterWD (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The SVG extra categorization is senseless, because all Emoji generally are⁉ Category:Emoji ↔ User:Perhelion 12:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. So do you agree with renaming the following sub-categories removing the word "SVG"?
- --Horcrux92 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Or better rename this Cat to "Emoji smilies" ↔ User: Perhelion 12:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Better (common) it would be, you take the original main cat-name and append the word "smilies" like Category:Emoji One smilies ↔ User: Perhelion 12:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- +1 to both --Horcrux92 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Emoji smilies and Category:BrandX smilies as per Perhelion's suggestion and Horcrux92's support. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
New meta-cat created yesterday by an IP. Achim (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing to complain about the newly created Category:German culture in Poland but I think the meta level in between is not needed nor helpful here. --Achim (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't especially disagree, though theoretically Category:Cuisine of Germany by country could fit here. What do other countries do with this kind of thing? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just added two new categories to it: Category:German culture in Argentina and Category:German culture in Brazil. - Takeaway (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is going to be a lot of overlap with Category:German diaspora on this one. If we don't merge the two, we should at least put some {{See also}} templates up. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It could be made a subcategory of Category:German diaspora, similar to Category:German culture in Argentina. - Takeaway (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is going to be a lot of overlap with Category:German diaspora on this one. If we don't merge the two, we should at least put some {{See also}} templates up. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just added two new categories to it: Category:German culture in Argentina and Category:German culture in Brazil. - Takeaway (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Are you okay with this now that it has two other sub-categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, req might be closed, I'm fine with that. Best, --Achim (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Closed as keep after further sub-categories created by Takeaway. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The category probably has a misleading name: According to the disambiguation page en:Survey, "Survey methodology" means methods for collecting quantitative information, while "Surveying", means the technique of measuring positions and distances on Earth. Judging from its current contents, this category is about diagrams related to the latter notion, while its currrent name closely resembles the former notion. It should therefore be renamed to e.g. "Surveying diagrams"; however, the precise name should be suggested by an expert in surveying, which I am not. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am inclined to think that you are absolutely right. As English is not my first language I sometimes fail at anticipating that there might be differences like that.
- I would guess it is a job for a robot, but how would one proceed to changing the category name (and the categorization of the pages)?
- Johan G (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Survey method diagrams and moved to Category:Surveying diagrams as per Jochen Burghardt's suggestion and KJG2007's support. Input from an expert in surveying would indeed be helpful, but is hard to come by. If someone comes up with a better suggestion in the future, this can be raised again.
Incorrectly named. The name of the Roman province was Syria Palaestina as the name in en.wiki and all other wikis. -- Geagea (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- The name of the category should be Roman Syria Palaestina. It is icludes also categories such as Category:Ancient Roman architecture in Syria and Category:Ancient Roman categories in Syria Hanay (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. -- Geagea (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on what the category is intended to cover. If it's the Roman province 135-390 AD, then "Syria Palaestina" is correct. If it's about a geographical region in Roman times, not necessarily exactly the same as any province, then the current name could be allowed (though technically anachronistic before 135 AD). AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an explanation at the beginning of the Category : "Syria Palaestina — a Roman province (135 CE—circa 390 CE). -> The province was established by the merger of the Roman Syria and Roman Judaea provinces. There was never a Roman province with the name "Palestine". This name is misledding in the Roman time. Hanay (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Roman Syria Palaestina as per suggestion by Hanay and support from proposer Geagea. I'm going to leave a redirect from Category:Roman Palestine for those not so well versed. I hope that's okay with everyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
A user is fulfilling Commons with tons of redirects like this in the format:
category:Italy (country) - Emilia-Romagna (region) - Piacenza (city) (PC) (province)
as redirect to Category:Piacenza that is in Category:Emilia-Romagna that is in Category:Italy
I think we do not need this kind of redirects. If every user should create every kind of redirect that could be useful there would be hell in hearth for patrollers. This discussion is for all this kind of redirects. Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete All these kind of names are absolutly out of standard, redundant and not useful. I wrote him and explain him how to categorize files and categories, but he continue to create hundreds of such useless categories that he change in redirects, and fills each file (of the 17,000 uploaded) with red categories with impossible and crazy names like here. Other users have tried to moderate him but in vain (see his talk). --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Non-standard and unlikely string for a search. No such redirect is required. If the user continues creating this, please involve an administrator. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment This is not about a "redirect that could be useful". This redirect was in fact used, by some 150 photos to be precise, and has hence proven useful. There is a concrete likelihood of its usefulness in the future as well for Italian users. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry - maybe I just don't understand. Why was it used, and why it is being used by any users, Italian or otherwise? Why would random people think to use that exact category name? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because this is the kind of hierarchical "tag" that people used to library catalogues have in mind. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry - maybe I just don't understand. Why was it used, and why it is being used by any users, Italian or otherwise? Why would random people think to use that exact category name? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Federico Leva (BEIC): Yes, but that would apply to all categories on commons then, not just locations in Italy. Commons uses a different system. You may notice that we also don't include redirects for en:Dewey Decimal Classification or en:Library of Congress Classification numbers, or any of the many other systems. The point of redirects is to get images to the right place if someone types in the exact wording of the redirect. That seems highly unlikely to happen with the categories you have created. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nemo, per piacere, su Commons non funziona così. Stai facendo un casino. Fermati. Stai costringendo due utenti e un admin a correrti dietro e a eliminare tutto il danno che stai facendo. Non voglio bloccarti solo perché voglio sperare che ti renda conto di quello che stai facendo. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Qui c'è un po' di confusione. Risposto di là. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nemo, per piacere, su Commons non funziona così. Stai facendo un casino. Fermati. Stai costringendo due utenti e un admin a correrti dietro e a eliminare tutto il danno che stai facendo. Non voglio bloccarti solo perché voglio sperare che ti renda conto di quello che stai facendo. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Category deleted. Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe we should have categories for issues that can be solved with templates. The common practice is just to keep such images upmerged at the parent category until someone moves it to a better subcategory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Either upmerge the images and delete, or to move the category join the Category:Unidentified locations tree with something like Category:Unidentified locations in Hwaseong Fortress. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing can ever be solved by templates. And while trying to sub-categorize some files, it is efficient to keep memory of what has already tempted. If each of you work to solve the problem, we would have solved six files. Pldx1 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- But if you really prefer to rename this maintenance category into Category:Unidentified locations (Hwaseong Fortress), why not. Pldx1 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing as it would put in in the proper category structure, presumably under Category:Unidentified locations in South Korea, it would be the correct solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- But if you really prefer to rename this maintenance category into Category:Unidentified locations (Hwaseong Fortress), why not. Pldx1 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing can ever be solved by templates. And while trying to sub-categorize some files, it is efficient to keep memory of what has already tempted. If each of you work to solve the problem, we would have solved six files. Pldx1 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Either upmerge the images and delete, or to move the category join the Category:Unidentified locations tree with something like Category:Unidentified locations in Hwaseong Fortress. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think upmerging would have been sufficient, but since Pldx1 would like to continue using this as a maintenance category, I've simply renamed it to Category:Unidentified locations at Hwaseong Fortress in accordance with convention. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the contents to Category:Fontana dei putti (Villa Taranto), as there seems to be at least one other fountain in the botanical gardens. A redirect doesn't make much sense imho, so I propose to just delete this one. El Grafo (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan to me. Cheers, Daderot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleting as per nomination by El Grafo and support by Daderot. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No need for a category redirect here. Leyo 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not even correct as such...the target of the redirect is all sorts of LSD-related images, not just "chemical structures". If anything, this cat would be a subcat of that one--I have no objection to doing that, but it seems uncommon to have subcat for the chemical structures in cats about bioactive substances. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus to delete. No opposition in months. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no longer any canals or canal locks in the City and County of Cardiff. The files in this category are sea locks at the Cardiff Bay Barrage, and are already appropriately categorised. There are locks to Cardiff Docks but these aren't canals either. --Sionk (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sionk, as Category:Cardiff Bay Barrage has no connection to any lock category the images also won't have, but
seems to be a lock. How do we solve that? Renaming to Category:Sea locks in Cardiff as a subcat of Category:Cardiff Bay Barrage? --Achim (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is only one tidal lock in Cardiff (well, it marks the border between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan) so it wouldn't warrant its own category, surely. I can check again and make sure the images are in either Category:Locks (water transport) or Category:Tidal locks. Sionk (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think I was confusing categorisation on Wikipedia with categorisation on Wikimedia when I made the above comment. There are, of course, plenty of images to warrant a separate category. A Category:Locks of Cardiff Bay Barrage or A Category:Tidal locks of Cardiff Bay Barrage could be a subcategory of Category:Tidal locks and Category:Cardiff Bay Barrage. To be honest a Category:Locks (water transport) category tree would have been more inclusive than a Category:Canal locks tree, but that is something that can be developed in the future (where sea locks/tidal locks exist).
