Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017
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 <strong class="error">Error: Invalid time.</strong>
Extraneous category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty category. --JuTa 10:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
was a typo, moved Effeietsanders (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
created in error as mispelling of Photochrom JMiall (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrectly named category Takeaway (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing - deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect category name. Correct is @ Category:Writers in Arabic. Takeaway (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing - deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
bad name, look at Category:Luegislandturm Schofför (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete; wrong name due Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, typo. --Achim (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
An empty category, the name of the category is erroneous. The request created by the creator of Category:Dmitry Nikolaevich Tugarinov; the category with the correct name was created (Category:Dmitry Nikitovich Tugarinov). --Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name, author's request. --Achim (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
wrong person 178.197.234.29 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed, I'll have a closer look. --Achim (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved its content and disambig'd Category:Franz Keller. --Achim (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrectly named. Replaced by correctly spelled version. ACCassidy (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's still a file here. When the category is empty, you could put a {{Bad name}} or {{Category renamed}} template on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty dupe of Category:Mimacraea skoptoles. --Achim (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense as a category (at least); content intended to be included in User talk:Jameslwoodward. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: . -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as an empty category. An admin will probably delete it soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedied.--KTo288 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean Category:Cityscapes? I think this cat is twice. Please delete. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
...and subcats. I think it's not a good idea to add the title of a web page to a category title this way. Should be renamed. Achim (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is wrong with putting foo in the category name, when the images in the category come from foo, and foo is the thing the images have in common? It is the name of a software BTW.
- Should we also rename Created with Stella, because they have a homepage? Or should we rename Images from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, because it might be not a good idea to add the title of a book to a category?
- I don't care how this is called, BTW. I just try to convince the uploader to create categories for image sets at all (context). Watchduck (quack) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, I didn't see that polyHedronisme refers to special software. At Created with Stella it's obvious. But I'm not in the mood for further discussing, so let's leave it as it is. --Achim (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept without any action. Feel free to reopen. --Achim (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate and extraneous category Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Extraneous and duplicate category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a duplicative category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Creo que debería adoptarse el nombre oficial, en castellano, de la estancia del Real Alcázar a la que esta categoría se refiere: Sala de la Justicia Alberto Bravo (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alberto requests a renaming to Category:Sala de la Justicia, Alcázar de Sevilla or similar. If we look at Category:Alcázar of Seville there are the subcats named inconsistently either ...Alcázar of Seville or ...Alcázar de Sevilla or ...Real Alcázar de Sevilla. If there is only one alcázar (=fortified castle) in Seville the Real (=Royal) might be omitted I think. --Achim (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Sala de la Justicia, Alcázar de Sevilla leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't exist such a sign number officially, ŠJů (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: No objections, overcat. --Achim (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
we do not have a general schema 'Mountain pastures by valley' (what is meant here); Alps here is misleading. Moved everything to Category:Alpine pastures in Vorarlberg, this cat here should be deleted. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- So I have no problem --Böhringer (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this category should be renamed to "Sunset at unidentified locations". Would be easier to find. Hiddenhauser (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Sunsets in unidentified locations" would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care if it is in or at, as long as sunsets is the first word.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, Category:Unidentified sunrise locations should be treated the same way. --Achim (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care if it is in or at, as long as sunsets is the first word.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: No objections, done as suggested. --Achim (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani GTVM92 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @GTVM92: You haven't said why this category needs to be discussed. If it's because it had no categories, I just added categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Should apparently be a notification of a done cat move. Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete (or redirect but there seems no point) wrong spelling, now empty - correct spelling exist as Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
i am a new zealand customer with a few shindaiwa products and i currantly require parts of which i have been informed i will not get until the 8th month 2017 i can assure you that i and a lot of my freinds will not be purchaseing any more shindaiwa or echo products again as you are not interested in backing up your products, warren cain. 122.61.7.173 07:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not a category discussion but a spam only. --ŠJů (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Taken with Nikon D5100 and AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. As per this discussion, categories which attempt to match every permutation of equipment are both futile and counter-productive (and- if applied consistently- would swiftly become unmaintainable).
It's not much use for the end user either; functionality like this would be better carried out using an AND search. The *only* combinations should be ones that suggest themselves logically and naturally as ways to manage excessively large categories.
As with the discussion above, I'm using this as a test case.
I'd also like to ask whether we should discourage the user in question from creating categories in this style if the current ones are deleted.
Ubcule (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Categories like Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter could be further expanded into Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter in 2014 and so on. <joke off> I think we should delete these kinds of intersections for they undermine our category system. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, the real category in the linked discussion:-
- is just as utterly ludicrous and overloaded as your "joke" one... I think that says it all! Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Category has been deleted because it was empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
category and all its content should be deleted as it contains only pages created by sockpuppet of Aboobackeramani Pasleim (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Dank an Pasleim!. --Achim (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The name of this category should be in English per COM:LP. AFBorchert (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lots of sub-categories in Sinhalese script as well, and Google translate is of little help:
- බුද්ධාගම (Redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
- බුදු දහම (also redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
- නිවන ("Brigade" ??)
- රහතන් වහන්සේ (Redirect to Category:Arahant or Category:Arahants?)
- බුදු සසුන ("Is anyone" ??)
- භික්ෂූහූ (Redirect to Category:Buddhist monks?)
- නිවන ("Brigade" ??)
- බුදු දහම (also redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
I have no idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- This system of categories contains only three files, all of which look like copyright violations to me. Once the files are deleted, the categories can be deleted as well. --rimshottalk 21:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, after the files have been deleted as copyright violations. --rimshottalk 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
empty category 47.150.89.223 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, maintenance category. --Achim (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please delete this category, empty, not used Minoo (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria, because it is a duplicate. Category:Trophies of association football of Austria should be sufficient. Froztbyte (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich weiß nicht, weshalb meine bereits früher angelegte Kategorie durch eine erst später angelegte Kategorie ersetzt werden soll? Aber meinetwegen sollen die Löschfreaks ihre Freude darin finden... --Steindy (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, why you want two categories for the same subject. I don't care about the name of the category, but I think that the naming convention should be identical among similar categories. In this case, the Category:Trophies of association football of Austria follows the other names used under Category:Trophies of association football by country. Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria don't, because it uses "in" instead of "of". Froztbyte (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Muss nicht gelöscht werden. Redirect, weil die Cat ein paar Jahre alt ist und verlinkt sein könnte. --Achim (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, why you want two categories for the same subject. I don't care about the name of the category, but I think that the naming convention should be identical among similar categories. In this case, the Category:Trophies of association football of Austria follows the other names used under Category:Trophies of association football by country. Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria don't, because it uses "in" instead of "of". Froztbyte (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept as redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This category should be moved to "Octopus dishes of Italy", and I doubt it requires any discussion; but instead of simply doing it I prefer to present this issue to discussion so that people working on Italian cuisine may participate at the decision-making process. E4024 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok for me.--Civa61 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say "go for it", because all the similar pages carry a name like that. Is there an obligation that an admin or someone special should close these discussions? This one needs to be closed. --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Non-admins can close these discussions: see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion for info. If you do not have the ability to move the category, you can ask someone to do it for you after the discussion has run its course (that's two weeks, according to the link above). --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Octopus dishes of Italy by Civa61. Please be sure to close discussion after you take action. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
German, should be renamed to Category:Siam Park City Railway matching en:Siam Park City Railway. Achim (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have created this category at a state of a not yet very experienced user and see absolutely no problem to move it like proposed. Thanks a lot for the information before
Joachim Lutz (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Joachim, ist kein Problem. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved via COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
From my point of view useless redirect Robby (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Robby: The redirect was automatically created when I decided to rename the category to Category:Amos C. Brown. I'm perfectly fine with deleting the redirect. Funcrunch (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a perfectly legitimate redirect to me. What's the problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue was that this category was displayed (at the moment I suggested the discussion) as a subcategory of Category:Amos C. Brown - which is no longer the case - so by now I see no problem in keeping this redirect despite it's in my opinion quite reduced added value.Robby (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a perfectly legitimate redirect to me. What's the problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Piazza Bellini (Palermo) Waldgang (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Revoked, created in error. --Achim (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
