Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/05

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive May 2016

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Poğaça

Cat structure as well as spelling (diacritics, see subcats) need fixing. Achim (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat "Pogača" and its subcat had diacritics since ages but it never disturbed you? Why now? --E4024 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E4024, maybe I'm wrong but to me it looks like Category:Pogača being dupe of Category:Poğaça and I can't say which one is spelled correctly. Or is it once more the Serbian-versus-other-languages game? --Achim (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those things you believe you can learn from me you may always ask me directy; no need to open uncalled for discussions. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for providing your knowledge. --Achim (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. (See edit summary please.) --E4024 (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the turta on my talk page. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then let's start again from the beginning: Poğaça seems to be a Turkish word per tr:Poğaça (English language link see en:Pogača). So Category:Poğaça and Category:Turkish poğaça obviously seem to deal with exactly the same thing. d:Q250170 (note last edit there) shows this term in other languages. So we can assume Category:Pogača keeping the same thing or even the Serbian/Bulgarian/whatever flavour of it. Therefore I'd like to discuss a) naming and b) category structure as there is also to mention an additional Category:Turkish poğaça and açma. --Achim (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "Pogača" is an English name we have nothing to discuss. English WP is a wonderful place for those things. They have a kurabiye pic in their "Pogača" article. --E4024 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link to en:wp was meant so that someone interested in this stuff can look up there. Or even bg:Погача or hu:Pogácsa. E4024, by now from you didn't come any constructive contribution on this matter. If you don't like to help us we'll cleanup the whole thing without you, so what. --Achim (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "we"? I see no-one (else) discussing but you. Please "call in your friends" to support you; of course do that without leaving traces behind. --E4024 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to complain about me at COM:AN/U. Best, --Achim (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use Category:Poğaça for a) Turkish poğaça and for sub-categories for the pogac(s)a of other coutnries if/when they are essentially different. If Serbian (etc) pogaca are essentially the same, use the Turkish spelling - I'm assuming the word is of Turkish origin - and place Category:Poğaça in Category:Cuisine of Serbia and make redirects from Category:Pogača and Category:Pogacsa. It's not going to be a great or painful revelation to anyone in the Balkans that some of their cuisine has Turkish origins. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish poğaça and açma makes no sense to me at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can make that one Category: Poğaça in Turkey and close the whole discussion. --E4024 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got time, read this. --E4024 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read through quickly, but didn't see the relevance to this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. As I saw you interested in the etymology of poğaça, I added it. I should have put it on your talk page. --E4024 (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, E4024, I must have missed your earlier comment about moving Category:Turkish poğaça and açma to Category:Poğaça in Turkey. I'm not sure that latter category is necessary at all. Can't we just put all of these pastries in Category:Poğaça ? If the Serbian ones are especially different, they could be in a separate category. But if poğaça originates in Turkey and is more-or-less the same everywhere, I'm not sure we need a separate Category:Poğaça in Turkey. Similarly, there's no Category:Gözleme in Turkey just Category:Gözleme. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "poğaça" as we know it in Turkey, from where it emerged, is only in the pics that I took. Especially "sweet" breads are not considered poğaça. Whatever, as long as I have a category called "poğaça" I will keep calm. --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Category:Turkish poğaça and açma, redirected Category:Turkish poğaça to Category:Poğaça. Adding explanatory notes to Category:Poğaça and Category:Pogača. I hope that satisfies everyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Wheatley Row

Identical category, better named, exists:Category:Wheatley Row House, 1018 Twenty-ninth Street NW Henrytow (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different building. Category:Wheatley Row includes pictures of theses buildings at 3041-3045 N Street NW. I've also never seen categories that include the house name and address. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I live nearby and will take a look. 69.251.25.185 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, logged out and didn't notice. Henrytow (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several thoughts on this matter: 1. Indeed,Wheatley Row does not have the Wheatley Row House. There is also a Francis Wheatley house on M Street. An easy road to confusion. 2. There are several houses in Georgetown popularly identified by a house name, e.g. Dumbarton House, Bodisco House, Tudor Place. Their category names should and do contain an address as well. 3. The HABS images have quite a few house names with an attendant address. I simply followed the HABS usage and plan to continue to do so unless there might be confusion. 4. In many years of living in Georgetown, I have never heard of Wheatley Row or House. For these images, I propose omitting the house or row name, and using only the street address. 5. If the owner of one of these houses objects, the category can be renamed. Henrytow (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i would caution you using HABS id's. there are approximate from 50 years ago, with a guess by an englishman. there is much confusion about similar names that requires scholarship. the NRHP jpgs at the NPS are helpful [1]. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to #2, which of these houses include the address? You mentioned Tudor Place. I see Category:Tudor Place and Category:Tudor Place, 1644 Thirty-first Street NW, but the latter is just a redirect. A couple of other observations - you recently added Category:3027 Q Street, N.W., Cooke's Row, Georgetown, Washington, D.C. (DC HABS) to File:Bob Woodward House (after Watergate).jpg, but the picture isn't a HABS photograph or drawing. You also created Category:Grafton Tyler Double House, 1314 Thirtieth Street when Category:Grafton Tyler Double House has been around since 2010. I would suggest making sure you're not creating duplicate categories. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so: I have noticed some possible mislabeling, and I intend after categorizing this mess to study them. There may be some images of the same house with different ids. Henrytow (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AgnosticPreachersKid: I can take credit for both Category:Tudor Place, 1644 Thirty-first Street NW (which I changed to a redirect after noticing the duplication) and Category:Grafton Tyler Double House, 1314 Thirtieth Street (which I'll change to a redirect now). Thanks for pointing out the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're correct. My apologies, Henrytow. Thanks for fixing that Themightyquill. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination resulted from conclusion. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Walking street of Chiang Mai

No such thing as "Walking Street of Chiang Mai". It's either the "Night Bazar of Chiang Mai", or the "Sunday Night Market/Sunday Night Walking Street/Rachadamnoen Road" or the "Saturday Night Walking Street/Wuolai Road Market" but nope, no such thing as the "Walking Street of Chiang Mai". There is a "Walking Street" in Pattaya but that's not Chiang Mai. Takeaway (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements sound fine to me. I endorse whatever you think best. Kalbbes (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalbbes, just out of curiosity, where did you get "Walking street of Chiang Mai" from? - Takeaway (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway, it is curious. Now I can't reconstruct how I came up with the term, but it's not one I was familiar with. I thought that I found it either on Google or on the image descriptions, but I can't find the reference now. Kalbbes (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird isn't it? In any case, I just renamed the images to a more correct name so no-one will be tempted to think that they are actually of Chiang Mai in Thailand. See File:B&W image of unidentified location 1.jpg, File:B&W image of unidentified location 2.jpg, and File:B&W image of unidentified location 3.jpg. Pity really that no one recognises the exact locations for certain so far because they are really nice photos. Olivier had actually put them into Category:Morocco so perhaps he knows more? - Takeaway (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number three looks like Medina de Chaouen aka Chefchaouen, Morocco. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is this image (by the same user) actually of Chiang Mai? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill, great finding that picture of Chefchaouen! And indeed, the other photo is also not Chiang Mai. All four photos were taken on the same day so it would be safe to assume that all 4 are of Chefchaouen. - Takeaway (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the names of all 4 images + recategorised: File:Chefchaouen01.jpg, File:Chefchaouen02.jpg, File:Chefchaouen03.jpg, and File:Chefchaouen04.jpg. Thanks for the cooperation! - Takeaway (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the Chefchaouen, Morocco categorization: I had tagged the pictures as "Morocco" because they were part of a series related to Morocco. Now the pictures are in a much more relevant category. Thanks. Regarding Category:Walking street of Chiang Mai, I think that we could just delete it at this point. Olivier (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting. Category is now empty with most images likely moved to Category:Night Bazaar of Chiang Mai. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Alessandra Scatena