- In the interim I'd suggest renaming this category Category:Tidal locks of Cardiff Bay Barrage. Sionk (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved cat & content to Category:Tidal locks of Cardiff Bay Barrage. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
CTVglobemedia is now Bell Media so this category must be renamed 47.54.189.22 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved content that exists now under Bell Media to Category:Bell Media but left content that was specifically about CTVglobemedia and stations that only existed under CTVglobemedia in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Category should be deleted, as all pictures are already well catalogued Henrytow (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Nominated by creator. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. It is not Claude Berthellot, but Category:Claude Louis Berthollet who was in the Egypt expedition. fr:Claude Berthellot doesnt exist in french wikipedia Tangopaso. --(talk) 09:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Done: empt cat. --JuTa 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Vuurtoren Eierland, not sure which way to redirect. -- Achim (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for this. I wouldn't have created this category if I had found the other one. There didn't seem to be a category for the lighthouse on Texel. It calls itself "Vuurtoren Texel", to make things easier ;-) --Judithcomm (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Problem solved. My choice was mainly based on what would be the least work ;-) --Judithcomm (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Judithcomm, for redirecting Category:Texel lighthouse to Category:Vuurtoren Eierland. I'm going to add a redirect from Category:Vuurtoren Texel for good measure. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The contents of this category are identical with those of Category:Sergeant Floyd (tugboat, 1932). The official website, "Sergeant Floyd River Museum & Welcome Center", states that the welcome center is entirely housed aboard the boat, so it's unlikely that we'll ever have photos of the welcome center that don't belong in the boat's category. I suggest that we delete the welcome-center category, or change it to a redirect to the boat category. Ammodramus (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I created the Welcome Center category, because I'm about to add photos of the interior of the museum. They're not Tugboat interiors, rather exhibits about River history. Seeking information about the Missouri River, I'm not likely to go looking for tugboats, rather than a museum entry or a river entry. So, I'd suggest that a category, Sergeant Floyd Tugboat be created and linked to the Welcome center. Otherwise, people searching for a museum aren't likely to look for or click on a Tugboat entry, where people looking for riverboats, won't want to be side-tracked with the museum exhibit stuff. --Chris Light (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept. Standard practice. —howcheng {chat} 20:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant with Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges. A quick skim of literature on GBooks suggests that "open spandrel" is usually followed by "arch" (even though that's a bit redundant), but I'm open to arguments to merging into this category instead. Choess (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- So why was Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges created? THERE IS NO NEED TO RE-STATE IN A CATEGORY NAME EVERY DEFINING ASPECT OF THAT CATEGORY. The language of Commons categorization is, by and large, English and not German. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea. That was my initial reaction: "spandrel" implies "arch", so why be redundant? I'm poking at Google Books again and both phrases seem reasonably common after all, so I guess on second thought I'm inclined to keep Category:Open spandrel bridges on the grounds of simplicity and merge in the later category. Is there anyone else good to ping on civil engineering questions like this so we can form a decent consensus and get this closed? You're normally my go-to person for these sorts of things. Choess (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Soranoch has been banned indefinitely, so can't be consulted as to the reasons for its creation, but it seems there were a bunch of images in a non-existent Category:Open-spandrel arch bridge and Soranoch tried to be helpful by moving them to a new plural category. I did have to look up "spandrel" to know that it was a type of bridge, so personally, I'd prefer keeping Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges even if it's slightly redundant. That's the term english wikipedia uses as well. I'd support keeping Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges and redirecting the other, but Andy Dingley seems to have very strong feelings about this, so I can defer if it's important. It should by hyphenated though, no? I see we don't have a closed-spandrel bridges category, but we do have Category:Bridges with perforated spandrels which should be categorized exactly the same as whatever we keep. It seems to me that Category:Deck arch bridges is a more appropriate parent category than Category:Arch bridges or Category:Arch bridges by type- Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on this either way - I have given up on this place. I am merely annoyed, yet again, to have a correctly named category overwritten by a later one with an invented name, according to the rules of German grammar and compound nouns rather than English. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Soranoch has been banned indefinitely, so can't be consulted as to the reasons for its creation, but it seems there were a bunch of images in a non-existent Category:Open-spandrel arch bridge and Soranoch tried to be helpful by moving them to a new plural category. I did have to look up "spandrel" to know that it was a type of bridge, so personally, I'd prefer keeping Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges even if it's slightly redundant. That's the term english wikipedia uses as well. I'd support keeping Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges and redirecting the other, but Andy Dingley seems to have very strong feelings about this, so I can defer if it's important. It should by hyphenated though, no? I see we don't have a closed-spandrel bridges category, but we do have Category:Bridges with perforated spandrels which should be categorized exactly the same as whatever we keep. It seems to me that Category:Deck arch bridges is a more appropriate parent category than Category:Arch bridges or Category:Arch bridges by type- Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea. That was my initial reaction: "spandrel" implies "arch", so why be redundant? I'm poking at Google Books again and both phrases seem reasonably common after all, so I guess on second thought I'm inclined to keep Category:Open spandrel bridges on the grounds of simplicity and merge in the later category. Is there anyone else good to ping on civil engineering questions like this so we can form a decent consensus and get this closed? You're normally my go-to person for these sorts of things. Choess (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- You keep saying you've given up, but then you keep coming back and venting your anger. The "invented" name of "open-spandrel arch bridge" is used in the English wikipedia article and vastly outranks "open-spandrel bridge" in a google search... nearly 20:1. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- The term "open spandrel arch bridge" was used in English literature as early as 1910 [1], so I don't see how this is an "invention". With this being the dominant term though judging from the use in professional writings, I say we should merge the two categories to Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, that makes sense to me, De728631. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The term "open spandrel arch bridge" was used in English literature as early as 1910 [1], so I don't see how this is an "invention". With this being the dominant term though judging from the use in professional writings, I say we should merge the two categories to Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Seeing no further discussion, redirecting to Category:Open-spandrel arch bridges. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
empty, no need, no source for terminology Nickpo (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest to create a gallery page Revolutionary stamps of Czechoslovakia or, maybe, First stamps of Czechoslovakia or something like that (avoiding use of the word "Revolutionary"). I know that Arno-nl is one of the experts in this field, and I would ask him if he can create such a page. Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael, i would hardly call myself a specialist, maybe an enthusiast at best, but here are my five cents on the topic. Czechoslovakia was founded 1918-10-28 from former parts of Austria and Hungaria. From this day on stamps of Austria and Hungary were valid and used until 1919-02-28. The Austrian and Hungarian postal stationery were valid till 1919-10-14. All forerunners can be determined by their Czechoslovakian postmarks.
As subcategories (under Category:Stamps of the Czechoslovak Republic (1918-1938)) i would suggest to create these three (for stamps):
- Austrian Forerunner stamps, 1918-1919 (Rakouské Předběžné a souběžné)
- Hungarian Forerunner stamps, 1918-1919 (Uherské Předběžné a souběžné)
Next there are the overprints on Austrian and Hungarian issues which were prepared by the revolutionary committee in Prague. Although partly not validated by the central postal authorities in Prague, really postally used stamps and covers are known.
- Revolutionary issues and Provisionals (Revoluční a provizoria)
This category can be expanded when needed with at least the six different overprint types:
- I. Prague issue on Austrian stamps (1918-10-30)
- II. Prague issue on Austrian stamps (1918-11-07)
- III. Hluboká issue on Austrian stamps (1918-11-01)
- IV. Budweis issue on Austrian stamps (1918-11-01)
- V. Skalicke issue on Hungarian stamps (1918-11-15)
- VI. Srobár issue on Hungarian stamps (1919 January)
I noticed some overprints between the files that would fit.Arno-nl (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Above info has partly been derived from Michel catalogue (Ost). The page Postage stamps and postal history of Czechoslovakia on Wikipedia needs work too.Arno-nl (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the first stamps of Czechoslovakia: Category:Hradcany issue. And all of you describing are the local issues, as I see. So, if it will nesessary in future, we can create these categories: Czechoslovakia area forerunner stamps or/and Czechoslovakia local issues (1918—1920) — not to mix with WWII. Nickpo (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- A more general question is how to treat the complex transition period, or 'Pevratová doba' (great article by Jaroslav J Verner and Henry Hahn) here in Wikimedia, thus making it a logical container category. We should not make things complexer then they already are and also should not oversimplify. Balance is needed.
- The forerunners are not to be confused with local stamps. The forerunners consisted of the stock of old Austrian and Hungarian stamps which was still available and was used throughout the whole of the Czechoslovakian new area. The validity for payment of postage of the forerunner stamps was stated in an official postal proclamation (#3426 VI ’19 of February 8, 1919), which also terminated validity per February 28, 1919. Exchange of Austrian and Hungarian stamps for Czechoslovak stamps was carried out at post offices through March 15, 1919. This was not applicable to postal stationery.
- Revolutionary issues. About 9 issues were made, 6 are listed in Michel. All are definitely local.
- Other relevant philatelic issues which fit in the transition period:
- Military censor markings in Bohemia and Moravia
- WW1 / Czechoslovakian field post (Siberian Legion, France, Italy, Slovakia)
- POW mail
- Courier mail (established between Paris and Prague by the Czechoslovak National Council)
- Scout issue
- Plebiscite overprint S.O. 1920
- Emergency frankings
As the amount of pictures grows we should create categories somewhere along the lines of the above.Arno-nl (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please look at your link. There is VI. THE “REVOLUTIONARY” ISSUES - between commas. So, we need to generate another title for our category. Nickpo (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- So, the term “REVOLUTIONARY” is a genuine attribute of these stamps? --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- The beginning of the new state came spawned from an agreement between Masaryk and Stefanilk, who inaugurated an independence movement. A provisional government (in exile) was formed in September 1918 and Czech independence was declared in October 1918. The Revolutionary Committee in Prague immediately authorised the overprinting of the then current stamps (of Austria and Hungary) as well as the printing of the first stamps of the new Republic (Hradcany). The overprinted stamps were not recognised by the Central Post Authority in Prague. Their importance was political rather then postal. We could name the category:
Revolutionary Committee overprint issues. Arno-nl (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree too. Nickpo (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Created. Arno-nl (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the name of the new category is much better. The name of the old one does not really make sense. I am for deleting the now empty old category. --Schlosser67 (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Created. Arno-nl (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Schlosser67, Nickpo, Michael Romanov, and Arno-nl: I'm having trouble following this discussion. Was consensus reached? What was the final decision? Can we close discussion? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached ok. The final decision is a) to create Category:Revolutionary Committee overprint issues, b) to delete Category:Revolutionary stamps of Czechoslovakia. The reason: there was a revolutionary committee, but thank God it was not a revolution as such. Nickpo (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I have no objections with that. --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well put Nickpo. Arno-nl (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. --Schlosser67 (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Revolutionary stamps of Czechoslovakia deleted, replaced with Category:Revolutionary Committee overprint issues. Thanks all for your participation! - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
A category based on pure identification of people on photographs. Moreover, thousands of people took part in demonstrations organized by KOD, thousands more will do. I can see no reason why they should be stigmatized in this way by Commons Boston9 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- nobody told them - go there Silar (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- It does not seem right to stigmatise people on the basis of them joining a demonstration. This is a hot topic, and it might get hairy. The category makes not much sense. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 19:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Boston9. Taking part in any event is not enough for a categorisation like this. We should also delete Category:Former members of the Cabinet of Ewa Kopacz at KOD-demonstration (same reasons). Elfhelm (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate category structure. Members of an political party or even formal members of an organization might be categorized this way, but attending a mass demonstration isn't evidence of either. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Done: (deleted) As above. ~riley (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remove. The category is obsolete, media releases from Kiasma are by FNG. Susannaanas (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, you're saying that no images are released by Kiasma (contemporary art museum) itself - they are all released by the Finnish National Gallery. Not only is all the art exhibited at Kiasma from the Finnish National Gallery, but also Kiasma is fully owned by the FNG and the items posted in their Flicker Page seem to all request attribution to the FNG. That makes sense to me. I'm not so keen on the name Category:Media released by FNG though. Can we not move it to Category:Media released by the Finnish National Gallery ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very good! I fully support your suggestion for a new name. And the way you described the structure of releases and attribution is correct. Thanks! --Susannaanas (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Susannaanas. Moving Category:Media released by FNG to Category:Media released by the Finnish National Gallery, and redirecting Category:Media by Kiasma there too. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
unhelpful images and if the these are useful, The source is illogical ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's usually better to nominated the individual files for deletion, rather than nominating the category. Is this person notable in any way? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Of course no.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, how much trolling will you be allowed to engage in before shown the door? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I do not understand.All that I act is request to delete pages is not useful --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- This senseless discussion should be simply closed. There’s nothing to discuss about the category: We have more than one media item about this person, so we have a category named for the person — this is business as usual in the curation business; notability of said person is irrelevant.