please delete this category it is a duplicate (typing mistake) of Category:Roads numbered 480 Robby (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Robby, if you make a typo like this, just use {{bad name|Roads numbered 480}}. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
category named in coherently as to other similar categories, it was moved to Category:Roads numbered 424 all content was as well moved there. Robby (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Robby, if you make a typo like this, just use {{bad name|Roads numbered 424}}. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
merge Category:Peitav_Synagogue & Category:Sinagoga Peitavas ielā (Riga)? or make clear what the difference between those two objects is. Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to merge these two categories Avi1111 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ulf Heinsohn: as the creator of the other cat. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is the preferred name? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have merged Category:Sinagoga Peitavas ielā (Riga) to Category:Peitav_Synagogue and redirected the first. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Created with a mis-spelling of the Genus name. Should be deleted as now corrected to "Capys" ACCassidy (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Accassidy: This kind of thing doesn't require discussion: you can just tag the category with the {{Bad name}} template. I've done that for you, so an admin will probably delete this category soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I created it accidentally two days ago, not knowing the correct name of the event. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Jim.henderson, you can just use {{Bad name|2017‑01 Her Girl Friday+Lenny Editathon}} if you make such a mistake. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Demographic maps of the Ottoman Empire. Zoupan (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Moved. Proper capitalization doesn't required discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now. grendel|khan 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted, empty. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Inferior when compared to Category:Trams on bridges; the connection to Category:Vehicles in motion seems spurious since in most cases motion or immobility is both irrelevant and unknown. Ditto for other such sibling cats. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Put them in Category:Trams on bridges then. I had not idea that category existed. J 1982 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect Category:Trams crossing bridges to Category:Trams on bridges, and place those images of obviously moving trams in Category:Vehicles in motion? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I like that idea! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Trams on bridges. Those obviously moving trams also placed in Category:Trams in motion and its subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This category doesn't make grammatical sense. "Wearing boys in winter"? What are they wearing? Mjrmtg (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Move content to Category:Boys except items that are already in a boys category. This cat is categorized in categories related to clothing, but most of the images aren't good illustrations of clothing. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 06:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 04:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty category after > 2 weeks. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
empty category Robby (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as the category is no longer empty Robby (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let's wait, I tagged the image for missing permission. --Achim (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, empty (again). --rimshottalk 22:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. Correct is at Category:Genoa Cristoforo Colombo Airport Takeaway (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Does Genoa only have one airport? Most areas, even those much smaller, have more than one. Kalbbes (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The panoramio file that you had put in there was for the Cristoforo Colombo Airport per its location coordinates. I have placed it in the correct category in the meantime. Genoa only has one airport. Instead of deletion, the category can also be changed into a redirect. - Takeaway (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then the category should be deleted I think. A redirect would mean that other airports in the area, if someone posted a pic of one, would be forced into the international airport cat. Kalbbes (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to be the only airport of Genoa as I mentioned before, and if you had checked the English Wikipedia article, Cristoforo Colombo Airport also seems to be known colloquially as Genoa Airport. A redirect would seem fitting. - 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then the category should be deleted I think. A redirect would mean that other airports in the area, if someone posted a pic of one, would be forced into the international airport cat. Kalbbes (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The panoramio file that you had put in there was for the Cristoforo Colombo Airport per its location coordinates. I have placed it in the correct category in the meantime. Genoa only has one airport. Instead of deletion, the category can also be changed into a redirect. - Takeaway (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Genoa Cristoforo Colombo Airport. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Summer Solstice Parade 2015, can be deleted. --ghouston (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your suggestion seems OK to me. The 'Photographs taken of Fremont Solstice parade on 2015-06-20' parent cat '2015-06-20' could be changed to be that of 'Photographs taken on 2015-06-20' I suppose. Acabashi (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated to Commons naming convention. Media moved to correct category at Category:McDonald's restaurants in Beirut. Takeaway (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Seems logical. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion request: Category name unrelated to Commons naming convention. Media moved to correct Category:McDonald's restaurants in Beirut. Takeaway (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Seems logical. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Should this category be named Category:Irina Galinskaya? It seems to me that "Irina" is the given name, and that this is not a language that puts the surname first. Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say so. I guess the confusion may be from the Russian wikipedia article (ru:Галинская, Ирина Львовна) which used last name, first name for some reason. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Irina Galinskaya. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't understand the purpose. Sub-category has a Europe-category. Zoupan (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. This doesn't make any sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the only regional category in Category:Populated places in Europe. Superfluous. Zoupan (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. The closest thing is Category:Populated places in the Catalan Countries but that is comprised of places that have something in common (language) and no entire countries. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Rename Category:Law-related maps of the world as per parent. Zoupan (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree Sémhur (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)- Support --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Law-related maps of the world. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This category seems to be about getting money back after a purchase (whether coins or banknotes), but its name leaves it open to confusion. Can anyone thing of a solution? Category:Change (commerce) ? Subcategory Category:Modification should be removed. Themightyquill (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Changing by Benzoyl. Please remember to close discussions if you take action. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Any reason not to rename to Category:Kongo Central? The province was renamed in 2015. Leave a redirect, of course. Themightyquill (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- We should use whatever the current name is and, yes, keep a redirect. If not too much trouble, it would also be good to take care of Wikipedia articles and categories that link to this cat using a template, such as en:Category:Kongo Central. The answer there might be to just remove the Commons template, because the sidebar links to the Commons category defined in Wikidata. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could please someone do this? I don't know how to remove Commons template and so on. The province is definitely called Kongo Central now.--Grullab (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kongo Central, fixed commons template on wikipedia, added "Bas-Congo" to description. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that "piscina" means "(swimming) pool" in Spanish and Portuguese, what kind of images would you expect to me miscategorized here? I suggest a move to Category:Piscina, Turin. Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or Piscina (Italy) as well as similar categories of Italy...--Threecharlie (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: move as suggested and make this one a dab page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Piscina, Italy would be better. As a matter of fact, Piscina means swimming pool in Italian, too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
PS Themightyquill: Piscina, Turin wouldn't be good because Piscina is not an hamlet of Turin but a municipality in the former province of Turin (now metropolitan city). For example Superga is part of the municipality of Turin but Piscina is not.
- Piscina, Italy would be better. As a matter of fact, Piscina means swimming pool in Italian, too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Piscina, Italy. While moving photos, I also discovered Category:Piscinas and moved that to Category:Piscinas, Italy. Dab page created at Category:Piscina. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no difference to Category:Language-neutral schemes recognisable. (Reported by User:Tostman on COM:VP.) The term "virgin" is also very unlucky for this. ↔ User: Perhelion 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Perhelion and Tostman: Is there a difference between both of these and Category:Language-neutral diagrams ? Perhaps we can erase both "schemes" categories. At least, we could use the term Category:Schemas so that it joins a category tree. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I'm not sure. In German a "diagram" is a chart, but in English they are probably the same.--Tostman (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your suspicions are correct - "diagram" in English has a much vaguer meaning that could include a chart or variety of other illustrations. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I'm not sure. In German a "diagram" is a chart, but in English they are probably the same.--Tostman (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved images to Category:Language-neutral diagrams. Same with images in Category:Language-neutral schemes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside improper capitalization of the last word, which at the minimum calls for technical rename to lower case, I don't think this category is well defined. It sits only in the WEP category structure tree, no other. I suggest upmerge back to C:WEP. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The last word isn't improperly categorized, it's missing the initial "I". --Auntof6 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Piotrus Why should it be in the category tree otherwise? It's essentially a user/maintenance category, so it can sub-categorized however. I don't see any advantage of having it as a sub-category of Category:Images, if that's what you mean. Fix the spelling though, definitely. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see this as a user/maintenance category. What purpose does it serve? If the purpose can be defined, it can be properly categoprized in the tree. If not, this is a useless category that should be upmerged and deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- It serves whatever purpose the people running the Category:Wikipedia Education Program want it to. User/Project categories don't need to justify their existence to anyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Than it should be a hidden category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed speelling, added HIDDENCAT. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. Currently empty. --grendel|khan 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty. - Reventtalk 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 23:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out; just contains empty categories which are themselves awaiting deletion. grendel|khan 10:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 04:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted.