There was only one image. Now it is empty. Yanguas (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed that image. --Achim (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Now it is not empty. --Achim (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Holy League

Martynas Patasius suggested a move on the grounds that there have been many "Holy Leagues" and this category needs disambiguation. Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've hidden the move template out seeing as the move-template and this discussion's nearly been here a month - The reason for the move was "as there have been many "Holy Leagues"... Some disambiguation is probably needed.", I have no opinion on the move nor the discussion, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Holy League (1571) as per en:Holy League (1571). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chrysothricaceae

Selso has requested a move to Category:Chrysotricha Cae (or perhaps Category:Chrysotrichaceae?). en:Chrysothricaceae suggests the spelling of the name is somewhat disputed. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some days ago, IMO it should be kept as it is per type genus Chrysothrix and per en:Chrysothricaceae#Spelling. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections: Kept. --Achim (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:People taking bought stuff to home

Seriously awkward category that shouldn't be used, or at least needs to be renamed. We have many related categories, such as Category:Shopping, Category:Shopping bags, Category:Returning home, Category:People with food, Category:Carrying of household goods, and a variety of "people carrying" categories Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that this is useful (how do you know they are going home, vs. for example to an office or another shop?) it should be renamed to something that constitutes literate English. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was once blocked for 3 days due to having rebuked someone else about their less than flawless English. There were a few differences, though:

The person in question is from a country where English is part of everybody`s school curriculum for many decades, not from a country where the mere knowledge of English and its use online, no matter how mangled, may constitute cause for unpleasantness with the law.
The person in question was an admin, Sonia is not.
Back then I was slightly less unpolite than User:Jmabel was here above.

What to do? Block Jmabel for more than 3 days?, or for less than 3 days? Or just say it’s all under the bridge? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did not look up who named the category, I merely remarked on it being a very incorrect category name. But if you feel that merits a block, feel free to block me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there's a difference between rebuking someone for their English, and accurately criticizing a category for being grammatically incorrect and awkward, but the difference in intention is not always clear. If the category creator was offended by the comment above, Jmabel would rightly be expected to apologize and clarify that the attack was not directed at any person, and I expect, would do so without hesitation. Since Sonia Sevilla is not active, that seems unnecessary. None of this is relevant to this category discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe name is badly constructed and requires renaming if it is to continue existing. I can't think of a good replacement, and don't really see the need for it to exist in the first place. A combination of the categories that Ruff tuff cream puff cited above seem sufficient to capture any images that might go in this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shopping is a central activity to any culture. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevit: are you saying that even the current name of the category is fine? - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I am not agianst renaming. We can not determine wether people in an images is going home, to a friend or any other destination. "People carrying bought items outdoors" or any title defining a similar status would be fine for me. As a matter of fact simple search is not longer adequate for commons. A: Commons need Boolean search for categories. B: Commons need to be able to search for categories and respective subcategories. IMHO this would be good way to deal with increasig file number and limited human work power. Here is an example search: "Category:Vases" (with subdirectories) AND "Category:White_background". --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Catscan-Quick Intersection and the results of your particular query? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not see the tool. It is great, not as user friendly as I expected bu happy to see that it exists. Thank you. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting. No clear opposition and the category has been emptied. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sculptures of armour

This new category seems useful to me, but I noticed that some of the contained categories are also in Category:People wearing armour. Is that necessary? Does Category:Sculptures of armour imply sculptures of people in armour sufficiently that Category:People wearing armour can be a parent? Or should Category:Sculptures of people wearing armour be created? I'm not determined to make a change, I just thought I'd ask for input. Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that, at quick glance, I can find at least one (File:Gran_Guardia_palace,_detail_armour.jpg) though not many images with sculptures of armour without people. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just on naming alone, I think Category:People wearing armour could be a parent of something like Category:Sculptures of people wearing armour, but not of Category:Sculptures of armour. However this is handled, it should probably be the same as with Category:Paintings of armour and similar categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Probably: Category:Armour in sculpture or the like. No problem. --JMCC1 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures of armour is a subcat of Category:Armour in art similar to other cats like Drawings/Illustrations/Paintings of armour. I'd prefer naming "Category:Sculptures of (something still to discuss)" or something like "Category:Sculptures depicting ...". --Achim (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, JMCC1, but I didn't mean to suggest that there was anything wrong with the category you created. Category:Sculptures of armour is just fine. My question was whether, for example, Category:Statue of John Hunyadi (Vajdahunyad Castle, Budapest) should be a) in Category:Sculptures of armour AND in Category:People wearing armour, b) in just Category:Sculptures of armour or c) in a newly created cat Category:Sculptures of people wearing armour (itself a subcategory of both Category:Sculptures of armour and Category:People wearing armour). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good advice. Created Category:Sculptures of people wearing armour. Regards --JMCC1 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-category of Category:Sculptures of people wearing armour has been created. Thanks all for your help! - Themightyquill (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:WMF-COM

Should be deleted as it does not appear to be actively used anymore. GVarnum-WMF (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to have been rather redundant with Category:Wikimedia Foundation back when it was used - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested speedy deletion. This appears to have been a maintenance category for the PR material cleanup project (which, initiated in 2008, ironically had the purpose to assess the out-of-dateness of PR-related wiki content). FDMS 4 09:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:DRs Kulturarvsprojekt

Delete the lot, they're licensed as "Photos are to use for non-commercial purposes" which is a non-free licence. Any that are in use can be moved to Wikipedia(s) as needed, subjcet to fair use. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the category unless the files are deleted. I've nominated them as per your description, so we'll wait and see how that works out before we touch the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:DRs Kulturarvsprojekt. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ilford SFX 200 35mm film

Empty: I've moved the contents to Category:Taken on Ilford SFX 200 and made Category:Ilford SFX 200 the new main category. SFX 200 is available as 35mm and 120 film, but we usually don't separate by format (compare e.g. Category:Photos taken on Fujifilm films). El Grafo (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with El Grafo,

Delete. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fortepan

Uncategorized category with only one file. Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Images from Fortepan. Could potentially re-purposed to hold media related to Fortepan film (e.g. File:120 Film & Slide.jpg). El Grafo (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition in nearly a month. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Sage Kotsenburg

This category is empty. Dinosaur918 (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it with {{Empty page}}, so it should be gone soon. For future reference, empty categories don't usually require discussion, so using the empty page template is a simpler process. Just don't use the empty category template, because that's for something else. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro

Please delete this category. I think this category is twice. see Category:Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the duplication, Arnaud Palastowicz. The Portuguese-language name, however, is likely the official name of the garden. It's also seven years older than the English translation. The Portuguese variant is also linked via wikidata, and has sub-categories that follow its name pattern. I'd suggest we redirect Category:Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro to Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro and don't delete anything. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is ok. Hauptsache eine der beiden Kategorien verschwindet in der Versenkung. Meine Richtlinie war: Die Namen von Kategorien sollten in der Regel englisch sein--Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Oddly enough, the English-language version of that policy is more accepting of non-English names than the German-language version. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected Category:Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro to Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Monument To Party Foundation

Duplicate of Category:Monument to the Founding of the Worker's Party ErickAgain 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to the other cat and contents moved. If preferred, feel free to change the {{Category redirect}} template to {{Bad name}}, which will get it deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:North Korea Monument

Duplicate of Category:Mansudae Grand Monument ErickAgain 12:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to the other cat. If preferred, feel free to change the {{Category redirect}} template to {{Bad name}}, which will get it deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mausoleum (Pyongyang)

Duplicate of Category:Kumsusan Memorial Palace ErickAgain 12:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cemetery of Martyrs (Pyongyang)

Duplicate of Category:Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery ErickAgain 12:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to the other cat and contents moved. If preferred, feel free to change the {{Category redirect}} template to {{Bad name}}, which will get it deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Auntof6. --Achim (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Killorglin to Valentia Railway

In hinesight, I think this category should be renamed to Category:Farranfore to Valentia Railway, but I don't know, how to do this most effectively. NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, NearEMPTiness. Next time, use the "move" tab a the top of the category page for uncontroversial moves like this.