- The rationale as expressed by the nominator, if understandable at all, seems to target the photos of this category, not the category itself. So, the photos need to be successfully deleted first, then the category becomes useless and can be deleted.
- I don’t expect that documenting an African-American woman who made it to Fire Chief in Northern Carolina is obviously in scope for the usual deletionist crew. There’s always a reason to have photo deleted and I’m sure they will find one.
- Additionally, given the easiness of having successful DRs of photos of brown people in Commons these days, it should be a matter of a week or even less. Good luck with that, strange bedfellow.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept due to a) lack of consensus and b) out of process scope. For file deletion requests use COM:DR procedure. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by Ulkebøl Beethoven9 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does this need to be deleted or would a redirect to Category:Ulkebøl be useful? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be OK. User:Beethoven9
No opposition. Redirecting to Category:Ulkebøl. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It is added incorrectly by Template:Low quality food picture ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I know, it is not incorrect at all. It is a subcategory of Category:Images of low quality. Do you suggest that we also delete the latter category? - Takeaway (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Images not related to food and with appropriate quality added --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see only food-related images in the category (beverages are also included due to the broad interpretation of the word "food", an interpretation that is often used in Wikimedia Commons). What do you mean with "appropriate quality added"? - Takeaway (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Images are not low quality --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I actually tagged quite a few of the images that are now in there for being extremely blurry or of very low resolution, thus of "low quality". - Takeaway (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see that the majority are not --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I actually see that the majority is. Could you please give a few examples? - Takeaway (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see that the majority are not --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I actually tagged quite a few of the images that are now in there for being extremely blurry or of very low resolution, thus of "low quality". - Takeaway (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Images are not low quality --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see only food-related images in the category (beverages are also included due to the broad interpretation of the word "food", an interpretation that is often used in Wikimedia Commons). What do you mean with "appropriate quality added"? - Takeaway (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Images not related to food and with appropriate quality added --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the template/category has been incorrectly added to one or more images that aren't of low quality, that's not a problem with the category itself. Personally, I think it should have been called Category:Low quality images of food and drinks for reasons of clarity (you could currently fill it with perfectly good quality images of McDonalds hamburgers) but I don't think that's a significant issue. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- See related Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Low quality food picture. —howcheng {chat} 16:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Comment) I think categories such as this one are a good idea. There are so many repetitive, low quality images in categories that they have the effect of diluting the category's effectiveness. Kalbbes (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Redirected to Category:Images of low quality --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Reopened: There is no consensus to dissolve this category. ★ Poké95 00:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)
- For reasons discussed at the other DR, I've changed the files in this category to actually add the category directly, instead of using the (invisible) template that does nothing else, and changed the ones that passed a parameter to the template to also use {{Low quality}} directly. Reventtalk 09:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- it's "invisible" because "someone" first erased it and just after that nominated for deletionSpiderMum (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: For real this time. No consensus for deletion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a good reason to capitalise "Posts"? This looks like it's rather comparable to churches: each one is "Smalltown Methodist Church" and "American Legion Post [insert number]", but when we're talking about a group of them, it's "Methodist churches in Smalltown", and it should be "American Legion posts". If I'm missing some good reason for using "Posts" instead of "posts", please show me. Of course, I have no complaint with this category's scope or with the name otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nyttend, I concur with all the above, and would extend the same logic to the category for VFW posts as well (see Category:VFW Posts). Thanks! -- Justin.A.Wilcox (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (West Virginian on En Wikipedia)
- Nyttend and @Justin.A.Wilcox: Given that some seem to be called "house", "hall" and "building", maybe we should follow the lead of Category:Masonic buildings and move to Category:American Legion buildings ? Just a thought. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I just noticed this edit when going through the watchlist; pings don't work unless you add a link to your own userspace in the same edit. Justin.A.Wilcox, your attention is requested :-) The idea makes sense; it broadens the scope, but excluding non-post buildings doesn't seem to make much sense, so broadening is a distinctly good thing. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill and Nyttend, I concur with the broadening of the category to read "American Legion buildings." -- Justin.A.Wilcox (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend and @Justin.A.Wilcox: Given that some seem to be called "house", "hall" and "building", maybe we should follow the lead of Category:Masonic buildings and move to Category:American Legion buildings ? Just a thought. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I noticed the problem as I encountered this category. RoyalbroilAlt (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Moved to Category:American Legion buildings and requested that Category:VFW Posts be moved to Category:VFW buildings by Delinker. BMacZero (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to mix things (maps and CoA) together. Category should be split. Leyo 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Definitely. There's no reason for these to be joined. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Split into Category:Coats of arms of Oberhaching and Category:Maps of Oberhaching as per nom. --rimshottalk 11:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request: Please delete category. Aside from the grammatically confusing name, there is no universal "rule" for what is a pony or a horse, and in fact the topic is hotly debated. There are guidelines or rule for competition purposes of when a horse is shown as a horse or pony, but these vary internationally by at least three inches. Also, the phenotype often classified as a pony is very similar to that of a Draft horse, other than height. Both horses and ponies are "horses" -- equus ferus caballus-- just as both Chihuahuas and Great Danes are "dogs." Further, most of the horse breeds that were in this category are breeds where there are individuals both above and below the "rules" for a cutoff line between horses and ponies. In some cases this is due to their living conditions (horses that live in harsh climates are stunted, which is not a genetic condition) Finally, some breeds consider being labeled a "pony" as an insult. See en.wiki:Pony for more details if needed. Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted after no opposition in months, also empty. --rimshottalk 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request: Delete category: This is a made-up concept, there is no separate status for "breeds of pony referred to by a single-worded name" Also, several of the breeds in this category weren't ponies anyway.. Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Ponies named horse, Category:Ponies named pony, Category:Mononymous ponies are to me categories, which are more than useless, als the names changed with time and the same breed has different names in different languages. --Kersti (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- These are all "made up" names and this one in particular isn't even real -- many horse/pony breeds are called by one name in some places but Foo horse or Foo pony in other languages. No logical reason for these to exist and classification is totally random anyway. Montanabw (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 14:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be a catch-all for houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey. It is far too big and needs subcategorization Henrytow (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the problem here? Is the definition of the category too broad? Or are there simply a lot of mis-categorisations into it? The necessary fix (and yes, I think 800+ members is too many) would depend on which problem. The drawings have a good "related images" list that suggests an appropriate narrower cat, but is this a subcat of the current or a sibling? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
All the houses seem to be in Georgetown, but to be honest I did not look at even a large fraction of the 800+ images.
The category name is the address of one house in Georgetown, and not a very notable one at that. It is a terrible misnomer.
First, note that HABS is the abbreviation for the Historic Buildings Survey.
This category might be renamed Category:Houses in the HABS in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. but the HABS might be too cryptic.
Expanding HABS to its full name might lead to a title that was too long.
It might be best to:
1.Rename the category as per either suggestion above or anything that is not such a misnomer. 2. Make lots of subcategories, one per house. Some house categories might even have subcategories themselves. 3. In that process, discover whether any houses are not in the HABS. If so, since there is a Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C. the houses not in HABS or in the Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C. could be dropped. Henrytow (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Georgetown houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey This seems to work. It could be a useful subcategory of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. as well as of Historic districts in Washington, D.C., but the latter needs work too. Henrytow (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you'd want to rename the category. At least four of the images (1, 2, 3, 4) in the category are of the building at 1408 35th Street, Northwest. So there's no reason to rename or delete that category. It's not a misnomer. If you want to move other files to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Washington, D.C. - Drawings and Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Washington, D.C., that would make sense. But just because someone accidentally puts a lot of photos of strawberries in Category:Bears doesn't mean we rename Category:Bears. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
,_Washington,_District_of_Columbia,_DC_HABS_DC,GEO,173-_(sheet_1_of_1).png){kind=link}
I have begun moving inappropriately named files to new apposite categories, such as Category:3001-3009 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. (HABS). In turn, these single-house categories are placed in Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), which in turn is in the existing Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Washington, D.C.. Henrytow (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be happy if the name stays the same. Henrytow (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest moving Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. (or something like that) for the sake of consistency, and for any buildings that are not houses. Although I've been putting sub-categories for individual buildings in Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), I propose we stop doing that. All images taken as part of the survey should be in Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. even if it's a large category. It would effectively a provenance category, like Category:Photos taken by X. The categories for individual buildings can go in Category:Buildings in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. and Category:Houses in Washington, D.C.. That way individual building categories that contain non-HABS images wouldn't be confusing. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the mean time, I've moved everything out of Category:1408 35th Street, Northwest, Washington DC (except for the relevant four images) and into Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). I've also moved all the ~4000 images from the HABS survey out of Category:Washington, D.C. to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Washington, D.C. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest moving Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. (or something like that) for the sake of consistency, and for any buildings that are not houses. Although I've been putting sub-categories for individual buildings in Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), I propose we stop doing that. All images taken as part of the survey should be in Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. even if it's a large category. It would effectively a provenance category, like Category:Photos taken by X. The categories for individual buildings can go in Category:Buildings in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. and Category:Houses in Washington, D.C.. That way individual building categories that contain non-HABS images wouldn't be confusing. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Several thoughts:
- I was in the process of working my way through this mislabeled category, creating categories of houses and putting these categories in Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)when this work was cut short by the removal of all but the correctly named images. I now do not know which houses are as yet uncatalogued. How can I discover where the houses or other buildings in the Georgetown HBS that are not yet catalogued might be? Maybe I am missing something, but are they now in the uncategorized section of Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)?