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 08:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 08:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Contained only File:Auschwitz Resistance 280 cropped.jpg (not 278); category seems superfluous Richard 12:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this can be removed. I tried to find a way to group this pictures as there are cropped and uncropped versions (published in different years) and retouched versions and versions in Auschwitz museum. As we have no access to the scans of those pictures, nor metadata, categorising the reproductions is a bit over the top. Hopefully we swill get high res pictures soon. --Hannolans (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Empty now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Empty now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category asked to be deleted by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category, requested deletion by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian Wikipedia Screenshots is correct title 47.150.70.205 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Persian Wikipedia screenshots, to match parent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Files transferred by User:Jeff G. from Persian Wikipedia is correct 47.150.70.205 00:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category, requested deletion by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian glyphs is correct title 47.150.70.205 00:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moving to Category:Persian glyphs. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian pronunciation of names is correct 47.150.70.205 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Persian pronunciation of names. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This category describes a service; not a physical line. The parent en.wp article was redirected to the current franchise holder in 2010. I've recategorized the various trains according to the actual physical lines they were on; I think this category can be safely deleted. Category:North TransPennine should just redirect to Category:TransPennine Express. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - It was on my long-forgotten to-do list. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree, it's one of those categories that doesn't add value or fit with the other line categories. It's parent Category:North TransPennine (which only contains stations) and sister Category:Trains on the South TransPennine ought to go to. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been looking at the South TransPennine trains (many of which are probably North TransPennine services, but never mind) and run into a problem. File:185102 Castleton East Junction.jpg is emblematic. The original author has given a detailed description, but the description doesn't make sense. Why would a First TransPennine Express train be on the Calder Valley Line at all? TPE trains ran on the Huddersfield Line. I looked up the timetable for the period and the 10:42 Sunday Newcastle to Manchester Airport stopped at Huddersfield and Dewsbury. I don't see how it winds up at Castleton East Junction unless I badly misunderstand where that is or there was some diversion. There's about 30 of these images. Edit: at least for the 2006 images there were weekend diversions. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Did you want to move/sort the categories in Category:North TransPennine so that we can redirect it and close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Trains on the North TransPennine deleted. Category:North TransPennine redirected to Category:TransPennine Express. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What has Stereoscopy to do with the Kinetic depth effect? The Kinetic depth effect is a "Monocular cue". There may be very well be examples who use both "Stereoscopy" and the "Kinetic depth effect", but the two files currently in this Cat are monocular. Jahobr (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Stereoscopic 3D files (wiggle) work monocular too but it has commonly even stereoscopy in its name. I think kinetic depth images as well as stereo wiggle images work with at least 2 different images instead of a single image therefore they are still some kind of stereo images. --Tochni (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not agree. The question is: do you have a separate image for each eye? If yes, it is stereoscopic. If you can perceive the 3d-effect with one eye only it is a “monocular clue”. I recommend the article w:en:Depth perception, which explains the difference “Monocular cues” and “Binocular cues”. w:en:Stereoscopy is an illusion-method to employ w:en:Stereopsis, which is one of the binocular depth perception cues.
- "Stereoscopic 3D files (wiggle)" are named like that because you can simulate w:en:Parallax-3D (a monoptic effect) by flipping between the two images that were originally intended for two eyes (Stereoscopic). This re-purposing of stereoscopic images is a "hack" to get some use out of this images when displaying them on a 2D-Monitor. (By your logic every movie ever made is stereoscopic because they all have several images.) --Jahobr (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Jahobr: there is a precise definition of monoscopic vs. stereoscopic depth cues, which is explained in the Wikipedia article he linked. Categorization should follow the correct definitions of the terms, and any additional connections (to facilitate navigation and match potential expectations from users) can be made via {{Cat see also}}. --Waldir talk 13:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Tochni: Further thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK, change it if you like. --Tochni (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done. The category is now Category:Kinetic depth effect and categorized under Category:Depth perception. --Waldir talk 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Counter-productive intersection of two arbitrary categories. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Taken with Nikon D5100 and AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR for more details. -Ubcule (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No need of this kind of intersecting. --Achim (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of category should not exist on Commons. First it is not neutral and does not respect the neutrality of point of view. And then it would result in the creation of other categories of this kind ("Turkish (or other countries) terrorism") and endless discussions
And what kind of categories should be added to this pictures (for example / see also)? I think that Commons should not be a place of war of opinion, so it is better to stop creating these categories.
Wikipedia commons is intended to store documents and no to have this kind of discussion.--Ghybu (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep We may rename it as PKK terrorism. WM is neutral in the sense of being objective, not blind or stupid. We all know that not all Kurds are terrorists or PKK propagandists, thank God. --E4024 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per user:Ghybu. This is an offensive and racist categorization.--Gomada (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of category should not exist on Commons. First it is not neutral and does not respect the neutrality of point of view. And then it would result in the creation of other categories of this kind ("Turkish (or other countries) terrorism") and endless discussions
And what kind of categories should be added to this pictures (for example / see also)? I think that "Commons" should not be a place of war of opinion, so it is better to stop creating these categories.
Wikimedia Commons is intended to store documents and no to have this kind of discussion.
Moreover these attacks were not claimed by the PKK (see: w:en:February 2016 Ankara bombing and w:en:March 2016 Ankara bombing). So this category must be empty--Ghybu (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Info: I protected Category:PKK terrorism (2016) fully for 1 week because of edit warring. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep Ask me what PKK terrorism is. I "still" live (or survive) in Turkey. --E4024 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- That hardly makes your opinion NPOV, E4024. There's no reason for you to be neutral, but there is good reason for commons to be neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral between killers and victims? Don't count on me please. --E4024 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category serves as a container for Category:February 2016 Ankara bombing and Category:March 2016 Ankara Bombing. Although their relationship is unclear PKK and TAK are not identical as Ghybu pointed out. Therefore I suggest to keep this cat moving it (without redirect) to Category:TAK terrorism (2016) or similar because the TAK has claimed resposibility for these bombings. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is a discussion going on: We do not create other categories of this kind without the end of this discussion.
- If category should be created, I propose Category:Kurdish-Turkish conflict (2015-present) on the model of English wikipedia. And this category has been renamed to Category:PKK terrorism (2016) (same on wikidata) without discussion!--Ghybu (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: I also left a message to Gomada about this discussion and the behavior of this user: See (cross-wiki on Kurdish and Armenian Genocide articles): [1] (es), [2] (en), [3] (fr) and on ca.wikipedia ([4] and [5]). He doesn't want the deletion of this category but he says the same thing as me here?!--Ghybu (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS2: Should we also create the category "Category:People executed by the Turkish army"? I am sure that the parents of this child are also suffering--Ghybu (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category serves as a container for Category:February 2016 Ankara bombing and Category:March 2016 Ankara Bombing. Although their relationship is unclear PKK and TAK are not identical as Ghybu pointed out. Therefore I suggest to keep this cat moving it (without redirect) to Category:TAK terrorism (2016) or similar because the TAK has claimed resposibility for these bombings. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral between killers and victims? Don't count on me please. --E4024 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That hardly makes your opinion NPOV, E4024. There's no reason for you to be neutral, but there is good reason for commons to be neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per user Ghybu and Themightyquill. There is not an international norm which categorize people/organisations as terrorist, but there are organisations/point of views which categorize/label as terrorist. Since we are creating a neutral platform, we can not accept such categorization. P.S. user:E4024 is blocked on en.Wikipedia because of his nationalistic contributions. It's clear from his contributions how much he is offensive against minorities in turkey such as armenians, kurds etc.--Gomada (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info:So User:Ghybu called in his or her neutral and objective friend Gomada and we are having an intellectually high level discussion here: Not only about the category but also about user E4024. At present I am watching to see if any administrative action will be taken against this mobilization, lack of assuming goodwill, personal attacks etc. Later I will reply to the questions, claims, and maybe also the personal comments. Now let me continue with some constructive work in Commons. See you. --E4024 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Mobilization" of one person :) what I reported here. You act on several wiki: so the discussion doesn't stop here. It is useful that others users know this.
In your comments you will not stop talking about yourself and your feelings (cf. Your answers on this and related topics). So don't be surprised that we are starting to take a serious interest in it.--Ghybu (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Mobilization" of one person :) what I reported here. You act on several wiki: so the discussion doesn't stop here. It is useful that others users know this.