Category moved to Category:Farranfore to Valentia Railway. Creator requested move of recently created category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hermann Hanatschek

Empty due to questions surrounding the author's death date. Most sources give none, but some say 1963. WQUlrich (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dumbarton Street, Northwest (House), Washington, District of Columbia, DC HABS

The category should be removed. Its name is incomplete, and the category with a full name exists. Henrytow (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Henrytow: When you accidentally create a category with a bad name, there's no need to propose discussion. You can either redirect with {{Category redirect}} (if a redirect might be useful) or use {{Bad name}} to delete it (if it's really wrong, like a misspelling or something). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Medal of Honor presentation ceremony for Henry Breault

Created by banned editor Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Medal of Honor presentation ceremony for William Badders

Created by banned editor Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Medal of Honor presentation ceremony for Woodrow W. Keeble

Created by banned editor Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Medal of Honor presentation ceremony for John R. McKinney

Created by banned user Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And so what? Tm (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Kenneth D. Bailey

Created by banned editor Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Medal of Honor presentation ceremony for James L. Stone

Created by banned editor Kumiokosock5 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stan Ioan Pătraş House Museum.jpg

my mistake. created the category with file suffix. --T.seppelt (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. @T.seppelt: With typos and similar cases when simple redirection won't do, you can use {{Bad name}} instead of proposing the category for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Recordings provided by Fundación Joaquín Díaz of La Pedraja del Portillo

Dupe of Category:Recordings provided by Fundación Joaquín Díaz of La Pedraja de Portillo. Achim (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Allforrous (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted after cleaning up. --Achim (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dragon fruit

I think this category is twice. Please create a redirect to Category:Pitaya. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die "Anmerkung" in der Kategorie "Dragon fruit" ist recht informativ und sollte in die Category:Pitaya übernommen werden. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This category had two mombers but was not created, so I created it. I have no other opinion. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admin. Another variant is rename to "Dragon fruit as food". Both images may remain in the category. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Category:Pitaya. @JAn Dudík: Thanks for noticing that there were files in this non-existant category. This redirect will help avoid the problem in the future, since "Dragon fruit" is a very common name and will surely be applied to files again. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Naminatha

There are 3 categories which seem to deal with the same Jain tirthankar: Category:Naminatha, Category:Neminatha and Category:Neminath. Maybe Capankajsmilyo can tell us which name should be preferred. Achim (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achim55 Naminatha is different from Neminatha. However, Neminath and Neminatha are same. The wikipedia (en) uses Naminatha and Neminatha. I suggest same to use here as well. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo, thank you very much, yes, now I see, 21st and 22nd tirthankara differ by one letter only. --Achim (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Category:Neminath into Category:Neminatha leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Asaluyeh county

It could be deleted. There is a duplicate Ahmadrknowledge (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Spoorwegmuseum goederenwagens

Categorie kan weg door reorganisatie Categorieën Spoorwegmuseum Maurits90 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Spoorwegmuseum locomotieven

Categorie kan weg door reorganisatie Categorieën Spoorwegmuseum Maurits90 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Spoorwegmuseum rijtuigen

Categorie kan weg door reorganisatie Categorieën Spoorwegmuseum Maurits90 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chop suey

Moved from Category talk:Chop suey. --Achim (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chop suey restaurants

I understand there are "chop suey restaurants" in some countries. Are there? Then those pictures related to the restaurants should be kept in a separate category,not together with a "dish". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Achim (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, create a sub category "Chop suey restaurants". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created Category:Chop suey restaurants. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:December 2015 in Virginia

NO proof these are from Virginia Abbafan2 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were taken at Pentagon Row, which is a mall in Virginia. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed: CFD made by a sockpuppet of an indefblocked user. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tirthankars

Was following category move request Achim (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Tirthankars to Category:Tirthankara: a is necessary --Capankajsmilyo (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See enwiki. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo is right notifying us of a missing character "a". Hedwig is right opposing because of the non-plural cat name. So I suggest moving Category:Tirthankars (created in 2009) to Category:Tirthankaras and merging the content of Category:Tirthankara (created in 2015) there. Redirects from both sources should be kept. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Achim55 Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done per above, thanks to our specialist Capankajsmilyo. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Eddie Hollands

Reasons for discussion request: Category was created with a misspelling (Category:Eddie Hollands instead of Category:Eddy Hollands). A new category was created and all the pages have been added to or created in it. Now empty. Request deletion of the misspelt category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In the future, Hawkeye7, when a redirect is unnecessary (due to a typo, etc) {{Bad name}} can be used to delete the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:2007 Raliul Clujului

now Category:Raliul Clujului 2007‎, have a look at Category:Raliul Clujului T.seppelt (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is reasonable to delete the category to merge to the new category to keep consistency of the categories' names, though, to simplify the edit, the "Move" (or Template:Move) should be used in such cases which there is no need to be discussed...--Morio (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the second category. I'm not sure if moving a page to an already exciting one works. -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cluj Rally

now Category:Raliul Clujului T.seppelt (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Anita Sarkeesian

there is no criticism, even if she is right in all her arguments, there should be some arguments against her. See thunderf00t Thunderf22t (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed: Nonsense request. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:LetsPlay

Unneeded category Laber□^T 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This category provides an easy way to sort the multiple gaming content divisions of Rooster Teeth. Was it really necessary to start a discussion four minutes after I created the category, before I'd even had a chance to finish populating it? -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Changed my mind, decided I don't want this category. I've redirected it to Category:Rooster Teeth. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected by author: No further action needed. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:JetBlue Airways Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

typo, should be "Category:JetBlue Airways aircraft at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport" PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:JetBlue Airways aircraft at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airportand deleted original category with error. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Furong Village

Furong Village (芙蓉村) and Cangpo Village (苍坡村) are two different places. And it seems there are no medias related to Furong Village in the present.--578985s (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nomination, misleading category redirect for an otherwise empty category. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Still-life paintings by subject