- I'm not sure I agree that changing Category: Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) to Category: Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. would be a good idea. The second title emphasizes membership in the survey, while the first is a list of houses that happen to be in the survey. The distinction is important and should be preserved, so that images of the houses taken later than the survey can be properly included in the specific house categories. Later images allow comparisons over time.
- The HABS of Georgetown has houses, view of the waterfront, and Georgetown University. I do not know whether subcategories of houses, waterfront, and University are necessary. Too soon to tell.
- Categories with hundreds of uncategorized images are useless to me. The HABS images are titled in such a random fashion that it would be very difficult to discover those of any particular interest in a combined file (such as this one was). There are certainly contributors to the Commons who maintain a page of their contributions. Maybe I am missing the point of a provenance survey.
- Is there a way to recategorize addresses such as Thirty-fifth Street to 35th Street? The latter is much easier to find in a search, and seems to be the more common (and less pretentious?) usage except in HABS labels.
- Some of the house categories named only with a house name need an address.
- Too soon to tell for me to be sure. I'd first like to complete subcategorizing the buildings that were in this category.
Henrytow (talk ) 20:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry about the move of files. I should have checked first, but since it had been well over a week since the category had been nominated for discussion, I thought that's as much as was going to be done.
Second, I accept your description of the difference between the two category names, but I stand by my proposal. Supposing we have a great number of images of a building, both from the survey and not from the survey (like in Category:Tudor Place for example) we're going to have a problem. One option, what we have currently:
In this case, the images taken by the survey are not in *any* category that identifies them as with the survey. They're in a sub-category of the survey category Category:Tudor Place, but so are images not taken by the survey. We could create sub-categories that reflect the HABS origin of certain images of a specific building (as you have done with Category:1408 Thirty-Fifth Street, Northwest (House), Washington, District of Columbia, (DC HABS) but then every house needs to have separate provenance category:
That seems like overkill to me.
Follwoing my proposal, all HABS images of Tudor house would simply be in Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Georgetown, Washington, D.C. AND in Category:Tudor Place. If someone wants to look at pictures taken in the survey, they look in the survey category. If they want to look at various photos of the Tudor Place, taken over time, they look in the Tudor Place category. The only challenge would be for people who specifically want to only look at images of the Tudor Place taken in the HABS survey, but that doesn't seem to be a particularly likely scenario for me anyway.
Spelled out names can certainly be changed to numerals if that's what currently used on street signs in Washington. I just used what was on the HABS files. I've seen both in different places, so I don't think it's a matter of pretension. I don't know if categories with only a house name necessarily need a street name. I think that that would be decided on a case-by-case basis, because it's definitely not obligatory by commons policy.
Thanks for discussing this, and sorry again about moving while you were still categorizing. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your apology. No hard feelings, etc.
I had earlier reduced the number of images in Category: 1408 35th Street etc from over 800 to approximately 170. There are now 279 uncategorized images in Category:Georgetown Houses in the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), with a number of images both there and in the categories above. Some that had already been placed in house categories are repeated below in the uncategorized section. I take it that sooner or later the lower section will duplicate the original Category: 1408 35th Street etc. See my point 4 above.
Renaming of spelled street names such as Thirty-fifth to 35th would be a great improvement. Signs for the numbered streets in Washington only use numerals. And a few categories with house names also need addresses.
I certainly agree that separate categories for Tudor Place and Tudor Place (DC HABS) would be overkill. I do think that it would be useful for people looking at a house category to be able to see and compare, all in one place, HABS images, HABS drawings, and modern images. There may be a dilemma here. But:
I shall leave the tasks of further categorization and the naming of categories of Georgetown houses to others. I may add some modern images to some house categories, but I'll first wait to see how they are arranged and categorized. HABS contains an image of my garden in 1990, quite different from its appearance today. It needs my work more than Wiki.
Henrytow (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Category is fine and it now contains only relevant images. --ghouston (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"Windows in Podlaskie Voivodeship"-Okna woj.podlaskiego,no ja przepraszam ale Bydgoszcz to nie jest województwo podlaskie,więc ten plik z kariatydami proszę usunąć. Taktoperz77 Taktoperz77 10:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- This category deletion request must be a mistake. If you find a file miscategorised, you just remove a wrong category from the file (As I did here), not request a complete deletion of the category. Panek (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to be done. --ghouston (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Birds do not recognize political boundaries, organizing their sounds by country is kind of like organizing them by number of feet above sea level or by the direction and speed of the wind when the recording was made— it's not useful for organizing bird sounds. By continent, perhaps. Not by country. KDS4444 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Fair point. If I recall, I created this category when sorting out the "Sounds" categories as a parent for "Category:Sounds of birds from India", "Category:Sounds of birds from the Netherlands" and "Category:Audio files of birds of Thailand". If "Sounds of birds by country" is deleted, then these three subcategories (and any sub-subcategories) also need to be deleted and all the files therein recategorized. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just a thought: what about renaming the subcategories to "Sounds of birds recorded in [country]" and the parent category to "Sounds of birds recorded by country"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Smuconlaw's suggestion seems to be a good one. It would be a shame if the more precise location of the recordings would be lost in favour of something barely descriptive such as a continent. And birds do fly to other continents too... - Takeaway (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- ...Which makes me think that geographic descriptors like this are therefore next to useless, no? But I think I like the use of "recorded in [country]". That has at least some basic significance/ meaning, and I agree that losing useful information is seldom a good thing (so long as that information is indeed useful and not merely information being retained for the sake of retaining information). KDS4444 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the basic question, but it seems it would apply to almost all sub-categories of Category:Organisms by country. The sounds of birds are no more transnational than images of birds. I guess the argument for would be that people would like to know what birds can be found in any given country, which doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can I take it that we have consensus that the categories should be renamed as "Sounds of birds recorded in [country]" and the parent category to "Sounds of birds recorded by country"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Smuconlaw: Fine by me! - Takeaway (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I have requested that the categories be moved at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves". — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- The renaming has been carried out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Smuconlaw: Fine by me! - Takeaway (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can I take it that we have consensus that the categories should be renamed as "Sounds of birds recorded in [country]" and the parent category to "Sounds of birds recorded by country"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the basic question, but it seems it would apply to almost all sub-categories of Category:Organisms by country. The sounds of birds are no more transnational than images of birds. I guess the argument for would be that people would like to know what birds can be found in any given country, which doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- ...Which makes me think that geographic descriptors like this are therefore next to useless, no? But I think I like the use of "recorded in [country]". That has at least some basic significance/ meaning, and I agree that losing useful information is seldom a good thing (so long as that information is indeed useful and not merely information being retained for the sake of retaining information). KDS4444 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing, since this seems to have been (more or less) resolved by renaming. --ghouston (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Silicon-nitrogen compounds...proposing merge. Seems like just different terminology for same subject. All entries here seem analogous to ones there (or subcats of there). DMacks (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings either way on this one, but silylamines could be a subcategory of silicon-nitrogen compounds. Compounds that would belong in Si-N but not silylamines would be things like N-silyl imines, silicon isocyanates and silicon nitride. Silylamines would be silicon sp3 silicon bound to sp3 nitrogen. Although some of these categories seem pretty academic, I believe they get more useful over time as the number of images on Commons massively increases. --Ben (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- My concern will be the exact opposite : silylamines = silanes with amine function(s). "Silicon-nitrogen compounds", as per all other categories named the same way, doesn't make any sense to me. Chemically even less. I mean are they compounds only consisting of nitrogen and silicon ? In this case, the term is not synonym with silylamines, because there is no hydrogen. Are they compounds that have both silicon and nitrogen, along with any other kind of atoms ? In that case I don't see how the term would be equivalent to "silylamines". Rhadamante (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- When I created all the "element X-element Y compounds" categories, I did so with X-Y bonds in mind. The reason was, I often want to find all compounds that contain an X-Y bond, whether organic or inorganic. There are plenty of useful comparisons that can be made, such as between P-S bonding in SPCl3 and SPPh3. It serves as a really useful indexing and searching tool in the absence of structure-based searching.
- To me, a category like silylamines is useful for finding compounds containing Si-N< fragments. If it includes molecules where the silicon and nitrogen atoms are widely separated then it's less interesting and useful, since the two functionalities are unlikely to influence each other (unless there's some non-covalent interaction between them).
- There's no real limit on categories. We can have as many different categorisations as we want, as long as they're useful. I aim to have a separate category for each distinct substance (compound, allotrope, ion, chemical species, whatever as long as it's distinct and well-defined). The aim is to make it easy to find images that depict the same substance, even though their filenames might be in different languages and otherwise quite difficult to quickly locate simultaneously using the search box. It also makes recategorisation much quicker and easier as new, more specific parent categories become available.