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This category may be deleted (it is empty), as the correct is: Category:Polyhedra, Collections of Matemateca IME-USP Joalpe (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have tagged it with the {{Empty page}} template, so an admin will probably delete it soon. For future reference, you could have used that template instead of starting a discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral point of view means we should not single out countries. However, executed people (there are so many of them with images here) are only categorized on a "country" basis for Turkey (this cat), Ottoman Empire (its predecessor), Soviet Union, Russia (Soviet Union's predecessor and successor in a sense), People's Republic of China, and somehow Switzerland. Don't we "like" these countries? (Not asking to the creator of this very cat.) I know very well that many people have been executed in the United States but I cannot see a category for that country (only as an example). We should either make this category for all the countries with an execution record (What happened during the French revolution, did they not execute anybody?) or for none. Take this discussion also for the above-mentioned countries' relevant categories, please. E4024 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire
- Category:Polish people executed by the Russian Empire
- Category:Polish people executed by the Soviet Union
- Category:People executed by China
- Category:People executed by the Republic of China
- Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China
- Category:People executed by Switzerland
- Sometimes you make a subcategory just to get a lot of files out of a main category. That doesn't mean you need a category for every possibility. I'm not saying that's how this should be handled, just adding this point to the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Auntof6. If there are sufficient images/categories to create Category:People executed by Country X, then go for it. Creating a bunch of empty categories, however, doesn't make sense. That said, I'm not convinced we should be categorizing people by the cause of their death at all, unless the actual death is in the image. See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Deaths by cause. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is strange that the Category:People executed by the United States in EN:WP does not have a "proper" Commonscat; there are several articles there with pictures of people in orange uniforms, such as Danny Rolling, the first and only person I looked up with a random scanning. Now I wonder how many others there may be... Maybe we should also be discussing Category:Death penalty in the United States --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Now it does: Category:People executed by the United States. Can we close discussion now? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO you can close it any time you wish. I made a point and I see that I had some reason to do so. Thanks for your kind work. --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Close as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of male masturbation" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of male masturbation. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of ejaculation" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of ejaculation. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of human sexuality" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support move to Category:Animations of human sexuality, same style for the sub-category. I can't believe we have 46 separate animations of male masturbation, but that's another issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of human sexuality - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. Solely used to categorize videos of men masturbating; this seems to be the root of the giant wad of categories I've been nominating this month. --grendel|khan 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category currently contains Videos of sexuality by format, it could in the future contains other themes sorted by format.
- Before this category, we had directly in Category:Videos by format the following categories:
- Videos of ejaculation by format (3 C)
- Videos of male masturbation by format (1 C)
- GIF videos of sexuality (1 C, 10 F)
- Ogv videos of sexuality (2 C, 15 F)
- The issue is as this stage, the Videos by format category is only to sort between direct Ogg Vorbis files, Webm containers and animated GIF.
- Instead the category was used to offer redundant subjects.
- As such, the bunch of categories <format> videos of <subject> subjects could be sorted in a root category.
- There are plans to expand the category to categorize other media using a bunch of formats like steam engines, solar eclipses and running.
- The goal will then be to answer questions like "Is there an animation for this theme?", ie "what other formats exist for that subject?".
- --Dereckson (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was created in 2015 and has seen zero use since then, apart from by the movement to put videos of men masturbating directly under as many generic categories as possible. The tools have improved; you can use the in-this-category-and widget. There's no use for this category at this point, in theory (the existence of the widget) or in practice (the last two-ish years).
- Those other categories should have been deleted, not further categorized; they're currently up for discussion along with this one. grendel|khan 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Delete, along with sub-categories. I've long supported a separation of format categories from content. Otherwise we'll end up with Category:JPEG images of X for everything. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay I can support that: if we delete first 'Videos of male masturbation by format' etc., we can then delete Videos by subject and format. --Dereckson (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those other categories should have been deleted, not further categorized; they're currently up for discussion along with this one. grendel|khan 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Needs to be changed to Persian pronunciation because Persian is the correct name for the language. Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Support Change of category - all instances of farsi seen in category titles must be changed to Persian as Persian is the correct name in English for the language of Iran. --47.150.70.205 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I disagree that Farsi is incorrect, but Persian does seem to be the preferred term in English. Move for the sake of consistency, along with other examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Persian pronunciation and left redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Request renaming the following categories:
- Category:UConn Huskies basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies basketball players to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball players
- Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball players to Category:Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players
- Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies women's basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies men's soccer to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's soccer
- Category:UConn Huskies men's soccer players to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's soccer players
Request merging the following two categories:
- * Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball players merged into Category:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball players
Currently categories for University of Connecticut athletic teams are named inconsistently; some are under UConn Huskies (such as basketball and soccer) and some are under Connecticut Huskies (such as American football). It would make it easier to find content if the categories were named consistently. An RfC on English Wikipedia (see link) reached consensus that categories over there would use "Connecticut Huskies" instead of "UConn Huskies". It would make sense to follow the same convention here. –Grondemar 05:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Shouldn't they be renamed to "University of Connecticut Huskies..."? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Valid question, but from English wikipedia, it looks like "Connecticut Huskies" is an accepted formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the US, college sports teams are commonly abbreviated as (Short name) (Team nickname). That is the standard practice on English Wikipedia and appears to be the practice on Commons as well; see the note on Category:College basketball teams. –Grondemar 02:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Valid question, but from English wikipedia, it looks like "Connecticut Huskies" is an accepted formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The Wikipedia RfC was long and contentious; I'm surprised (but thankful) that I missed it.
- What should be less contentious is the value in alignment between Wikipedia and Commons. One can imagine situations (categories solely relating to images) in which we might prefer that Commons reaches the decision, and other projects should follow suit. However, these categories are broader than just images. While I might have slightly preferred UConn over Connecticut, that's water over the dam and was a close call. We would need an exceedingly strong argument in favor of UConn in connection with Commons to justify using a different naming convention in the two projects. None occur to me, so I support aligning the Commons category names with the Wikipedia names.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. (Maybe a vague overlap with a vintage-porn category?) --grendel|khan 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 06:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove supercat See also Commons:Village_pump#Surfeit_of_masturbation_videos.2C_still.
- Grendel raises a good point there. This intersection categorization is ludicrous (and see User talk:Cirt for a bunch more from the same author). Let's be upfront, the problem isn't this category so much, as its location in the parent cat Category:Videos of the 2000s. Now if Commons is to host sexually explicit material for its "educational" aspects (See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/07#Educational_value_of_masturbation_videos) then that's one thing - but why tie them into the main category tree? I see Grendel's point here as being that the nav path from Category:Cute kitten videos of the 2000s to Category:Videos of the 2000s and then to here is not one that many Commons readers would happily accept. And I would agree with them. In particular, why is this the only content-themed subcategory of 2000s? Was it a particularly fruitful decade?
- There is a problem here, and it's bigger than CfD. There are two problems here: should the content exist, and should the content be linked like this into the main caegorization tree? Personally I cannot see objections to the first getting very far (we've been there before!) but I don't see any justification for the second. Whatever "walled garden" approach we might invent instead, Grendel is right here and we should move from situations like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody looking for a video of someone masturbating is at all likely to care when it was filmed. Seriously. - Reventtalk 12:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- <sigh> It's tempting to see that as a simple answer, but I'm not sure we can even go that far. See Category:1920s videos of male masturbation. There has to be some value to film historians in a cat of "1920s porn", even if we'd both agree here that 2000s vs 2010s is indeed a "[not] at all likely to care when". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have Category:Historic pornographic videos; I think that, or categories under it, would fit the bill nicely. grendel|khan 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This cat is now empty, and I have tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 06:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Bosnian War as per common name and Bosnian War. Same with sub-categories. Zoupan (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: the proposed cat already exists as a redirect to this cat, so the redirect would need to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moved to Category:Bosnian War. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
geboortelijst 1931 van st baafs vijve 2A02:A03F:1258:F900:DDE:3228:49D4:B2D3 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kunt u meer uitleggen? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No further discussion. Keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. Media recategorised to correct @ Category:Rivers of India. Takeaway (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest redirecting, because this is probably a common mistake. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I'm not in favour of changing this into a redirect because then uploaders who mistakenly choose this category will surely never get to see all the subcategories in Category:Rivers of India. It also contained just one file, placed in it by the same user who started the category. If this had been a common mistake, the category would have included many more files that would have been placed in there when it was still a redlink category. - Takeaway (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Auntof6, this should be a redirect. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Capankajsmilyo seems to be creating more parallel categories such as Category:Animals in India, Category:Birds in India, Category:Pigeons in India, Category:Actresses of India and Category:Birds in Tamil Nadu. - Takeaway (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are many redirects like this. This should be a redirect.--ProfessorX (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted by Daphne Lantier while still under discussion. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear consensus here on whether a redirect is necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: redirected. Daphne Lantier 07:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I put this category for discussion is because the whole category has a list of Gatwick Express trains and they have nothing to do with the Southern (train operating company). I am planning to rename this category to Category:British Rail Class 442s of Gatwick Express. --Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I understand it, Gatwick Express was never an independent TOC but rather a brand or a franchise. I think it's correct to say that this is Southern rolling stock for the period in question. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I must correct Mackensen in that Gatwick Express was at one point a separate TOC, during that time it did not operate any 442s. Gatwick Express has only operated 442s since it became a part of the Southern franchise (which is in turn now part of Govia Thameslink Railway).