Moved from category move request --Achim (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Still-life paintings of flowers to Category:Still life paintings of flowers. Still"-"?life: we currently have both Category:Still life paintings of flowers, and Category:Still-life paintings of flowers. As parent:Category:Still-life paintings/Category:Still life paintings, or as en:Still-life(also redirected), we can move and merge into the one with no hyphen, and leave a {{category redirect}} here. Thank you for your time.--Tokorokoko (Diskussion) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "still-life painting" is spelled with a hyphen. The noun is "still life" is spelled without a hyphen, hence the redirect on en.wikipedia. The adjective "still-life" is spelled with a hyphen, hence "still-life paintings". Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of categories starting with Still-life paintings of... as well as Still life paintings of... so they are dupes of each other. It seems to be reasonable to unify the naming scheme of Still life categories, not because of the unification itself but a) to avoid dupe cats and b) to provide a chance of automated moves by bots via redirects. So I suggest to switch to the naming Still life... where it isn't already. Or maybe the other way round, let's discuss it. Achim (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other way round please, unless someone can provide proof that spelling with hyphenation is incorrect. I couldn't find any. The reason there are so many duplicate categories at the moment is that I'm still working on them. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary.com is quite clear about this, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/still-life. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vincent Steenberg. Compound adjectives should be hyphenated. A search of en:Still life reveals no instances of the unhyphenated phrase "still life painting" (except a link to commons). This doesn't follow for categories created with "Still Life" in noun form as the title (e.g. Category:Still Life with Attributes of the Arts (Chardin)). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, I didn't know of this difference between noun and adjective in this case, my apologies. Vincent, thank you for working on that, I'd like to assist you. Best, --Achim (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Forgotton to mention: if possible, please move existing categories instead of creating new ones. --Achim (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This issue is also discussed in http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/media/15374/postprints_style_guide.pdf under Style Guide, point 4, hyphenation, in case you're interested.

I'm not really familiar with moving categories, but I will give it a go. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some moves, but there are still many left to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some too and I think we can close this case per consensus. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Category:Still life paintings by subject redirected to Category:Still-life paintings by subject.--Achim (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rachel Cook

no content, recreation of previously deleted category Ebyabe (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it again, then. --E4024 (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Please use COM:CSD in the future. ~riley (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Portraits by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Nominating this category for deletion, since after deletion of all images it's empty now. ScriWi (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Riley 13 May 2016. --Achim (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mietvilla Mietvilla Obere Bergstraße 64 (Radebeul)

Löschen: "Mietvilla" war fälschlich doppelt Jbergner (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Eucalyptus globulus

Can absorb 40 times more pollutants than other trees claimed in Australian "Bulletin" magazine on 22-9-98 2001:8003:84A6:FE00:C036:3B98:58C4:29DD 08:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed: So what? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Nominating category for deletion, all stamps are deleted per community consensus, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel. ScriWi (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contains 13 images. If the cat is empty please tag it for speedy deletion. --Achim (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept preliminary. --Achim (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mietshaus Hermann-Ilgen-Straße 50/52/54

Löschen, ist bereits Category:Mietshaus Hermann-Ilgen-Straße 50/52/54 (Radebeul) Jbergner (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Wikipedia15 Mark

backwairdes 72.1.122.154 15:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. foxj (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Unclear request. --Achim (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lexi Noval

All the images in this category being nominated for deletion, the category itself should be deleted if the images are eventually deleted. BrightRaven (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Taivo 19 May 2016. --Achim (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:The Walking Podcast

Unneeded category for insignificant podcast IagoQnsi (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged it for deletion as an empty page. --Auntof6 (talk)

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tanemichi Aoyama

Category that has become empty by the movement of the file. To request the deletion.--M-sho-gun (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Single File:Aoyama Tanemichi.jpg had been moved one level up. --Achim (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Gefängnis Rummelsburg

Ehemalige Bedienstete in Rummelsburg 2003:70:AF24:1E01:5524:6630:B62A:31FA 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Ich bin nicht sicher, ob ich die Anfrage richtig verstehe. Ich habe verstanden: Ist eine Einordnung von Personen, die dort Wärter, Leiter oder andere Bedienstete waren. Oder benötigen wir gar eine Kategorie für Justizvollzugsbeamter in diesem Gefängnis? Diese Personen kommen in in die Gefängniskategorie und zusätzlich in die Category:Prison guards. Genauso wie Politische Gefangene entsprechend in die Gefängnis-Kat und die Category:Political prisoners kommen. Wenn es mehrere davon gibt kann man eine eigene Kategorie Category:Prison guards at Gefängnis Rummelsburg schaffen.--Karsten11 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as it is: Request by an IP still remains unclear. --Achim (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:MDNA Tour

Proposing to move this category and its associated subcategories to "The MDNA Tour" per the parent article in Wikipedia as The MDNA Tour IndianBio (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Airports by IATA code (flat list)

This category appears to be a flat list of categories named after airports, in order by IATA code. Since the IATA code does not display, it seems pointless to sort them this way. In addition, in a metacategory with a name like this, you'd expect to see subcategories with names like "Airports with the IATA code ABC". Since airports don't share IATA codes, we wouldn't have categories like that. Actually, this isn't a metacategory at all, in spite of being labelled as one. Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: This category us populated by Template:Airport codes. That template must be changed to depopulate the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to make a sort of gallery page with a list, I could imagine it, but this is not useful as a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I created that category but if there's a consensus to delete it I don't oppose, when I created it I thought it could be of some utility as flat list. Apparently is not so. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Allforrous (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: (deleted) Template modified. ~riley (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Airports by ICAO code (flat list)

This category appears to be a flat list of categories named after airports, in order by ICAO code. Since the ICAO code does not display, it seems pointless to sort them this way. In addition, in a metacategory with a name like this, you'd expect to see subcategories with names like "Airports with the ICAO code ABC". Since airports don't share ICAO codes, we wouldn't have categories like that. Actually, this isn't a metacategory at all, in spite of being labelled as one. Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: This category us populated by Template:Airport codes. That template must be changed to depopulate the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to make a sort of gallery page with a list, I could imagine it, but this is not useful as a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Allforrous (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: (deleted) Template modified. ~riley (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Japanese House and Garden

Please delete. This category is redundant with Category:Shōfusō (which should also be deleted). I merged the two into Category:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden, which matches the title of its Wikipedia article: en:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept as a redirect because it isn't a bad name. --Achim (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is its website with the full name:[2] == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achim55's suggestion of a redirect sounds reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no opposition, redirected to Category:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden as requested. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Shōfusō

Please delete. This category is redundant with Category:Japanese House and Garden (which should also be deleted). I merged the two into Category:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden, which matches the title of its Wikipedia article: en:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd first like to know whether Shōfusō or Shofuso is transliterated correctly regardless of a page name on en:wp. --Achim (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is its website with the full name:[3] == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website checks out, as far as I'm concerned. I think whether we should redirect Category:Shōfusō Japanese House and Garden to Category:Shofuso Japanese House and Garden. That way there's no need for Category:Shōfusō or Category:Shofuso. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Themightyquill. --Achim (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: (deleted). ~riley (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Standing people playing video games

I created this category, but it seems like a not very useful category after all, so I emptied it and think it should be deleted. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: In this kind of case, you can put the {{Empty page}} template on the category -- discussion here isn't needed. (Don't use the "empty category" template, because that's for something else.) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty category nominated for deletion by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sitting people playing video games

I created this category, but it seems like a not very useful category after all, so I emptied it and think it should be deleted. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: In this kind of case, you can put the {{Empty page}} template on the category -- discussion here isn't needed. (Don't use the "empty category" template, because that's for something else.) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty category nominated for deletion by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Weinbergshaus Schildenstraße 13 (Radebeul)

kann nach verschiebung gelöscht werden Jbergner (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, author's request. --Achim (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Zentralen