- Ben (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can understand the usefulness of subcats for classifying different N hybridizations, and I assumed that the meaning of "X–Y compounds" was direct bonding. However, we have very few that aren't amines, so I wonder if a more useful scheme is to have subcats for those (silylimines, iminosilanes, N-silylamides, etc), if we start to overpopulate the parent Si–N cat, rather than having to know the intermediate step (for example, at HMDS is a silylamine is a Si–N) for the more common cases. That is, keep an on-average flatter tree to simplify tree navigation. Some day there might be value to having a deep tree from Si–N via the nature of the Si and/or N and/or their bond to each individual chemical's own cat as a highly specific intersection. But for now, I dislike violating the COM:CAT "simplicity principle" with such sparse subsubcats. On en.wp, for example, the most common pattern for newbie editors is to draw all their structures from scratch, which means they don't know how to easily find them and we then have to figure out where best to categorize them. I think having too narrowly focused and too deeply nested cats makes both those tasks harder. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good points. I generally aim for moderately full categories, for the reasons you give. You have to use your judgement to strike a balance between a simple tree and having categories that are empty enough that you can browse the images in them quickly. At present, the problem of overfull categories seems to affect organic compounds much more than inorganic ones. See Category:Tertiary amines, for example.
- Perhaps the current situation with silylamines and Si-N compounds has arisen because Rhadamante and I have different ideas about how categorisation should be on Commons. I'm happy to discuss general views here or elsewhere.
- For really easy navigation, I have some periodic table-based tools at User:Benjah-bmm27/compounds by element, such as User:Benjah-bmm27/compounds by element/nitrogen#Element-nitrogen compounds for E-N compounds. We could definitely think about using things like these to help users find the right category for their image.
- I tried to make tables (here) for finding organics, but they're a bit wordy. I find tables with structural images, such as this one, more useful for organics, as long as the category describes a structure that can easily be drawn.
@DMacks and Benjah-bmm27: Do I understand correctly that you both reached consensus on this? It's all over my head, but it would be great if we could close discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been over a year, and there doesn't appear to be any contentious issues here. Contributors to this discussion are welcome to be bold and proceed as they see fit. Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
movement is not necessary: thousands of files linking to this category Wieralee (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly are you talking about? What is your suggestion? --Leyo 20:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Rhadamante has moved Category:Alpha and beta proteins (a+b) to Category:Alpha and beta proteins [2]. But he does not moved the files from this category and he did not changed the links to this category. There are thousands of files linking to Category:Alpha and beta proteins (a+b). I think this movement should be reverted. Wieralee (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. We have bots to fix this. --Leyo 12:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Leyo is right about the bots, and so on, but it was actually wrong from me to rename this category. I thought it was a bad name in contradiction of our conventions, as was the previous name of the mother-category ("Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP)"), but if we mimic the categories organization of SCOP, we need the parentheses as there is one "homonym", "Alpha and beta proteins (a/b)" (named "Alpha and beta proteins (a or b)" here, since "/" can't be in titles). I'm moving back the category to its old name (but I'm still somewhat circumspect with these categories). Rhadamante (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- of course, I wrote that before seeing that all sub-cats had already been bot-moved. Gasp. Rhadamante (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Leyo: the bot is not working, yet? That is what I was talking about ;-) [3] Wieralee (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Wieralee and Rhadamante: → COM:BWR --Leyo 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wieralee and Rhadamante: Please move the main category to the appropriate name. I will take care of the subcategories and the links. --Leyo 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Leyo: Can't, since there are now three lines in the history of the page with the good name (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Alpha_and_beta_proteins_(a%2Bb)&action=history). Need to be sysop to do it. If you can do it, the correct name is the initial "Category:Alpha and beta proteins (a+b)". Moving the sub-categories is not really a problem with cat-a-lot btw. Rhadamante (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Wieralee: I guess you would agree on the proposal, right? --Leyo 10:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It's been over a year, and there doesn't appear to be any contentious issues here. Contributors to this discussion are welcome to be bold and proceed as they see fit. Ed (Edgar181) 14:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
At very least, this should be renamed to "Presentations mentioning EPUB" or "Presentations that mention EPUB" but I'm not particularly convinced we should be organizing pdf presentations based on things they happen to mention. Their central topic, sure, but content mentioned in passing? Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, English isn't my native language, i am free at this. Skim (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Copied all content to Category:Presentation slides and Category:Electronic publishing and deleted category. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Is that term stores acceptable? Or should all files be moved to Category:Shops in Orlando, Florida? Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nearly a year later. I'm going to unilaterally move the items to Category:Shops in Orlando, Florida. —howcheng {chat} 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: seems done yet. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a tougher one. It seems that it includes some relatively random elements of the fortress that don't fit into any other currently existing parent category. Still, a "miscellany" holding category seems not consistent with the categorization used in Commons, and I think everything should be just upmerged to the parent category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, they could be upmerged, or resorted. It seems several of them are watch towers so there could be a separate category for that, as well as at least two command posts if you want to group those together. Others might fit under the Category:Architectural elements tree? I'm not sure. But Miscellany is not a good idea, and should be deleted. - 06:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The very idea that a category could be named Miscellany was so horrible. Now, it only remains to delete the useless page Sentry posts of Hwaseong Fortress to have emptied the category. Great, isn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why delete? Just upmerge it. Gallery pages are useless (IMHO) in general, but the community does not agree, so :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The very idea that a category could be named Miscellany was so horrible. Now, it only remains to delete the useless page Sentry posts of Hwaseong Fortress to have emptied the category. Great, isn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Just upmerge the page. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- This page was a method to help people when sorting pictures among the Hwaseong structures. A better method has been found. And thus, this page has become useless. An upmove would only create a temptation for building other galleries: there are so many other objects! Pldx1 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- By "better method," I guess you mean the display of demonstration images at Category:Poru (Hwaseong Fortress)? I don't know if that's generally recommended use of category pages. It seems to me a gallery would actually be the preferred method here, but I don't know. Anyone else have thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Poru (Hwaseong Fortress) contains 10 subcategories, that are all described by the same hangul 포루. But this comes from a collision between two different hanja: 砲樓 (Pào lóu= fortified tower, blockhouse, gun tower) and 鋪樓 (pù lóu= platform, tower with a sentry post). Thus the right place for the checking gallery is... guess where ? And therefore, page Sentry posts of Hwaseong Fortress is useless now. Pldx1 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Upmerged: per discussion. ℯxplicit 06:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This category only File:Matsunaga Teitoku.jpg had belonged. Since I moved the File category is empty. Therefore, I will propose the deletion of this category.--M-sho-gun (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could move the file back and not delete it. Why do you think it should be deleted? Is it unlikely/impossible that further images of Matsunaga Teitoku will be uploaded in the future? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Current situation I think that difficult. High-quality image files in image search of Google was not found. To begin with, the relevant file is I do not think that should make a category for there is only one.--M-sho-gun (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Even if there is only one image, having it a category promotes future organization and plays better with any cross-wiki links. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Kept per BMacZero. Also easy enough to have one more image, e.g. by colouring the current one.--Roy17 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there a difference between a Category:Funeral carriages and a Category:Horse-drawn hearses that I'm not seeing? Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- A funeral carriage could be drawn by oxen -> File:Bodleian Ms. Burm. a. 5 fol075-3.jpg. How about making Category:Horse-drawn hearses a subcategory of Category:Funeral carriages. And Category:Funeral carriages can be placed directly into Category:Hearses instead of the parent category Category:Funeral vehicles. - Takeaway (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- On second thought, Category:Funeral carriages should be changed into a redirect to Category:Hearses. - Takeaway (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- ... and then there's trains, see Category:Funeral Carriage, Paranapiacaba ... @Themightyquill and Takeaway. Mike Peel (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Good eye, Mike Peel. I'm starting to think Category:Funeral carriages is too ambiguous. Maybe we can redirect that to Category:Funeral vehicles with the following category tree.
- Category:Funeral vehicles
What do you think? Takeaway? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Looks really good Themightyquill. Please do! (PS I'm sure that there are also a few "funeral ships" in Category:Ship burials.) - Takeaway (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a sensible plan to me, @Themightyquill, although I'm not sure where individual train carriages used as funeral carriages fit in (under funeral trains, even if they don't have a train attached?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason, Category:Hearses wasn't tagged for this discussion. To be clear, I'm suggesting redirecting Category:Hearses to Category:Funeral vehicles. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, no opposition in a year. I'm closing. @Ruthven: Could you please help move Category:Hearses by decade (and its subcategories) to Category:Funeral vehicles by decade, Category:Hearses by color to Category:Funeral vehicles by color, and the sub-categories of Category:Funeral vehicles by country from "Hearses in X" to "Funeral vehicles in X".
- Please note: There's no need to change all categories including the word "hearses" - Category:Motorcycle hearses, Category:Hearses (automobiles), Category:Horse-drawn hearses and their subcategories are fine. Thanks! I can check the categorization and templates when they're all moved. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Themightyquill I can do it. Shall we move also Category:Winton_hearse_in_the_Gilmore_Car_Museum or the word hearse is correct here? (sorry, I'm not a native English speaker) Ruthven (msg) 09:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that category is fine the way it is. "Hearse" can mean many types of funeral vehicles, so it's not wrong in any of these cases, just ambiguous. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Changes made as proposed above. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Kategoria jest dobra,a właściwie będzie dobra jeśli usuniemy z niej wszystkie pliki przedstawiające atlanty(męskie figury),bo kariatydy to tylko i wyłącznie figury kobiece,nigdy zaś męskie.A figury męskie trzeba dać do kategorii-Bydgoskie atlanty,a jeśli nie ma takiej kategorii to trzeba ją utworzyć. Taktoperz77 Taktoperz77 09:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Poprawiłem, figury męskie przeniosłem do kategorii: Category:Atlantes in Bydgoszcz --Pit1233 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
All files have been properly sorted. Nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The category description says a carriage is "a four-wheeled horse drawn private passenger vehicle" but this contains sub-categories including Category:Two-wheeled open carriages (contradictory), Category:Gun-carriages (contradictory), Category:Horse carriages (redundant). Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
- Category:Two-wheeled open carriages - obviously a carriage but as the name indicates it has just two wheels so not a (n unqualified) carriage!