- To clarify, 442s should be categorised thusly by TOC:
- 1988 - 1996: Category:British Rail Class 442s of British Rail
- 1996 - 2007: Category:British Rail Class 442s of South West Trains
- 2008 - 2015: Category:British Rail Class 442s of Southern
- 2015 - present: Category:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway (apparently we haven't got any of those yet)
- -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: Something of a side issue, but I understood Gatwick Express to be a sub-brand of National Express from 1996-2007. Are you speaking of 1994-1996? Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Gatwick Express trains were run by National Express from 1996 to 2008, that is true. However as it was its own TOC, it gets its own category Category:Trains of Gatwick Express, and during that franchise they did not operate 442s - they had 460s and before that locomotive hauled stock. I listed SWT above as they were operating the 442s, before they were displaced by newly-built 444s. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: I have found some images forCategory:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway and I have sorted them in. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Can we close this now? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: I have found some images forCategory:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway and I have sorted them in. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Gatwick Express trains were run by National Express from 1996 to 2008, that is true. However as it was its own TOC, it gets its own category Category:Trains of Gatwick Express, and during that franchise they did not operate 442s - they had 460s and before that locomotive hauled stock. I listed SWT above as they were operating the 442s, before they were displaced by newly-built 444s. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: Something of a side issue, but I understood Gatwick Express to be a sub-brand of National Express from 1996-2007. Are you speaking of 1994-1996? Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done, Per Mattbuck, Gatwick Express operated its trains with the Southern franchise
obsolete category Vysotsky (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion suggests that all files of this category violate copyrights, as the concerned Swiss court ruling does not apply worldwide (especially not in the US, where the files are stored); many files can be retained by correcting the license (e.g. pd-old or pd-official, where possible) should be retained, the rest must be deleted. Mecoma (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mecoma: , if certain files should be retained, then the category should stay. If the problem is with certain files that should be deleted, please delete them. You can use Help:VisualFileChange.js to launch a batch deletion if you don't want to do each one at a time. Unless I've misunderstood, though, there's nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion continues here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Switzerland-photo--185.12.129.226 20:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- The DR on the template resulted in a keep. Any reason not to close this discussion, Mecoma ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Closed as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Image need individual status review per -s:Page:Big Bend.djvu/130 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I don't understand. Can you please explain further? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept, as two files seem to have survived the review. --rimshottalk 19:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Underneath this category, there are categories for 191 countries, f.ex Category:Association_football_players_from_Norway. Underneath this category there is a further category tree where all men are categorised while women seems to be categories in a tree underneath this one again in f.ex Category:Women's association football players from Norway and so on. This category contains a mirrored tree to the one above, only prefixed with "Woman's". Either there should be a similar sublevel for men or the sublevel for women should be removed. There is no reason to treat men as the general case and women as a special case. TommyG (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- This also seems to be an issue which permeates other sports category trees too. F.ex Category:Sportspeople from Norway and Category:Sportswomen from Norway (and the somewhat mind boggling Category:LGBT sportspeople from Norway although this isn't quite the same issue) TommyG (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think in a situation like this (as opposed to something like, say, journalism) where there actually is a distinction between the men's and women's sports, that we should reflect that distinction in the category tree (and not, as was stated above, treat men's as the 'default case'). Also, the current situation creates a kind of overcat for men, where they are in both the parent category and a child in the 'by position' subtrees. - Reventtalk 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with these concerns. We should have male and female "sportspeople" categories. I also think that we should have a "Businessmen" category, just like we have a "Businesswomen" cat. If not, we should delete the "Businesswomen" cat and put every business person into the Category:Businesspeople. (Oh, yes, all these issues are inter-related, nothing is irrelevant here. :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Proposal accepted: Separate male and female categories of sposrtspeople are being built. It will take a bit but the thing is on its way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Need to separate things: If this File:StuffedBeefandCheeseSopapilla2.jpg and this other File:Sopaipillas chilenas.jpg are in the same category, either something is wrong with the categorization or time has come to separate things. As I know more on Chilean cuisine (Mendoza, Argentina is quite similar in many aspects) than the other regional ones, I wish to make a call on colleagues from that part of the world, or others who khow the regional cuisines to look into this matter. IMHO, at least the "Chilean sopaipillas" seem to deserve their own category. (Other than the differences between the varieties of this food, "sopaipillas" is almost a sign of cultural identity for the Chileans. Am I exaggerating?) E4024 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- The main difference I see in those two images is that the stuffed beef and cheese one has been turned into a dish, and the other one is plain. It's a sopaipilla whether or not it's stuffed or had other preparation. In other words, some of the images show sopaipilla dishes and some show plain sopaipillas. It's like the difference between eating a tortilla (the bread kind) plain or making a burrito or taco with it: those would look very different on a plate, but there's a tortilla in both. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but the Chilean sopaipillas are not things that can be stuffed with anything, they are plain, no vacuum inside. You can "place on top of them" -for example- "pebre", like in this picture (File:Sopaipillas campus San Joaquín 01.JPG), and eat. "Stuffing" requires another variety. Anyway, not my area... --E4024 (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with sub-categorizing by region if the dish is notably different. Similarly, enchilada means something quite different in Mexico than it does in El Salvador (where it resembles a Mexican tostada). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but the Chilean sopaipillas are not things that can be stuffed with anything, they are plain, no vacuum inside. You can "place on top of them" -for example- "pebre", like in this picture (File:Sopaipillas campus San Joaquín 01.JPG), and eat. "Stuffing" requires another variety. Anyway, not my area... --E4024 (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Created sub-category named Category:Sopaipillas (Chile). Ruthven (msg) 06:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This category is to promote gay stereotypes; I don't see why this is necessary. Gay men do not wear pink any more often than straight men (in fact outside of gay pride parades gay men are actually LESS likely to wear pink than straight men). If we have a category for pink, we might as well create categories for other colors as well. --Andros 1337 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The category just carries out that there are pink colors used by LGBT people (maybe only in parades, so what?). Useful forking, because we have so much of these photographs with pink cloting uses by LGBT people. The reason given above is a bit strange. Signed, --Mattes (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC), creator
- Keep it, but the name is unclear. Category:Pink clothing as LGBT symbol or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337 and Mattes: Would that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- As of now, my vote still stands. This is overcategorization and promotion of gay stereotypes. Andros 1337 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337 and Mattes: Would that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it, but the name is unclear. Category:Pink clothing as LGBT symbol or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337: 1) Overcategorization refers to including the same file in parent and child categories. You're suggesting this is too specific, but it has 18 photos. 2) If it's being used consciously as a LGBT symbol by LGBT people, then at best, you can claim it's promotion of gay stereotypes by those LGBT people, not by commons. No one is suggesting including photos of gay men who happen to be wearing a pink shirt. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment True, we just act as truthful to reality just like Wikipedia. Queer pink clothing not an invention by myself --Mattes (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 06:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Maps of the Ottoman period in the history of the Balkans. Zoupan (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: per previous discussion. Ruthven (msg) 06:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Lord" is a translation of the arabic word and not the name of this village. Takeaway (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I expect it's a translation of a Persian word since it's in Iran. Photo was taken here. روستای موالی سفلی. Can anyone help with a phonetic translation? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Mavaluy-e Olya where photo was taken. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Confusing and incomprehensible name 47.150.89.223 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you specify more? Any suggestions on how to improve?--Ashashyou (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)--Ashashyou (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Azerbaijani Arabic Alphabet. --47.150.89.223 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Writing is not the same as alphabet. The "alphabet" represents its characters individually, writing is a next level and a new quality, applicating the alphabet. As well as a forest is more than trees and a society is more than people. --ŠJů (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure that shouldn't be 'abjad' rather than 'abjab'? From en:Azerbaijani language#Writing systems: "The Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani alphabet is an abjad; that is, it does not represent vowels." (Also, 'Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani abjad' seems like a more common name, judging by that article.) grendel|khan 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Is there a typo in the category name, as per Grendelkhan ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure that shouldn't be 'abjad' rather than 'abjab'? From en:Azerbaijani language#Writing systems: "The Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani alphabet is an abjad; that is, it does not represent vowels." (Also, 'Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani abjad' seems like a more common name, judging by that article.) grendel|khan 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ashashyou, Themightyquill, Grendelkhan, and ŠJů: Closed (no consensus on new name or merge) Josh (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no schema here, defining who belongs. Each of the US Armed Forces has a single NCO, their senior NCO. The US Army's senior NCO's official rank is "Sergeant Major of the United States Army". These senior NCOs are important officials. I wrote an article about one of the USCG's senior NCOs. After his retirement he took a gig as Vice President of a shipbuilding firm, the kind of post that would normally go to a senior retired officer. So, it would make sense to have a category just for the Senior NCO. Meanwhile, we have no category like Category:NCOs of the United States Army, or Category:Sergeants of the United States Army. So, let's fix the existing category, give it a schema, that clarifies whether it is only for the most senior NCO, or whether it is for all Sergeant Majors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I beg to differ with @Geo Swan: . There is a schema - This category is meant to be used for images of those individuals who served as en:Sergeant Major of the Army. Images of other Sergeants Major (ie Command SM's etc) belong in Category:United States Army soldiers Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, we need explicit schema, where the category has a sentence or two that explicitly says which images belong, and which don't. You seem to be saying you think there is an implicit schema, that is obvious to all smart people. The trouble with "obvious" implicit schema are that not all contributors here are "smart". And, they come from different cultures, speak different languages. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It is an appropriate category. Evrik (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps the description was inadequate at the time of the nomination, but the current one seems reasonable. Sergeant Major of the United States Army is a well-defined concept with a limiting principle. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There is consensus to keep this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC) – BMacZero (🗩) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Reguyla, Atlasowa, and Jasonanaggie: Based on File:20170104 Armed Forces Full Ceremony HD.webm I think this is not a normal video resolution category, the (broken) WEBM belongs to Category:Video_display_resolution_1280_x_720 with a cleanup template. It might be helpful, if you add it as sub-category to Category:Media for cleanup, and if folks trying to debug "Uploaded with videoconvert" accept it as bug report, in that case please say so at the top of the 0x0 category.