Should be renamed. Even a native German speaker cannot imagine what might be meant by Zentralen until he sees an image of this set. Achim (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a brand or model, or just the German word for Switchboards? If it's the latter, I'd suggest downmerging the images to Category:Military telephone equipment of Switzerland , and copying them to Category:Switchboards or whatever English language category is most appropriate. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill, Zentrale might be a central part of some equipment as well as a headquarter of a company as well as a room inside a large building containing something like central heating or air conditioning. In this case Category:Telephone switchboards might fit but looking at the images I don't get the difference between Category:Telephone switchboards and Category:Manual telephone exchanges. --Achim (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed to Category:Military and civil defense telephone switchboards in Switzerland, which is the same in English, but more precise. Sorry for the confusion. --Figugegl (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, cat deleted by Taivo 21 May 2016. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flags of Faroe Islands

Dupe of Category:Flags of the Faroe Islands. Achim (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content to the other category and flagged this one for deletion. For future reference, that is a simpler process than using CfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, you're right, but when I'm looking at a large bunch of edits it's an easier way to tag it on the fly. Did you notice that this cat was made by an IP who did about 70 cat edits yesterday and today? Like Category:Historical flags of Poland as dupe of the already existing Category:Historical flags and standards of Poland where some merging seems to be necessary I think. --Achim (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Category:Historical flags and standards of Poland into Category:Historical flags of Poland keeping a redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Jcb 19 May 2016. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sidonienstraße 1 (Radebeul)

verschieberest, kann gelöscht werden Jbergner (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, remains of a cat move. --Achim (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Greyhounds in art on works on paper

Unclear/confusing category name. Themightyquill (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Works on paper" is the conventional name for prints, drawings, and other are that are not paintings, sculpture, tapestry, or other familiar media. Perhaps Greyhounds in art: works on paper would be better. Henrytow (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, Henrytow, but perhaps something that fits with the existing commons category tree would be better? Of all the subjects for art hosted on commons, it doesn't make sense to me to just have images of greyhounds categorized by "works on paper." Grammatically, I'm not sure the "in art" is necessary if you're going to use a phrase that is reserved for works of art - it's redundant and confusing. "Greyhounds in works on paper" would be fine, but I think it would make more sense to categorize each image into Category:Prints of animals and Category:Drawings of dogs and Category:Greyhounds in art if there aren't enough images to justify Category:Prints of dogs, Category:Prints of greyhounds or Category:Drawings of greyhounds, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but think I'll wait a bit. I'm going to post to the category only images that fit at leat one of three criteria: Great works of art, works by great artists, and images that fill a hole (images of greyhounds in China). The categories of Prints and Drawings of greyhounds would at present be very small, and there is value in having both in a category for comparison. I'd like to see how things develop.

Meanwhile, I still think the Category:People with greyhounds in art should be removed.

1.It is redundant (every category and file in it is already represented in somewhere in the other GiA categories.

2.It is overly broad: approximately 90 percent of images of greyhounds in art include people.

3. It is incomplete: see Category:Greyhounds in art by theme of painting. But adding the missing categories here would just make the redundancy problem worse.

Henrytow (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your approach here - "I'll wait a bit" and "I'm going to post to the category only images that fit at least one of three criteria" makes it sound like you are the only person who will be using/curating these categories. This is a group project, and you don't own these categories because you created them. The content of the categories is defined primarily by the title of the category, not your personal wishes for what goes in it. I appreciate that you are putting in a lot of work here, but that doesn't give you ownership. The project works by consensus.

1. That's not redundant. Categories can be reached from a variety of routes. In fact, that's how it's supposed to work.

2. It's not overly broad if it's broken up into sub-categories, which it is.

3. Category:Greyhounds in art by theme of painting is, in my opinion, another rather awkward category in its own right. Most obviously, it should be something like "Paintings of Greyhounds by theme" since all art that has a theme to the painting is necessarily a painting. Second, to my knowledge, there is no "by theme" category tree on for art on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category does not match with existing commons categorization tree. No response from Henrytown. Upmerging and deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mietvilla Weberstraße 11 (Radebeul)

kann gelöscht werden, ist Category:Villa Weberstraße 11 (Radebeul) Jbergner (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Haarlemmermeer bridges

This category is a duplicate for 'Category:Bridges in Haarlemmermeer'. I moved the files to (more populated) 'Bridges in Haarlemmermeer' category. I think this category should be deleted. --Ecritures (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. Thanks to Ecritures for notifying. --Achim (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Vedute urbane - Centri storici - Emilia-Romagna - Bologna

messy uploads attempted to be fixed with redirects. Categories have been fixed, can be deleted Desyman (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This kind of thing doesn't need discussion. I've tagged it with {{Bad name}}, so it should go away soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Taivo (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Biserici din Arad

same as Category:Churches in Arad, Romania, please delete T.seppelt (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Futurama Kids

Empty category with no clear purpose IagoQnsi (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Empty category. ~riley (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Engravings by Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione

La categoria esisteva già ("Prints by G.B. Castiglione"): non me ne sono accorto. Questa quindi è un inutile doppione di cui chiedo la cancellazione. Mi scuso per l'errore Never covered (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate: «The category already existed ("Prints by G.B. Castiglione"): I have not noticed. This then is an unnecessary duplication of which I ask the cancellation. I apologize for the error»--Never covered (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate: @Never covered: Nessun problema. La prossima volta, è possibile utilizzare {{Category redirect}} o {{Bad name}}. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Category:Prints by Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione. Nominated by creator. Themightyquill (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Electricity pylons by country

Dupe of Category:Pylons by country. Note: Category:Pylons is a disambiguating cat. Achim (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Pylons is a disambiguation category, shouldn't everything in Category:Pylons by country be moved to Category:Electricity pylons by country for the sake of clarity? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur! While the most common use of pylons is for electricity, not all pylons are electricity pylons (transmission towers). An Errant Knight (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pylons by country, what a mess! This category is used for all types of pylons in a certain country, not just electrical. I will start cleaning this up, and moving Category:Pylons by <country> to Category:Electricity pylons by <country> where clearly electricity pylons are meant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: category tree all reworked. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stella Chirkova

A person of no notability (the article is just deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we have a notability requirement here. --Auntof6 (talk)

Keep - She's notably beautiful. There are three pictures of her in this category and someone may need to use them, not necessarily in an article on her (which others may find useful, with no need to enter discussions about notability here) but in other articles of Wikipedia. --E4024 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Андрей Романенко has nominated the files for deletion, which may resolve the issue. There's no clearly established notability requirement to have a category for a person, but if the photos are not useful, there's no reason to keep them, and if there are no photos, there's no need for a category. For the record, I don't think whether someone considers her beautiful or not should have any impact on either debate. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you deleted the articles of many women who are notable in the end for their beauty, like all beauty pagents, many fashion models, and many others who themselves believe they are notable for their artistic ability but in fact they have acquired notability due to their physical appearence etc., all the WPs would lose some weight. Anyhow that is only because you said "for the record" but responded to me. Forget it. --E4024 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contained images have been deleted. Category is now empty. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Traditional dance with guests

Incorrectly named category as it was meant for a specific location without actually mentioning the localion in its name. Takeaway (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting category. No opposition in a month and now empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Book illustrations by Beatrix Potter