- Category:Gun-carriages have been around almost for ever - they are special-purpose carriages
- Delete
- Category:Horse carriages possibly to differentiate from baby carriages?
- Eddaido (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: It's not just a matter of keeping or deleting, but of hierarchy. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" then neither Category:Two-wheeled open carriages nor Category:Gun-carriages should be sub-categories - they can continue to exist and even retain their names, but they shouldn't be in Category:Carriages. Alternately, we could change the category description for Category:Carriages to be broader. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be confused thinking, perhaps you might go to some trouble to explain why you do not see the way they are now is the correct hierarchy. Simply saying so is no help. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can put it more plainly. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" all the images in the category and its sub-categories should generally be four-wheeled passenger vehicles. It's a basic principle of our categorization structure. See Commons:Categories - Themightyquill (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I think you must be a computerist. A two-wheeled carriage is a carriage But it has only two wheels which is why that distinction is made in its name. Our language seems to make no allowance for this problem you have found. I dunno but cars have internal combustion engines and that simple fact might very well be included in the definition of a car. But there are a very very few that have e.g. electric motors and we call them electric cars or two seats not the four or six which remains a norm. Does'nt stop them being cars though. Does it? I don't think I can help any more but I will watch with interest. Eddaido (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can put it more plainly. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" all the images in the category and its sub-categories should generally be four-wheeled passenger vehicles. It's a basic principle of our categorization structure. See Commons:Categories - Themightyquill (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be confused thinking, perhaps you might go to some trouble to explain why you do not see the way they are now is the correct hierarchy. Simply saying so is no help. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: It's not just a matter of keeping or deleting, but of hierarchy. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" then neither Category:Two-wheeled open carriages nor Category:Gun-carriages should be sub-categories - they can continue to exist and even retain their names, but they shouldn't be in Category:Carriages. Alternately, we could change the category description for Category:Carriages to be broader. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, please don't make assumptions or accusations about my personal character. Second, Category:Automobiles doesn't include a description of the category that suggests all automobiles have internal combustion engines, so your hypothetical is useless. I'm not saying that a two-wheeled carriage isn't a carriage. I'm not saying a gun-carriage isn't a carriage. But neither belongs in a category for things four-wheeled passenger vehicles. So if you want them in Category:Carriages, we need to change our definition of carriage. Category:Cartridges is fine as is (with no definition), but if you added a description that said "Cartridges are packaging for projectiles" we'd have a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I came across this as I was looking for a Category:Horse-drawn carriages which doesn't exist, but should (IMO) as it is the general name for the type of carriage (and not "horse carriage" as far as I'm aware). Repurpose the Category:Carriages to be a hold-all for all the above, including for instance "railway carriages". What do you think? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Deadstar. Yes, that might make sense. Alternately, a disambiguation page might be good if we can make it work. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- We could also leave the category structure as is, but change the category description to "wheeled passenger vehicles designed to be pulled by animals" and add "see also" links to other things (like train carriages, gun carriages, horse-drawn sleighs, etc) that don't fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so was bold and created Category:Horse-drawn carriages to replace Category:Horse carriages, as that just sounded wrong to me (ie it's not "a carriage for transporting horses"). I have added files to the category which now needs sorting... Updating the description here might then be enough? -- Deadstar (msg) 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- We could also leave the category structure as is, but change the category description to "wheeled passenger vehicles designed to be pulled by animals" and add "see also" links to other things (like train carriages, gun carriages, horse-drawn sleighs, etc) that don't fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- But what do we do with all the sub-categories of Category:Carriages? Leave them? Move them to [[ Category:Horse-drawn carriages and rename them (e.g. Category:Coachman-driven carriages > Category:Coachman-driven horse-drawn carriages)? I'm not sure we've figured out the complete solution yet. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't think of a non-horse-drawn carriage where you would qualify the driver as "coachman" (but then, am not an expert in the area!) :) Underlying categories... Not a big fan of renaming everything to include "horse-drawn" as things get a bit clunky. So what about moving them and not renaming (unless that gets very confusing). I'll have a think. Inviting anyone who reads this to have a think too :) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look in Category:Carriages in India. =) Though after a brief search, those are the only ones I could find. I actually thought I'd find a lot more. Maybe that small number make up a reasonable exception that can be overlooked. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for Pete's Sake! OMG, Quill, edit the danged description and do something useful. THERE IS NOT ANY WAY to have a perfect schema, as media cover the whole breadth of human experience and cultures. We all come at things with different thinking. So settle for what is sensible and understandable and do useful work. Two or Four wheels, who cares but the Amish and Gypsies... perhaps some Asiatics still using animal power. The key is to have places people can sort into and follow down looking for things... search into logically. Concurrently, the MORE Categories you put in between a keyword people gravitate to (Such as 'Carriages'... a good solid no-nonsense word, unambiguous even!) makes it harder for them to find media, if they don't know the links. Maps of cities by county of state of the US... lot easier to search maps of city name. Those extra words also makes it harder to classify, sort and park stuff. KISS principle. KEEP IT SIMPLE Student! Hope this is understandable. // FrankB 23:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks (I guess?) for your input/angry rant, Fabartus. As I already mentioned above, I wasn't proposing to delete Category:Carriages. You may notice that CFD statnds for "categories for discussion" not "categories for deletion." Firstly, I don't see how whether the people who you associate with use currently animal power is relevant to a discussion. We currently have 23 different categories for carriage museums so somebody cares about it. I found a picture of a "cabriolet" carriage in Category:Cabriolet (which is currently for cars, and subject to a different discussion) and thought I'd find a better home for it. The description that didn't match the sub-categories had me confused, so I proposed discussion.The whole point of my question is that "carriage" can mean a lot of very different things to different people, so no, it doesn't make sense to just keep it simple in this case, because that means keeping in ambiguous. I don't know what you're talking about with maps of cities, or how that's relevant to this discussion. Yes, searching is easier if you know exactly what you are looking for, but browsing a well categorized collection is easier if you don't, and adding categories doesn't have any negative impact on searching. If you're not interested in contributing, that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- In short: Edit the dang description, to what exactly? A good answer to that question would actually be useful, unlike a rant telling me to be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks (I guess?) for your input/angry rant, Fabartus. As I already mentioned above, I wasn't proposing to delete Category:Carriages. You may notice that CFD statnds for "categories for discussion" not "categories for deletion." Firstly, I don't see how whether the people who you associate with use currently animal power is relevant to a discussion. We currently have 23 different categories for carriage museums so somebody cares about it. I found a picture of a "cabriolet" carriage in Category:Cabriolet (which is currently for cars, and subject to a different discussion) and thought I'd find a better home for it. The description that didn't match the sub-categories had me confused, so I proposed discussion.The whole point of my question is that "carriage" can mean a lot of very different things to different people, so no, it doesn't make sense to just keep it simple in this case, because that means keeping in ambiguous. I don't know what you're talking about with maps of cities, or how that's relevant to this discussion. Yes, searching is easier if you know exactly what you are looking for, but browsing a well categorized collection is easier if you don't, and adding categories doesn't have any negative impact on searching. If you're not interested in contributing, that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The description says "The classic definition of a carriage", not that that's the full or definitive definition. I say change the description, maybe to something like "a wheeled vehicle without its own power source" or "a wheeled vehicle that is propelled by human or animal power". Also adjust the categorization. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Closing as kept as the category is clearly useful, and there has been no active discussion here for close to 2 years. (I suggest any further suggestions for improved wording of the hat note be made at Category talk:Carriages.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
state somewhere which kind of additional categories these people need, in order to know when to remove this categorization Jochen Burghardt (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would assume it was created (by Paris 16) to help sort these categories into one of the other sub-categories of Category:People of Paris (e.g. Category:People of Paris by century or Category:Births in Paris). At very least, it should also be marked as a maintenance category, no? It's kind of a unique maintenance category though, in that its made up of categories. We have Category:Media needing categories but we don't have anything like Category:Categories needing categorization. All the sub-categories should at least be copied into Category:People of Paris by name. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are two options:
- (a) moving here: category:People of Paris
- (b) moving here: category:People of Paris by name
@Jochen Burghardt and Themightyquill: Deleted. Content moved to category:People of Paris by name. Discussion closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this category tree is useful. For comparison, Category:Dogs includes both photos of entire dogs and photos of parts of dogs by default. There's no Category:Dog faces, parts of dogs, etc. If we need to make categories for "complete books", we can do so rather than categorizing based on awkward phrasing of "incomplete books." This is unclear and awkward and all 74 sub-categories should be deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- [joke] Rename to "Books by percentage of image", so we have somewhere to put pictures featuring exactly 13% of a book :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- [seriously]
Renameto Category:Single pages of books; a little top-of-category text can specify that the scope includes covers. Unlike with dogs, we can take a book apart and photograph its components without the whole thing ceasing to be useful. If you're looking for an image of an individual book page, you won't appreciate having your category littered with entire books and large parts thereof, and if you're looking for an image of an entire book, you won't appreciate having your category littered with individual pages. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think if you are searching for a single page of a book, you would be at all bothered by finding complete books, since complete books are made up of single pages. I mean, if you're looking for a page from a book, chances are you're not just looking for any single page of any book, you're looking for a single page from a specific book, no? If you want a photo of a page from Moby Dick, you're not going to be upset to find a folder featuring every page from Moby Dick, instead of finding a folder with a smattering of single pages from various books printed the same year as Moby Dick.