–2A03:2267:0:0:C3:D3DA:83C6:7D4C 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take a look. It is worth noting that not all 0 x 0 files will have this problem though. With regard to the ogg files, ogg used to be used for sound and video prior to the creation of ogv (video) and oga (audio) so many of the 0 x 0 files are simply audio only and not really visual at all. It's just that they are associated to a "video" format so it's useful to track them with that category. It would be good to get these converted to oga someday to better distinguish them from the videos but we aren't there yet. So I'm not sure adding it to the cleanup category would be appropriate for all of them. Reguyla (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- WEBM audio only exists, but the MIME type was correct (video/webm, about one second of the expected 1:09:00). If you want to handle it with a bot (not counting AWB) just add some info in the category—I stumbled over these new resolution categories when I updated File:111014 NetNeutrality Final.ogv with an archived WH.gov URL. –2A03:2267:0:0:8492:F1D8:D437:C27E 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, let me know if you find anymore issues. Reguyla (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- WEBM audio only exists, but the MIME type was correct (video/webm, about one second of the expected 1:09:00). If you want to handle it with a bot (not counting AWB) just add some info in the category—I stumbled over these new resolution categories when I updated File:111014 NetNeutrality Final.ogv with an archived WH.gov URL. –2A03:2267:0:0:8492:F1D8:D437:C27E 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Random remark, exhibit A was deleted as bad upload, okay. But I think an image reviewer has upload-by-url rights, I know that YouTube offers webm, I guess that any YT licence trying to trump {{PD-USGov}} is bogus, so is YT a possible source for an upload-by-url rescue? –193.96.224.2 17:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This category was deleted by Nyttend and as far as I can tell any issues here were dealt with. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I diffused this cat into Category:1-Butyne and Category:2-Butyne, the only two isomers of butyne that exist. The parent Category:Linear alkynes is pretty small, so I propose up-merging these two specific isomers into that and nuking this intermediate level. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1) I see that there is a file in the category. 2) Is it possible that there would be media that would pertain to both isomers, or that would be about the concept generally and not about either one specifically? These could be a video, or maybe a graphic showing both. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1 was my mistake...trying to figure out where to put that upload of mine was what led me to find this situation, then I forgot to push it into the correct single subcat. I could envision a joint image to compare/contrast the two, but I could likewise just put it in each one's cat. "Put it in the cat for each chemical illustrated" seems common for diagrams having more than one chemical, rather than trying to find a single cat that covers them all. I'm not sure what else would go in just butynes (both isomers). I just checked en:butyne and all other languages via its wikidata, and none of them are anything beyond a disambiguation/index pointer to each separate isomer's actual article. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I almost don't remember creating the category, but I approve of this change. I might even suggest going a step further and removing the shell category, to put 1-Butyne and 2-Butyne in Category:Linear alkynes instead. - Jynto (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your "going a step further" sounds exactly like what I was originally proposing:) That is:
| Current | Proposal 1 |
|---|---|
@DMacks and Jynto: In this case, would you redirect Category:Butynes to Category:Linear alkynes, or just delete it? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DMacks, Auntof6, Jynto, and Themightyquill: since the last comment almost four years ago nothing has been done about this category. It should be deleted, there is no proper target category it could be redirected to. Wostr (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Butynes. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This should be moved to a plural noun, just like Category:Turkish Americans E4024 (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or Category:Australians of Turkish descent to match parallel categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and E4024: 3 years old. Can we do progress here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Everything else in Category:Ethnic groups in Australia is Category:Australians of X descent. Any reason not to use that format? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024, Estopedist1, and Themightyquill: Moved per nom. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Codes of road signs are not stable, they can change with every new ordinance and are not intelligible and descriptive enough, they are a cipher sui generis. Official descriptive names of the signs would be better for category names to group signs by their kind. ŠJů (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, especially since at least some of the files don't show their associated number. Are you thinking to leave the same basic category structure here, just with different category names? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The structure needs not to be so flat, buts it's possible to have a specific category for every type of road sign and possibly for its variants. Some such categories exist already within the standard categorization structure. The discussed subcategories can be renamed from the code-name to the official name of the sign.
- The question is whether to use the original Czech names for category names (they are strictly codified, even though the name can also change from time to time, and can be used as "proper names" sui generis), or to use some universal English names (which can be not the exact translation of the official Czech name and can be not so expectable and reckonable for users who know the official name). E.g. a distiction between "Vodicí tabule", "Vodicí deska", "Směrovací deska" and "Výstražná deska" can be difficult to express by translations. --ŠJů (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Creators of the subcategories are invited to discuss: Clonewayx, 106.69.75.121, 106.68.28.35, 106.68.102.10. --ŠJů (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Btw., Czech regulation uses a space between the initial letter and the number, i.e. A 29, E 2a, not A29, E2a. --ŠJů (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any opposition ŠJů. I guess you can make changes as you see fit? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank You for notification. The solution is not simple, some balance between original Czech names and universal English names needs to be found. And also some way how to search signs by the code: e.g. some categorized redirect pages, some table with links etc. Sooner or later, I will try to shift it. Maybe, some constructive discussion upon possible varaints of solution can help. Maybe, the full Czech original name including the code can be used (e.g. Category:P 2 Hlavní pozemní komunikace), but even this solution is not ideal. @Auntof6 and Clonewayx: --ŠJů (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @ŠJů and Podzemnik: it is a really Czech-specific CFD. I hope you find some solution for this long-term CFD. Maybe some hints for standardizing can be finded Category:Road signs by number by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: At the moment, the complete abolition of this categorization branch is not enforceable. Primarily, the categorization of traffic signs should be structured according to purpose and meaning. As far as possible, we can strive for compatibility between the two systems and avoid duplication. So far, most of the photos of Czech traffic signs have not yet been categorized in detail - I would leave the final decision on which category naming system will be dominant to the colleague(s) who will embark on this huge work. Both solutions have their pros and cons, which must be compensated in some way. For the time being, it is appropriate to keep this category marked as problematic, with reference to this discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: This discussion can be closed, I began work on rebuilding this categorization tree in line with the reasons and intentions presented in this discussion. Similar category names combining numbers with names are used for Australia, Canada and Ireland. Czechia is the first non-English-language country where this system is used. As explained above, i chose exact non-translated Czech official names of the signs, but every such Czech category is standardly wrapped with a parent category with the unified international English name. E.g. Category:A 12b Děti (Czech road sign) has its parent category Category:Children warning road signs in the Czech Republic, whereas unofficial and non-standard signs which do not correspond to the prescribed design A 12b but have the same meaning and purpose are categorized directly in this superior category. The numbers 1 - 9 are supplemented by the prefix zero (01 - 09) due to correct sorting. I still consider to create category redirects from the pure Czech official names (and their obsolete variants) without numbers (for comfortable HotCat categorization) – the category redirects could be also categorized in a category "Road signs in the Czech Republic by name". Also a Wikidata item for every type of sign (one national for every country, and one parent international item for every meaning) should be created prospectively, to enable automatized list outputs. Thank you for your participation in this discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggest rename to 1900s (decade), and doing similar for sibling and child categories ending in two zeros; to avoid confusion with the period 1900-1999. Obviously, this would be wide-reaching, and I cannot tag every category concerned! Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, chewing: The first link on top of that page reads Category:20th century. --Achim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect?199.7.156.141 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- from what to where? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking 1900s to 1900s (decade), but apparently not thinking too much. They don't have it for w:Category:1900s, and no such cats on WQ nor WS, FWIW.199.7.156.141 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- from what to where? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- As it does on, for example, Category:1980s. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect?199.7.156.141 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would it be enough to add a note to the {{Decade}} template to explain things? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, because peolpe adding a category to an image have no need to see that template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, because peolpe adding a category to an image have no need to see that template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just tagged a bunch of similar base categories (e.g. Category:1800s) which further convinced me that this is a good idea. Category:0s could definitely use additional clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- This change would mean changing our many templates that generate decade categories, nav boxes that link to decades, and maybe other things. If we do this change, I think we should turn the existing pages into dab pages. (If left as redirects, we'd probably have the same problem.) I think this change would affect so many different things that we should probably try to publicize this proposal more before taking action. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't like that idea. There is the same category structure in en-wiki and a lot of editors used to it. It's quite enough to have a notification & navigation panel. People add often wrong /sometimes completely wrong/ categories. But in's not the reason to make things more complicating for everyone. --Fleur-de-farine (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it Category:1900s redirects to Category:1900s (decade), I don't see how it would become a hassle for anyone. If you could be more specific about the potential downsides, I might understand. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it's left as a redirect, it wouldn't solve the problem. If someone added Category:1900s thinking that it meant the 100-year span, it would get recategorized to the decade category by the bot that checks redirected categories. Making it a dab page would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to do this with "Category:1800s fashion (decade)" (now at Category:1800s fashion) and it got deleted (apparently twice): see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Category%3A1800s+fashion+%28decade%29 — Churchh (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. If enwiki uses exactly the same solution. I tend to vote Keep. We almost always follow enwiki solutions because these are often the results of discussions--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- 1900s shouldnt refer to 1900-1999, so no need to change.