This category, which was created on January 24, 2016, is essentially a duplicate category for Images by Beatrix Potter, which was created on January 7, 2011. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also more accurate, specific and useful, contrary to "images by" which is very generic and can mean a range of things. Especially to consider where Potter did a range of art that is available and not in her books. "Images by" should become a category redirect if it is maintained. To also note that "book illustrations by ..." has been more the standard for book art, especially with multiple, and the occasions that I have seen for "images" by" has been where it has been our contributors based on their photos. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. of course. I'd be perfectly happy for the category "Book illustrations by Beatrix Potter" to remain and for the category "Images by Beatrix Potter" to get changed into a redirect. Just as long as there's no duplicate category. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-categories aren't restricted to images or illustrations. I might suggest moving this to Category:Books by Beatrix Potter instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, especially now that Wikisource is moving their Potter texts to scan-based and therefore you'll start to see more PDF and DJVU files in these categories as well. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support moving/renaming the category to "Books by Beatrix Potter," for the reasons stated by Beleg Tâl. I have already uploaded a number of djvu/pdf scans of these books and only afterwards realized that the categories hierarchy was for illustrations. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Books by Beatrix Potter. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Corso Giuseppe Garibaldi

Categoria non utile a Commons--Antonio Mette (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a file and a mother cat. I think it can be made useful in that direction. If others do not agree, ignore my view please. --E4024 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate question is whether to keep the category for a single file. It seems to be a major street through Naples though, so perhaps we can find other images and/or buildings on the street that might help populate the category? If we do keep it, we might consider renaming it to Category:Corso Giuseppe Garibaldi (Napoli) as per Italian wikipedia and because Category:Corso Giuseppe Garibaldi (Reggio Calabria) exists. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a necessary category. There will be more files soon. IMO it's necessary to add in the name the location of Naples. There are other Corso Garibaldi in different cities in Italy. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the files to the new cat Category:Corso Garibaldi (Naples). And this cat became a disambig.
This discussion can be closed. --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Natural Beauty

Category:Natural Beauty? WHat will be next? Category:Gorgeous Girls? Takeaway (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a category gorgeous girls? Where can I see it? --E4024 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The applied criterium is too subjective. - Takeaway (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with this category too, but I'm not the inventor. Others sorted about 8 files (at the moment) into this category without creating it. Then I created it to have these files categozized. But if you aren't satisfied with this category, please discuss category:Beauty as well. This one is IMHO senseless, too, because nearly everything can be beautiful (not only gorgeous girls). Should category Category:Natural Beauty be renamed and opened to Category:Beauty of Nature?--ProfessorX (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The files and sub-categories of Category:Beauty seem mainly involved with the beauty industry and how beauty is seen. It doesn't, and shouldn't, contain files that individual uploaders/editors personally view as being beautiful such as were in Category:Natural Beauty. The 8 files that are now in that category should just be removed from the category after which the category can be deleted. There is no need for another very subjective category to be created for these files. - Takeaway (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice Category:Places of Scenic Beauty? Files that are now in Category:Natural Beauty may be placed there instead - at least if they carry an official acknowledgement of beauty.--ProfessorX (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did and you can't put the 8 files in there. Category:Places of Scenic Beauty is an official Japanese government designation of scenic places in Japan. It is not the personal view of an editor or uploader. Because I expected that the name of that category could be interpreted in that way, I moved it and some other categories in to the new Category:Recognised Places of Beauty. Media of places which carry official recognition can be placed in there. - Takeaway (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I now also changed the name to a less ambiguous Category:Places of Scenic Beauty (Cultural Properties of Japan). My request to have the old category deleted has also been accepted in the meantime. That was really fast! - Takeaway (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Beauty has a non-subjective purpose for images and category about beauty (not images depicting beauty) but this category does not. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Should perhaps be a redirect like Category:Photo and many else, because multitudes of users use this category day for day. Today we have 6 new entries. --ProfessorX (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That it is used, doesn't mean that it is correct. For instance, 4 of the 6 the files in it are categorised only in this one, very subjective category. What does this category actually say about the files other than that the uploader personally finds the subject of their uploads "beautiful"? - Takeaway (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference would be that these files would be uncategorized, or in a category that doesn't exist. It does no harm if this category exists. And there are more categories with dubious, ambiguous sense, for example Category:Wildlife. --- (Today we have again 22 entries in Category:Natural Beauty.) --ProfessorX (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When people upload stuff to Wikimedia, they get suggested existing categories based on the (first few) letters that they enter. If this nonsensical category hadn't existed, it wouldn't be used so often and they'd have to try other, hopefully better suited, categories. Something similar was happening to Category:Beautiful Valley until I changed the name to Category:Beautiful Valley, Arizona after which the former category name was deleted. When the original category name was still used, it attracted daily uploads from Pakistan and India during the Wikimedia Loves Earth campaigns. If a category is there, it will be used, even for the wrong (in Wikimedia terms) reasons. - Takeaway (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely subjective, impossible to define an inclusion criteria. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly strong agreement to delete, and the category is now empty. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Defunct Hammams in the United Kigdom

This category contains no media and has a typing error in it's name. Lets delete. Judithcomm (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category once had images of the Old Turkish Bathhouse Bishopsgate which have since been removed which is odd as the category was created for such entries i.e. a Defunct Hammams (Or Bathhouse) in the United Kingdom, which the Bishopsgate building is an example. It does, however, need corrections made to correct the obvious typo Kolforn (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Defunct means 'no longer existing' of 'obsolete'. If we have to maintain a category for this this particular building, I would prefer 'Former hammams in the United Kingdom', because the building is still there and it's former function was a bathhouse. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Judith's former. --Achim (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Moved and redirected to Category:Former Hammams in the United Kingdom. --Achim (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Genre paintings in Belarus

must be removed Tatiana Markina 13:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Tatiana Matlina renamed the category to Category:Genre paintings of Belarus but it remains Category:Paintings in Belarus (which is in Category:Paintings by country of location). This move should be reverted. There is also a Category:Paintings from Belarus, which could contain Category:Genre paintings from Belarus if Tatiana wants to create it. "Paintings of Belarus" would need to go in Category:Paintings of countries which is where the country is the subject. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Unusual sights of nature in New Brunswick

Poorly defined cat: It is highly subjective what is "unusual" and what is not. This cat has to be deleted. Gretarsson (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who's to say what's unusual? I'd also include all the other "unusual sites of nature categories". If the author wants to gather this type of thing, a gallery might be a better wsy to do it --Auntof6 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd certainly lean towards deletion, but the term "Curiosité naturelle" does seem to exist at fr:Curiosité naturelle, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Please note that the category tree goes far beyond New Brunswick: Category:Unusual sights of nature by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Category:Unusual sights of nature in New Brunswick is part of the category tree belonging to Category:Unusual sights of nature which is the meeting point of two important category trees, Category:Nature and Category:Unusual. It is special, original, and it has to be so. Is there a part of subjectivity? For sure. As it could be when we ask for answer to the question about nature subjects and files, are they all natural or not? Evenly, what one calls unusual could be ordinary for another. That is a good reason for searching for sights of great interest. In this matter, it makes sense that the Category:Unusual sights of nature description specifies "This category does not aim at multiplicity of files and subcategories, but collects the most representative of unusual sights of nature, uncommon and of great interest, relating to landscapes and geological sites, animals and plants." Nevertheless it brings together, for now, 4 sub-categories, 73 sub-sub-categories and over 800 files. I think this category, with the category tree already related to the article Curiosité naturelle, is original and of great interest. It has a good potential of development. Laubel (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest: I believe that the whole Category:Unusual is not really useful and its subcats are neither. Category:Unusual is a waste basket in which are things lumped together that doesn’t belong together and it includes images of things that aren’t ‘unusual’ at all, e.g. Category:Plants growing in cracks. This cat has a subcat Category:Plants growing in concrete in Pripyat‎. Can you explain, why ‘plants growing in concrete in Pripyat’ are unusual? Because of the place? Pripyat of course is an ‘unusual’ place since it is one of the few places on earth that can’t be inhabited by people anymore because of a nuclear incident. But makes it the plants that now are overgrowing the concrete (and asphalt btw.) in that place more unusual then the plants that are overgrowing the concrete of old industry facilities in Detroit or in the Ruhrgebiet? Plants always will overgrow concrete as long as they are allowed to do it. There is nothing unusual in that.