- Are you suggesting we put all single pages of books into a single enormous flat category (Category:Single pages of books) or that we should subdivide that category by language, publication date/location, author etc? We'd have two rather parallel category trees (Category:1848 books and Category:Single pages of 1848 books) that I don't feel are necessary. If we have jpgs of every page in an edition of Moby Dick, should every one of those images be in Category:Moby Dick and in Category:Single pages of 1841 books, Category:Single pages of English language books, Category:Single pages of books from the United States, etc. ? At least with books by percentage, we'd only have 100 new categories created. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Addressing your final serious thing first — if we have jpgs of every page in an edition of Moby-Dick (we need to move the book category to include the hyphen), we could just create a new category, Category:Single pages of Moby-Dick, and it could be put into all the relevant-and-existing parent categories instead of putting the individual images into them. You say "we'd have two rather parallel category trees"; why wouldn't the single pages of 1848 books simply be a subcategory of the 1848 books? At the moment, Category:1779 books book covers, single pages, etc. is a subcategory of Category:1779 books (I just picked a random example), which I believe is appropriate. I'm hesitating to agree with the subdivision by year, but that's a sub-issue: if we agree that a category for single pages is appropriate, we can handle the subdivisions later, and if we agree that it's not appropriate, we'll trash the subdivisions anyway. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Book pages and purge that category (and its subcategories) of images that show more than two pages from a book. I don't see how the scope of this one and that one are fundamentally different. We can handle the subcategories in a separate CFD. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out Category:Book pages, which I hadn't noticed. I'm fine with a merger in that direction, but it's the sub-categories that I had in mind with this nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: To be clear, you don't think it's worth categorizing book pages by year? Perhaps it makes more sense for a single page from a book to be in Category:1534 book pages than in Category:1534 books? I'm not arguing either way, just asking before these sub-categories all get deleted and potentially merged to Category:Book pages. There's no reason for these to mention covers, since Category:Book covers by year exists. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's correct. A page from a 1779 book will be in the scope of a category for "1779 books", for example. Maybe if we get a ton of pages from different 1779 books, it would be different (e.g. one individual page from each of fifty books published in 1779), since it would be merely a way of splitting up the large category, but aside from that situation, I can't envision a situation in which I'd support having such a category. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: To be clear, you don't think it's worth categorizing book pages by year? Perhaps it makes more sense for a single page from a book to be in Category:1534 book pages than in Category:1534 books? I'm not arguing either way, just asking before these sub-categories all get deleted and potentially merged to Category:Book pages. There's no reason for these to mention covers, since Category:Book covers by year exists. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out Category:Book pages, which I hadn't noticed. I'm fine with a merger in that direction, but it's the sub-categories that I had in mind with this nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge --Allforrous (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm going to start cleaning this out if it's ok, this is a ridiculous category. I am going to move the files from Category:1470 books single pages to Category:1470 books, for example. If there are a lot of single pages from one book I will create a category for the book. There will be very few years that have a large number of single pages, so I don't think it will be a big deal. As above, book covers will get moved to the book covers category. I'll get started in a few days if nobody objects, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's better than okay with me. Thanks in advance for your work. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Should be Category:Fausto Veranzio as per Fausto Veranzio and common name. Zoupan (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
according to which policy? I remind you this is not en.wiki (although it is not bullet proof about its "English" name): on commons all languages/dialects are equal! --Quahadi Añtó 13:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- According to what I already said.--Zoupan (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's no reason to use the English wikipedia name. Common name is a good reason to change, but a common name doesn't seem to have been clearly established, since different wikipedias use different names. If anything, the Slavic name seems more common, since there are more Slavic language wikipedia articles about him than any other. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- In against appropriation of scientific and historical figure by a current state I do not think that you justify that a 16th-century Venetian appears named in Croatian language universal showcase that pretends to be Commons. Faust Vrančić is appropriate for the Croatian Wikipedia page; I think either indicated by conflict, the official name adapted into English, although that language is functional in Commons. I propose to be appointed him with the Latin spelling "Faustus Verantius", appearing in his published works. And every wikipedia to move it into their national language.--Latemplanza (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan and Quahadi: What do you think about redirecting to Category:Faustus Verantius (Latin)? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- He is of Croatian origin and his native name is Faust Vrančić, therefore let him stay Faust Vrančić. --Silverije (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 06:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
This category is redundant, subspecies should be categorised under Canis lupus, as in all other taxon categories. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with FunkMonk that such "subspecies" categories are quite rare, but a quick search reveals that this is not the only example: Category:Sus scrofa subspecies, Category:Canis aureus subspecies, Category:Procyon lotor subspecies, Category:Canis mesomelas subspecies, Category:Lynx lynx subspecies, Category:Subspecies of Archon apollinus, Category:Subspecies of Felis silvestris, Category:Acinonyx jubatus subspecies, Category:Apis mellifera subspecies, Category:Panthera pardus subspecies. Consistency is good, but I can also see the advantage of grouping the 21 sub-categories for subspecies of Canis lupus, especially when Category:Canis lupus is already quite busy. If we're going to go for consistency, I would suggest we delete the above categories as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Might seem that the categories in Canis lupus are too unspecific? Or I could imagine that many images can't be identified to subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 06:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
English wikipedia uses en:Convertible for both Cabriolet and Convertible, and doesn't seem to indicate a difference. The category description here seems to indicate a difference, but I don't totally understand what it is. At any rate, the fact that a) Cabriolet is singular here, and b) the term can also refer to furniture or a horse-drawn carriage suggests that, at very least, a name change is required. Category:Cabriolets should probably be a disambiguation page. Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
- Within the last 50 years the distinction has been lost because no true cabriolets are now made and young editors have chosen to (incorrectly) merge cabriolets into convertibles and that is indeed as the words are currently used. Nevertheless an encyclopaedia by its nature must forget this recentest attitude and make the distinction clear. A cabriolet has cantrails over the windows. The side windows roll up and make a firm closure against the cantrail. With expensive cars these cant rails may usually be folded but the result is a lot of bulky top-hamper behind and above the rear seat and on each side the hood irons needed to support the folding cantrails while they are erected. The link to a (horse drawn=US English) carriage is direct and very clear. The name cabriolet comes from the shape (a goat's hind leg) of the hood irons needed to support the folding cantrails and such a distinctive shape is useful for other purpose such as describing furniture.
- en:Convertible should indicate the change in meaning of the last half century. Those editors seem to have considered the distinction a technicality of no interest to them.
Eddaido (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your information, Eddaido. I plead total ignorance on this subject. I don't have any problem with making this distinction between images (even though a brief search didn't yield any evidence to support your argument) but it should definitely be made more clearly. I wonder, since the word cabriolet is at least partially ambiguous, if we could instead use category names like Category:Convertibles with folding canrails and Category:Convertibles with fixed cantrails as a compromise to satisfy everyone and ensure clarity? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is an extremely bad idea. Major over-kill. And anyway you seem to think cantrails (the distinguishing feature) are on convertibles! I acknowledge that cabriolets are no longer made just like (I suppose, well not for commercial use) steam locomotives are no longer made
- So you would dispense with Category:Steam locomotives because they are out of date?
- Cabriolets are not convertibles, they are cabriolets. Recently cabriolet is used (sloppily by those who know no better) to describe convertibles. That does not stop cabriolet meaning cabriolet. Please let me know if you don't understand that vital distinction. Steam locomotives are fortunate in so far as most people recognise the vapour of steam as it seeps through joints and things. If the difference was not easily distinguishable would you run all locomotives together as just ... locomotives? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I was under the impression that cabriolets are one type of convertible. That's partly because they share some basic similarities and partly because Category:Cabriolet is currently a sub-category of Category:Convertibles. In fact, that's literally it's only parent category. Your comparison with Category:Steam locomotives is irrelevant. It's not that cabriolets are no longer made that is the problem, it's the fact that - rightly or wrongly - the meaning of the word has largely changed in common usage. I accept that you believe the two have nothing in common, buy you still haven't provided any actual sourced evidence of this, nor does (as I mentioned) the wikipedia article support your argument. Now, I'm trying to find an amicable solution that makes your distinction clear to everyone, because it isn't currently clear. My suggestion as just that - an idea - so please tone down the hostility a notch. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is an extremely bad idea. Major over-kill. And anyway you seem to think cantrails (the distinguishing feature) are on convertibles! I acknowledge that cabriolets are no longer made just like (I suppose, well not for commercial use) steam locomotives are no longer made
.jpg)
- Hostility? I leave that to you. Eddaido (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The car on the right in the photo to the right is a convertible. Like its neighbour it has no cant rail and so no hood iron to support the cant rail. The cant rail is a heavy piece of metal or timber to which the windows wind up and seal onto. As can be seen from the car on the left there is no proper seal, merely a loose flap of the roofing material falling on the inside of the wound-up window. Eddaido (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- We seem to be talking past each other. I have understood your argument. That's no long the problem. What I don't see is any other source on the internet that agrees with you. I can't find a single source that makes the same definitional distinction between cabriolet and convertible that you do. I'm not saying you are wrong - this is not my field of expertise - but I am saying that I can't find anyone that agrees with you. English wikipedia disagrees with you. Any dictionary definitions that I can find disagree with you. Even wikipedia commons' category structure disagrees with you because Category:Cabriolet is a sub-category of Category:Convertibles. If you want to move Category:Cabriolet so that it's no longer a type of convertible, I think you should provide some written evidence for your argument.
- More importantly, Category:Cabriolet is singular, but commons structure says it should be plural (ie. Category:Cabriolets. Also, cabriolets can also mean a type of carriage or a type of furniture. So my proposal is we turn redirect Category:Cabriolet to Category:Cabriolets, a disambiguation page. We also create Category:Cabriolets (automobiles) and move the images currently in Category:Cabriolet there, and link to it from the Category:Cabriolets disambiguation page. The disambiguation page can also link to Category:Chaises and at least reference the furniture which doesn't seem to have a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you are uncomprehending aren't you. What you find does depend on where you look. I've uploaded some more images that might please you. Antiquated because of copyright restrictions. By all means change the category name to Cabriolets. After that all your muddled plans just leave me confused. Furniture??? Wouldn't it be better for you to just leave well alone? Eddaido (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
"You are uncomprehending aren't you" sounds insulting, but I'm just going to assume English is not your first language. As for the content of our discussion:
- Please provide written evidence (to be clear, I mean written by someone other than you) of your argument about the distinction between cabriolets and convertibles. I'm not interesting in hearing you repeat yourself and post additional images.