- anyone saying 2000s referring to 2000-2999? RZuo (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2000s might be different, but in common English usage, saying something happened in the "Seventeen hundreds" refers to 1700-1799, not 1700-1709. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
(1) Category:Topless and barefoot female is singular: shouldn't it be plural, as in Category:Topless and barefoot females?
(2) I'd also like to see a Category:Topless and barefoot women (as breasts are above feet), or Category:Barefoot and topless women (as "b-" comes before "t-") as a significant subcat of Category:Topless and barefoot females as is the case with:
Category:Female toplessness of which Category:Topless females redirects to, has as subcats
Category:Topless adolescent girls, and
Category:Topless women
- and
Category:Barefoot females has as subcats
Category:Barefoot girls, and
Category:Barefoot women
Category:Topless and barefoot girls would likely be unnecessary, however, as most of the files currently in Category:Topless and barefoot female could go into the proposed woman cat.
Thank you.
199.7.156.141 22:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and six of the subcats say "women."199.7.156.141 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: moot as the category was moved to Category:Topless and barefoot women. --✗plicit 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Duas questões:
- "Andrade Corvo" não é um surname mas uma linhagem; a categoria está assim mal nomeada e igualmente mal aplicada: Alguns membros desta linhagem podem até não usar um ou ambos estes apelidos, e, por conseguinte, mesmo os que usam ambos deverão ser categorizados igualmente pelos seus apelidos (esta ressalva aplica-se a quaisquer outras categorias afins).
- É de todo útil categorizar assim no Wikimedia Commons? No caso vertente tratar-se-á apenas do próprio Andrade Corvo, ministro de Fontismo — ou teve descendência que tenha, ou venha a ter, categoria individual no Wikimedia Commons?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- E mais: Categorização por linhagem cria mais imbróglios do que establece nexos relevantes ao obrigar a distinguir, p. ex., quem se chamar Câmara Pereira por ser da linhagem de Zarco, de quem for apenas Câmara por parte da mãe e Pereira por parte do pai. Mais uma razão para abandonar categorização por linhagem, ou, pelo menos, separá-la completamente da categorização por apelido (e, portanto, reestablecer em Andrade Corvo as categorias "Andrade (surname)" e "Corvo (surname)"). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that "Andrade Corvo" is two surnames, not one, and shouldn't be a surname category. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Disagree - "Andrade Corvo" é um surname (sobrenome). Uma pessoa chamada "António Santos Costa Silva" pode afirmar que o seu sobrenome é "Santos Costa Silva" e num qualquer documento, no campo destinado ao sobrenome deverão/poderão aparecer os três nomes. Para ser uma linhagem deveria ser classificado como "Andrade Corvo family" ou algo parecido e classificado eventualmente em Category:Families of Portugal.
- 2 Agree - Concordo que seja inútil classificar desta forma na Commons. Em cerca de 63 categorias idênticas, com portugueses, só uma tem 5 elementos (Bordalo Pinheiro (surname)), 13 têm 2 elementos e todas as restante só têm 1 elemento (e não é de esperar que o numero de elementos cresça muito no futuro) - ver [6] e procurar por "(surname)". Disagree - No entanto não creio ser lícito eliminar estas categorias que alguém por uma questão de sistematização decidiu criar no commons. Para isso seria necessária a concordância da comunidade do Commons tanto em relação a sobrenomes Portugueses com de todos os outros países e línguas.
- Nota: Nada disto interfere com a ordem de classificação que deverá ser (para Portugueses) pelo último sobrenome, neste caso "DEFAULTSORT:Corvo, Andrade". --JotaCartas (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category is empty and basically can be speedy deleted as "empty". I agree with user:Auntof6 that these double surnames categories should be deleted instantly.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I agree. Delete them all, for the reasons aduced in the o.p. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --✗plicit 00:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Name of category is confusing it is Persian not Farsi 47.150.70.205 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Asian Persian Arabic script or Category:Persian language in Arabic script? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Support move to Category:Persian language in Arabic script. This CfD has been open for a year and has not been closed! --47.156.0.180 00:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the technical term would be Category:Perso-Arabic script or Category:Perso-Arabic alphabet, but agree that the current name should not be kept. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- to be in the line with parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, we should use the name Category:Asian Persian Arabic script--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages looks best. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- to be in the line with parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, we should use the name Category:Asian Persian Arabic script--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: renamed to Category:Asian Persian Arabic script. --✗plicit 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
L'identité de ce photographe est Ernest (châteauroux naissances 10/9/1831) 88.141.81.44 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ce photographe signe ses cartons E. Appert, ce lien BNF [7] indique qu'il a deux prénoms, il utilise en priorité Eugène. C'est ainsi qu'il est mentionné dans "Répertoire de Photographe parisienss du XIXe siècle" de Franços Boisjoly (non exempt de quelques erreurs) localisé au 24 rue Tatibout, comme la photo que je possède. je ne vois donc pas où est le problème. - Siren-Com (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: je vois où maintenant se situe le problème, pas dans la catégorie (qui peut être effectivement renommée "Eugène Appert" mais dans certains fichier nommés "Ernest Appert" car "E. Appert" est la même initiale et porte à confusion, comme sur le carton de ma photo. Bienn cordialement - Siren-Com (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Finalement j'y perd mon latin. j'ai essayé d'y voir plus clair entre Ernest né en 1831 et Eugène né en 1830, un vrai casse-tête. Ont-il été tous les deux photographes ? Les différentes sources sont discordantes. J'ai apporté le problème sur le Bistro (29/01) de W:fr pour avoir de l'aide, mais je suis circonspect. Dans l'incertitude, je n'ai lus d'opinion. - Siren-Com (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Voir Crimes de la Commune. Deux frères photographes ont fusionné sous la même identité commerciale. Sijysuis (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Finalement j'y perd mon latin. j'ai essayé d'y voir plus clair entre Ernest né en 1831 et Eugène né en 1830, un vrai casse-tête. Ont-il été tous les deux photographes ? Les différentes sources sont discordantes. J'ai apporté le problème sur le Bistro (29/01) de W:fr pour avoir de l'aide, mais je suis circonspect. Dans l'incertitude, je n'ai lus d'opinion. - Siren-Com (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It is fully French discussion. What is the situation here, @Siren-Com and Sijysuis: ? Enwiki article is under the name en:Ernest Eugène Appert, frwiki has two-person article fr:Eugène et Ernest-Charles Appert--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is a very dark problem... it seems that the two brothers (Ernest and Eugène) worked together in the same photographic studio from 1870 named E.Appert [8] I d'ont know what to do... a single article will be better - Siren-Com (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
How is this distinct from Category:Flora of the United States? Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Does flora includes things that are not technically plants, such as fungus? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also, this cat uses the preposition "in", so maybe the images here have to be of things that were actually in the US, not just species that can be found there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree because now, most of the cats Plants in xxx are redirect to Flora of xxx. It was not like that some months (years) ago. For me, Flora of was only natural plants and Plants of all the plants, natural or cultivated. But the cats have been merged. So, move on and lets continue. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Tangopaso: If we were going to make a category for all plants, it would make more sense to use Category:Plantae in the United States, but we don't currently have that category tree (no pun intended) set up. Doing so would be an enormous amount of work with little payoff. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: There are none category:Plantae in... ; it is more simple to use only Plants in... and Flora of....--Tangopaso (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. To be clear, I think the easiest thing is to use Category:Garden plants in X and not categorize anything by Category:Plants in X or Category:Plantae in X. The issue of Plants vs Plantae is whole other discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
To me adding whole plant species categories to the category "Flora of the United States" is a big problem as all species exempt the endemic ones have individuals outside the range of the United States. To me a list of all native species may be in a gallery page but not als a bunch of categories. --Kersti (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I agree with user:Kersti Nebelsiek. I also see that we have Category:Endemic flora by country. In general, this is very wide (not USA-specific) topic, and should be discussed at some parent category--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
All the files for this category have been deleted per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yayamamo. This category is not needed. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
All files have been deleted. Deleting empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I spelled the name incorrectly - this is not an accurate name CaroleHenson (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, CaroleHenson, you can use {{Bad name|Edna Boies Hopkins}} to delete uncontroversial typos that you make when creating categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