‘Curiosité naturelle’ I would translate as ‘natural object of common/public/touristic (you name it) interest’. Such objects (e.g. the national monuments in the US) are often officially designated by national geological surveys or similar authorites and if they are, they are easily categorizable as such. --Gretarsson (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Gretarsson. I don't think Category:Unusual is an "important category tree". It's certainly not important to intersect it with other things. Unless there's some official registry or designation of these kinds of places (as there is for Category:Special Places of Scenic Beauty in Japan), the vaguely-named and undefined "unusual sights of nature" categories are not appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Gretarsson and Auntof6. In the absence of a controlling authority, registry or official body, Category:Unusual is a maintenance problem for Commons and an incubator for conflict. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wsiegmund. Note Unusual is a subcategory of Absurd. FDMS 4 23:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely subjective. And looking at the parent Category:Unusual sights of nature, it becomes even more clear that this category tree has no inclusion criteria defined. There are many images of common lakes, waterfalls, animals, etc. This entire category tree should be nominated for deletion as well. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Anime Expo 2003

This is an underpopulated category with just two files but 13 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. FredWalsh (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It now has 55. It seems a bunch were imported from flickr in 2017.--Roy17 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Anime Expo 2009

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 7 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It now has 11.--Roy17 (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:World maps about human skin color/Biasutti, 1940

Empty category now that the deletion request removes all orphaned and redundant files. The two images that have been maintained have been categorized here. See also the Cfd below this one.AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlwaysUnite: Not empty category. Can we close this discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: has since been renamed to Category:World map about human skin color by Biasutti (1940) and populated. --Ə XPLICIT 07:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Live to Tell

Unnecessary category for a single performance of the song on a single tour. This basically opens up a Pandora's box of why not other songs and categories. IndianBio (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the category is not for "a single performance of the song on a single tour", but it is a standard category of the one song with articles on many Wikipedia versions. Otherwise I don't see why to keep other song categories created like this – e.g. 15 US songs. Or is there any restriction, criteria in creating? --Kacir (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that doesn't convince, because Category:Songs of the United States does even not contain performances but audio tracks as well as scores. In my opinion performances should not show up there as they are no songs. An image of a singing person is in general hardly to attribute to a special song. Imagine a photo entitled Barack Obama had some beer last week not depicting any beer were assigned anyway to the category beer... --Achim (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Yes, audio tracks plus scores seem to be reason for creation, on the other hand, I don't see much sense to ban categories like Live to Tell, because the key reason to file category should be existing article on Wikipedia and its relevant + corresponding image content on Commons. If Commons have content that can be shared and connected to single article, why to forbid that? In my view, the reader expects such content.--Kacir (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the question of depicting... This is the same case like e.g. Wimbledon, the song as well as tournament are abstract terms. Can we see the Wimbledon? No, but players who play tennis tournament (like singers who perform song) are categorized to the non-depicted category – Wimbledon.--Kacir (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like discussion hasn't been closed because we still have the notice template. Anyway, in a retrospective commentary, I think redirect or delete this category isn't appropriate. I don't see any problem having some concert pics about the song, and also we can add examples of labels like this. After all, we have an existing article on Wikipedia and the list of Madonna songs. Not to mention that all of these wikidata entries could easily attach also with Commons for authority control. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valid and useful category.--RZuo (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Anime Expo 2007

This is an underpopulated category with just two files but 9 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The files should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: part of a larger category tree. Elli (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Anime Expo 2008

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 7 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: part of a larger category tree. Elli (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ships on lake Constance

Proper noun Lake Constance and dupe of Category:Ships of Lake Constance. We should also have a look at Category:Ships by sea or lake where in, on and of is used in category names. I'm no native speaker, so perhaps Category:Ships of Lake Constance should be renamed to Category:Ships on Lake Constance. --Achim (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achim thanks for following me; so my mistakes can be remedied more quickly. I consent to whatever change you make to this category, which I may have opened without noticing the very similar Category:Ships of Lake Constance. Thank you for your time. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: - have you come to a decision? All the ships are on Lake Constance, but they can't really go anywhere else, which makes them ships of Lake Constance ;-) Braveheart (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest on be used for all in Category:Ships by sea or lake. (I'm not native speaker.)--Roy17 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'on' would be the best choice. 'In' sounds more like it refers to ships inside (under the surface of) the lake. 'Of' implies origin or some sense of assignment, and while this might be a sensible thing to categorize by it's not what these categories are doing. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to use "on". Hence:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done: moved and redirected to Category:Ships on Lake Constance. --Achim55 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at WonderCon 2006

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 10 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Otakon 2005

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 11 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it runs counter to COM:Categories#Modularity principle: "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)."

Also, it doesn't take much to get photos from this event. On Flickr, there are 20 files under a free license (CC BY 2.0 or CC BY-SA 2.0): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] [22] [23].--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Otakon 2008

This is an underpopulated category with just two files but & years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The files should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at the 2008 New York Comic Con

This is an underpopulated category with just two files but 8 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The files should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Motor City Comic Con 2008

This is an underpopulated category with just two files but 8 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The files should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at FanimeCon 2007

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 9 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at FanimeCon 2012

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 4 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997 -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Parque nacional Aguaro-Guariquito

Commons catname should be on english Category:Aguaro-Guariquito National Park Same issue with:

Better wording, more clear description

--Oscar_. (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly neutral on this. Categories should generally be in English, but exceptions are made for formal names, in which case the spanish names for national parks should be fine, no? With the latter four categories, you are simply replacing a geographic description of an area with a park name, which aren't necessarily the same. Península de Paria National Park makes up only a small percentage of Paria Peninsula. Similarly, Sierra de la Culata and Sierra Nevada de Mérida are mountain ranges, some of which is park land, but it seems some is not? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case they are categories in English and Spanish, so I though to better go for one criteria. Cheers --Oscar_. (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand your concern, which is why I'm neutral on the language renaming thing. Commons doesn't have a clear policy on this at the moment. It's fairly hotly disputed whether to have translated English names (Category:Paria Peninsula National Park), non-English official names (Category:Parque Nacional Península de Paria) or names with both English and Spanish (Category:Península de Paria National Park) so we end up with a rather inconsistent mix. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the categories should be treated as titles/formal names, and the english translations can be redirected to them. Thats just my 2 cents though. ~riley (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, kept. Parent categories for most objects are in English (eg "Parks", "Streets", "Houses", etc) -- but for specific instances, the local name in the local language is usually allowed. (Category redirects can be created in any instances considered potentially confusing or difficult.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Forts in Istanbul