- No, I don't think the category is acceptable as it is. It's ambiguous. I came here precisely because there was at least one image of a horse-drawn carriage in the category. See en:Cabriolet (furniture) and en:Cabriolet (carriage). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hostility again? Now why not have a category for furniture if you wish and clearly carriage is intended to be the related but two-wheeled object. Have a look at the current collection of images and please do not write to me like that. Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- (postscript) Your edits here send me no email notification that you have made them. Why? Eddaido (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: You weren't notified of my edits because I didn't include your username in my text. You can use either {{U}} or {{Ping}} to reference other users and ensure they are notified of your edits. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- (postscript) Your edits here send me no email notification that you have made them. Why? Eddaido (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the texts that you uploaded do not make a distinction between convertible and cabriolet. They do not use the word convertible at all, and seem to simply describe technology as it was in 1914. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- How do you define a convertible? When were they developed? (1920s?) Which nation? (USA?) The equivalent of your convertible was an all-weather body, the same name was used in Germany, in France I think décapotable but I do not know the French language.
Do you wish to collapse all terminology into the current (always vague) US terminology? You would see no distinction between one European and another? Eddaido (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)- How *I* define convertible is irrelevant. What matters is what published sources indicate, and I can find no sources that make the distinction that you make. Yes, of course, terminology should be collapsed into the current usage. Should we have different categories like Category:X (as it was used in the 18th century), Category:X (as it was used in the 19th century), etc? There's no reason to use the American term if the contemporary British terminology is different, but you haven't provided any evidence that such a distinction is made by anyone other than yourself. Foreign languages are irrelevant, because Commons uses English names for categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- How do you define a convertible? When were they developed? (1920s?) Which nation? (USA?) The equivalent of your convertible was an all-weather body, the same name was used in Germany, in France I think décapotable but I do not know the French language.
- Closed, kept per discussion, used. (If no longer very common, was much used specific term in historic vehicles.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Kategoria ciekawa,lecz i tu znalazłem błędy:kamienica na Dworcowej 67 to piękny włoski neorenesans, z secesją nie ma to nic wspólnego,więc pliki 3+4 w sumie 7 nie mogą być w kategorii reliefy secesyjne(art nouveau).Pliki powinny być w kategorii reliefy neorenesansowe,kamienica na ul Cieszkowskiego 11 jest w stylach mieszanych,trochę neogotyku pomieszanego z neorenesansem,a ewentualnie na siłę to można tam podciągnąć pod secesję tylko te reliefy pod wykuszem,są też obecne reliefy neobarokowe,a nie secesyjne np Cieszkowskiego 17. Taktoperz77 Taktoperz77 10:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kamienica Dworcowa 67 w Bydgoszczy została zbudowana w latach 1912-1913. Według źródeł jej styl to modernizm klasycyzujący. Nie jestem przekonany, czy płaskorzeźby na tej kamienicy są neorenesansowe. --Pit1233 (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Tak konstrukcyjnie jest to modernizm,ale reliefy są neorenesansowe.Dlaczego? Otóż renesans zwłaszcza włoski czerpał wszystkie wzory motywów:ornamentów,fryzów,rzeźb,płaskorzeźb,kolumn,pilastrów,kartuszy,konsoli itd,itp z klasycyzmu antycznego,przykłady renesansowa Villa Rotonda w Vicenzy,posąg Dawida. Są to arcydzieła renesansu wzorowane na klasycyzmie antycznym.Być może dlatego użyto terminu Modernizm klasycyzujący(neorenesansowy).Jednak na pewno nie są to reliefy secesyjne.A jeszcze inny błąd ul Garbary 12,tam już secesyjnego nie ma absolutnie nic,co więcej nie ma tam nawet żadnych płaskorzeźb,a Pan plik z widokiem szczytu neorenesansowego z gzymsami zaliczył do kat.Art Nouveau reliefs.Dlaczego? Taktoperz77 Albo (2 pliki) z neogotycką ażurową balustradą balkonów nawiązującą do gotyckich maswerków -ul Cieszkowskiego 11 -to wg Pana secesyjne reliefy.Dlaczego? Nie wszystko co zbudowano na przełomie XIX I XX wieku to secesja.Neogotyk,neobarok,neorokoko,neorenesans,eklektyzm nie są secesją.Taktoperz77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taktoperz77 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. This discussion is about files, not about the nominated category. I propose to move this non-English discussion into Category talk:Art Nouveau reliefs in Bydgoszcz--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: This discussion is about files, not about the nominated category. --Emha (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This should be renamed just to Category:Muye24gi. And flags is just a separate category for 2 out of five images. Muye24gi is an event (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muye24gi) that likely deserves its own category. And flags is just an error. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- By my reading, Muye24gi is a martial art, not an event. You can move to Category:Muye24gi but it shouldn't go in Category:Hwaseong Fortress. Maybe create something like Category:Demonstrations at Hwaseong Fortress to indicate the location? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Empty. And thus useless. Pldx1 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Pldx1: It's only empty because you created Category:Performances (Hwaseong Fortress) (an isolated sub-category) and moved all the files there while discussion was still in progress. I'm not sure "performances" is particularly apt, especially because Category:Performances is a sub-category of Category:Performing arts. Moreover, if they are all illustrating a martial art called Muye24gi, they should all be in a category related to Muye24gi as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User:Themightyquill. It seems that you don't see clearly what could be 무예 이십사 기. This is simply 마상육기 + 무예 십팔 기. I don't think this is about Category:Demonstrations and protests ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Pldx1: It's only empty because you created Category:Performances (Hwaseong Fortress) (an isolated sub-category) and moved all the files there while discussion was still in progress. I'm not sure "performances" is particularly apt, especially because Category:Performances is a sub-category of Category:Performing arts. Moreover, if they are all illustrating a martial art called Muye24gi, they should all be in a category related to Muye24gi as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Empty. And thus useless. Pldx1 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: I'm afraid I don't speak Korean or really understand anything about this sport. I tried translating your text, but the translation didn't make sense to me. Are you saying these are not demonstrations of Muye24gi but something else? I definitely agree the category shouldn't be a sub-category of Category:Demonstrations and protests. Unless it's a tournament, maybe we could put it in Category:Presentations? We could even make Category:Martial arts presentations as a search for "martial arts demonstrations" found several other images that might be combined this way. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the Category:Performances (Hwaseong Fortress) is different from what was in the old M24 and flags category; IIRC it had two flags (one of them was File:Flags on Hwaseong.JPG) and two other pictures. Anyway, Category:Performances (Hwaseong Fortress) clearly needs to be have a category added, perhaps Category:Performances for now? Through I am not sure this is the best name, English/logic-wise). I do agree that a category for Muye24gi seems fine; through as usual with Korean topics, spelling is an issue (here's a source that calls it "Muye 24-ki", for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. Romanization ever introduces some blur. But this is not 김, the paramount exception (Kim, as in Kim Hong-do) and Hwaseong is south of the DMZ. Thus 기 is gi. Pldx1 (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion @Pldx1, Themightyquill, and Piotrus: any further developments here? If there is no good category name, I suggest to upmerge these files into the parent category:Hwaseong Fortress--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (i dont speak korean at all. anything relevant below is copied from various wikis.)
- "무예이십사반" is a set of martial arts, similar to Category:Karate kata. that means, it's a set of movements the person performs.
- Muye24gi or Muye24ki is the transliteration of "무예이십사기".
- so i suggest a category for this set be created.
its transliterated name can follow ALA-LC romanisation scheme https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/koreantranslit.html . it's probably something like "muye 24-gi", but i'm not capable of confirming the correct transliteration.@-revi and Kwj2772: could you please help us? - Performances (Hwaseong Fortress) should be Performances at Hwaseong Fortress, following the structure of Category:Performances by venue. RZuo (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- we should follow Revised Romanization of Korean instead.--RZuo (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | ||||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I nominated the category for deletion since it was empty. I suspect that's because someone already implemented the suggested solution but forget to close this. It doesn't seem like there's anything else to do here though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
See also: Category talk:Area stamps of Germany. The name of the category is unclear. What is an "area stamp"? A better name might be "Stamps of German territories and historical entities", and it could be explained along the lines of "This category contains files related to postage stamps of individual territories within Germany, administrated by Germany, or served by the German postal services. It includes the historical states of Germany, German colonies, German post offices abroad, local and regional issues, territories occupied by Germany, and German territories occupied by foreign powers." Any images of stamps issued by, in, or for one of these territories should be moved into the appropriate sub-category. The general issues for allied-occupied Germany, however, might perhaps better be placed into a direct sub-category of "Stamps of Germany". I will, at any rate, try to improve the introductory text on the category page. Schlosser67 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have changed the text a while ago. Shall the category be renamed into "Stamps of German territories and historical entities"? --Schlosser67 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does not seem like a good name as we already have Category:Stamps of the Historical states of Germany as well as most of the other descriptive suggestion you intend to include in the category. Or would it not be even better to move all the existing subcategories into Category:Stamps of Germany as subcategories there. Ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not all historical territories of or in Germany were historical states, although the latter are certainly a subset of the former, so there should not be a conflict, but suggestions for better names are welcome. Moving the subcategories into "Stamps of Germany" and doing away with the "area stamps" category might actually be the best solution, since a proper definition of "area stamps" or whatever name we might find is difficult. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- In accordance with the above, I have started to re-categorise some of the subcategories. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not all historical territories of or in Germany were historical states, although the latter are certainly a subset of the former, so there should not be a conflict, but suggestions for better names are welcome. Moving the subcategories into "Stamps of Germany" and doing away with the "area stamps" category might actually be the best solution, since a proper definition of "area stamps" or whatever name we might find is difficult. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- That does not seem like a good name as we already have Category:Stamps of the Historical states of Germany as well as most of the other descriptive suggestion you intend to include in the category. Or would it not be even better to move all the existing subcategories into Category:Stamps of Germany as subcategories there. Ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- How about a better name now? See the discussion of the category itself. --Schlosser67 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I just mention that Commons has also other category with the name <area stamps of>, namely Category:Area stamps of Italy, and it is redirected to Category:Stamps of the historic Italian states--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Category is empty. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)