It has only one subcategory, Category:Rumeli Hisarı, while almost all other forts in Istanbul are in the Category:Castles in Istanbul. The said subcategory (Rumeli Hisarı) is also in there. (In other words, "Rumeli Hisarı" is both a fort and a castle. Is this possible?) Frankly I am not well aware of the differences between a fort and castle, at least in English. I know that some other languages consider the two to be the same, with only one word; like "Castell" in Catalan. Having said that, Category:Anadolu Hisarı is not a subcat of Category:Forts in Istanbul, while both fortresses have a similar and contemporaneous Ottoman architecture, nor of Category:Castles in Istanbul. I think "Forts in Istanbul" and "Castles in Istanbul" could merge into one category. E4024 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the difference between castles and forts varies greatly depending upon location. Both Category:Castles by country and Category:Forts by country have Category:Fortresses by country as a parent category. Perhaps we could move everything in Turkey to Category:Fortresses in Turkey and just redirect Category:Forts in Turkey and Category:Castles in Turkey (and their subcategories by region/city) appropriately? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am more confused then before. Now at least I understand why people make a mess, possibly due to this much subtlety. Forget me, I'm a provincial kid. --E4024 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecturally "fort" is small "fortress", both differ from "castle" in their structure and purpose - castle is in most cases walled palace and sometimes palace without any significant fortification; fort is military fortification, usually smaller military outpost that can consist just one small tower with a simple wall, fortress is large fortification, usually main military installation (think of Spiš, Krak, etc). However, all over wikipedias these criteria are mostly completely disregarded.--Santasa99 (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept, no consensus to delete or redirect. Populated, and seems useful for showing up in eg "Category:Forts by city". Harmless at worst. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Still-life paintings of game

Do we need this category and Category:Still-life paintings of dead game and Category:Still life paintings of animals? It seems like there should be some redunancy here somewhere. Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this as well. I think we should keep Category:Still-life paintings of animals as a main category and Category:Still-life paintings of game as a subcategory. Not all dead animals are game, chickens for example are usually kept in farms.

I think just the word "game" is enough. If it concerned living game, it wouldn't be in a still-life painting.

Also, Category:Still-life paintings of living animals doesn't make any sense. Maybe this must be changed to Category:Still-life paintings with living animals, for example Category:Still life paintings with dogs. By the way, Category:Still life paintings of cats is just creepy, if you ask me. But that's a different discussion. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Vincent Steenberg: any further developments? I see that Category:Still-life paintings of dead game is quite massive--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just misread Vincent Steenberg's comments, and moved everything to Category:Still-life paintings of dead game (which was more developed by others). But if we want to just use "game" instead of "dead game" I'm happy to move everything back. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Themightyquill. At least now this category name is unambiguous. The only problem I see is that Category:Still-life paintings of animals contains a couple of animal paintings, for example File:Bartolomeo bimbi, opossum con due piccoli.JPG and File:Pandolfo reschi, cane che dorme.JPG. So maybe a note there would be helpful. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vincent Steenberg. I'm not sure I understand the issue with File:Bartolomeo bimbi, opossum con due piccoli.JPG being in Category:Still-life paintings of animals. Can you please explain? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an animal painting, instead of a still-life painting. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the animals are alive and there is no other element that is still-life. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, category was already deleted last year. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:World maps about human skin color

Empty category now that the deletion request removes all orphaned and redundant files. The two images that have been maintained have been categorized at Category:Allele,_genotype_or_phenotype_frequency_maps_(human). AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DR the nominator clumsily refers to via an external link has yet to be closed; removal of this category from the affected files amounts to vandalism. Even if the mentioned DR is sucessful, the one remaining image is still categorizable by means of this category, just like many other such maps potentially are. This discussion sheds light on the nominator’s lack of understanding of Commons’ categorization and on nothing else, and, as such, should be closed ASAP. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I renamed this cat. from «World maps about human skin color» to «Human pigmentation maps», which allows this category to include also local maps and maps about eyes and hair, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my lazy use of external links nor my WP:BOLD behaviour (see what I did there?) are reason to close this discussion. If we are going to have to wait two whole weeks before this mess gets sorted we might as well officially become sloths. Keeping the "World maps about human skin color" category as a redirect to "Human pigmentation maps" is still redundant. Both that one and the other category deletion request ought to be removed as soon as the images are gone. The only reason this is even on here is because of the number of files involved. Normally I would just speedily delete this kind of stuff but having 13 files deleted simultaneously warrants at least doing so in an organised centralised fashion. So unless someone actually has some points regarding the content of this change here and at the deletion request, I think it is best if we just crack on.

The new category User:Tuvalkin created is useful and ought to be maintained to prevent sprawling in the Category:Allele frequency maps.AlwaysUnite (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete this, even if some of the files currently in it look as if they may or may not be deleted. It's a perfecltly valid category, and afacis it categorizes some images that aren't arguably for deletion. Agree with the rename by Tuvalkin though. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. The nominated category is renamed by user:Tuvalkin to Category:Human pigmentation maps. Are we satisfied here? If yes, CFD to be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, left as redirect per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:June 2012 in Queen's Road Central

Please delete this category. I think this category is twice. see Category:June 2012 in Queen's Road Central, Sheung Wan. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might ask if it's really necessary to categorize photos of a certain street by month. Wouldn't Category:June 2012 in Sheung Wan and Category:2012 in Queen's Road Central be more than sufficient? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, die Kategorie ist schon sehr spezifiziert. Aber da sie nun mal existiert, würde ich sie so lassen. Hauptsache sie existiert nicht 2 mal. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to formally propose deletion of all these Queen's Road Central by month categories. I'm tagging Category:June 2012 in Queen's Road Central, Sheung Wan now to be sure that this is transparent. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. You can delete all these "by month" categories. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a redirect. I couldn't wait. Problem solved. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of it being duplicated is solved. The problem of whether it and its category tree should exist at all remains unresolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This HK cat comes from that long term user. Since it has only 11, no other months exist for 2012, and the parent cat has <100 in total, please delete.--Roy17 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant categories have been deleted and merged to their parent categories. They were overly specific.--Roy17 (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997

This is an underpopulated category with just one file but 19 years on from the event in question it is unlikely we will see more relevant files uploaded. The file should be moved up the category tree. FredWalsh (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved a file down from the parent category. Is two enough to keep this category as part of a set? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the recommended minimum is three items, whether they are files or subcategories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen discussions about whether single-item categories are OK (the consensus was "sometimes"). I've never seen disputes when there are two or more. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Note that the parent category, Category:Dragon Con 1997, contains only one image. I see no reason that it needs to be sub-divided into Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con 1997. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: well, if these two files are moved up to parent cats, they would be dangling in Category:Cosplay at Dragon Con.--RZuo (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: I don't see that as a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All "Cosplay at Dragon Con" is categorized by year. Reasonable intersection of 3 categories. Harmless at worst, eases navigation at best. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it runs counter to COM:Categories#Modularity principle: "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)."

Also, it doesn't take much to get photos from this event. On Flickr, there are 20 files under a free license (CC BY 2.0 or CC BY-SA 2.0): [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] [42] [43].--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged various related CFDs here, so this discussion also applies to Category:Cosplay at FanimeCon 2012, Category:Cosplay at FanimeCon 2007, Category:Cosplay at Motor City Comic Con 2008, Category:Cosplay at the 2008 New York Comic Con, Category:Cosplay at Otakon 2008, Category:Cosplay at Otakon 2005, and Category:Cosplay at WonderCon 2006. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	?
Actions
Participants	FredWalsh (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) Infrogmation (talk · contribs) Themightyquill (talk · contribs) Russian Rocky (talk · contribs)
Notes	I split the difference and deleted the categories where there clearly wasn't enough images to justify them and kept the ones where there was. The usefulness of a lot of these types of categories is questionable anyway. It seems like the broader consensus is leaning towards getting rid of these types of ultra granular "by date" categories that don't have enough images or similar categories to justify them. So I think my compromise follows the wider consensus on this topic.
Closed by	--Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/05

Navigation menu

Search