please delete as it is spelled wrong Mick_Gill (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems too vague. ASchedulingError (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Now empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a typo ASchedulingError (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and subject; also empty. --grendel|khan 07:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Das Bild "Hofgarten24-2-2016" verletzt das Urheber- und Entwurfsverfasserrecht von Christoph Mäckler Architekten. Das alleinige Recht zur Veröffentlichung obliegt dem Büro Christoph Mäckler Architekten. Die Darstellung entspricht nicht dem zukünftigen Erscheinungsbild des Museums, vielmehr zeigt es eine verfälschte, schlechte Ansicht. 213.61.184.66 13:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Contains 2 images with pending DRs. After they are closed this CfD will also be closed. --Achim (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Die Kategorie wird sicher zukünftig noch benötigt. Ich schlage daher vor die beiden strittigen Bilder daraus zu entfernen und stattdessen Bilder von der Baustelle damit zu kategorisieren: [9]...[10]. --dontworry (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ich habe Löschanträge auf die beiden Bilder gestellt. Die Kategorie ist natürlich sinnvoll und zu behalten.--Karsten11 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Na, dann sind wir uns ja alle einig. :) --Achim (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ich habe Löschanträge auf die beiden Bilder gestellt. Die Kategorie ist natürlich sinnvoll und zu behalten.--Karsten11 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Die Kategorie wird sicher zukünftig noch benötigt. Ich schlage daher vor die beiden strittigen Bilder daraus zu entfernen und stattdessen Bilder von der Baustelle damit zu kategorisieren: [9]...[10]. --dontworry (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romantik-Museum-Baustelle-2016-Ffm-988.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romantik-Museum-Baustelle-2016-Ffm-997-998.jpg){kind=link}
Done: Kept per above. --Achim (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. This is a wrong name, the right name is racemosa Tangopaso (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name. --Achim (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Unuseful redirect, wrong name, the right name is F. tsakela Tangopaso (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- En The Plant List figuran como aceptadas las dos especies : Ficus tsjahela y Ficus tsjakela, luego se debe eliminar esta redirección.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- The record of The Plant List says accepted but it had been imported in 2012 from the Tropicos data base. Tropicos treats it now as a typo originating from a book of 1768. So both of you are right and we can keep the redirect because it doesn't hurt. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK, no problem to keep the redirection. --Tangopaso (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept per above. --Achim (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please move to; Category:Sports halls in the Czech Republic. Same notation as in the other categories. Schofför (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong Category. Look Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Sport halls in the Czech Republic --Schofför (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Mistaken request. --ŠJů (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please move to; Category:Sports halls in the Czech Republic. Same notation as in the other categories. Schofför (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Done immediatelly, no need for a discussion. The parent category and all sister categories have the plural form. --ŠJů (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Schofför: . You can use {{Move}} for such simple category move requests. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Invali category, a school's program Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Empty. --Achim (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: No objections, deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
please delete. It did not work as I wanted. ArishG (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ArishG: Should Category:Hamburger Kunsthalle, Sonderausstellung also be deleted? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted both. --Achim (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Subcategories of Category:South Pacific tropical cyclone seasons
[edit]The en:Template:Hurricane season bar (which is transcluded about 1800 times) provides links to Commons cats that are regularly broken because on the en:wp pages the char '–' is used, the linked Commons cats have a '-'. Example: en:1987–88 South Pacific cyclone season vs Category:1987-88 South Pacific cyclone season. Terms like '1987–88' are transferred via other templates, so it needed some effort to change that. The easiest way to fix that issue is renaming our categories from for example Category:1978-79 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1978–79 South Pacific cyclone season. Any objections to do so? Achim (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- A few years ago, I wanted to make the categories consistent with en-wiki, but was told that there was no chance of them being consistently because the dashes were not commonly used on commons. Personally, I would rather have consistency between two of Wikimedia's biggest projects but will leave it up to others to decide commons policy. I will also note that categories dealing with the South-West Indian Ocean and Australian region suffer from the same problem as the South Pacific.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jason, thanks for that info. I found a way to fix it the other way round by a small addition to en:Template:Hurricane season bar, so that all cats on Commons can have the 'short' dash. --Achim (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
OK just be careful that you don't cause all the Wikipedia articles to have this problem, though my preference would be to have the longer dash on commons for all multi years articles.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to work without collateral damage. Jason, one edit of yours I don't get is this one. Best, --Achim (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Pass as I have no idea 3 1/2 years on from the edit.Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept & template changed, all links work fine, thanks to Jason for assisting. --Achim (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
1) All the images in this category have been moved to appropriate Category:Jaipur and Category:Buildings in Jaipur. 2) Category:Rajasthan already exsists. A parallel category was created as Category:राजस्थान in the local language, instead of placing the images in that category. 3)Empty Category page and unuseful, hence be deleted. V.narsikar (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Redirected to Category:Rajasthan. --Achim (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Accidental creation, page was created by a typo. No media is available of this halftime show, and thus this category serves no use SecretName101 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
empty category. This category have been instead by Temples in Chiayi City. Outlookxp (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept and disambiguated. --Achim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think a extra category. GanjuPatel (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's a user category. What do you want to be done? --Achim (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept without any action, no answer for a week. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be Category:Videos of evolutionary biology, shouldn't it? Any reason not to move it? --grendel|khan 21:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Move as per nomination to match style of parent category. I doubt this even requires discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Committed to COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Videos of evolutionary biology. --Achim (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest delete this cat. The painting as the only file can be in the upper category Onobrychis. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose That would make the upper category more like a junk category with a mishmash of files. Perhaps it would be better to rename the category to Onobrychis in Art or something similar. --Averater (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Gustav, that's a good idea, Support renaming to Category:Onobrychis in art. --Achim (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- A cat for one file? --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I added 2 stamps, so we can close this case I think. --Achim (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- A cat for one file? --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Gustav, that's a good idea,
Done: per above. --Achim (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The name is misspelled. Should be " labicheoides" not "labechoides". Mark Marathon (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Petalostylis labicheoides. --Achim (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
als Verschiebungsrest löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Category name should be Episcopal cathedrals in Scotland, not Episcopalian. Other subcategories of Episcopal Church of Scotland us the word Episcopal as a descriptor, not Episcopalian. Drbones1950 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Quite right. I was mistaken in its naming. S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Episcopal cathedrals in Scotland. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Boville Ernica i s a town in province of Frosinone (not Rome), Latium, IT 78.6.226.3 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Shall we call it Category:San Pietro Ispano church in Boville Ernica ? --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Yes, or just Category:San Pietro Ispano church, Boville Ernica. Incidentally, I can't find any information about San Pietro Ispano. He's definitely different than Peter of Spain but the only references I can find to him are about this church. I'm not sure how to categorize it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, Themightyquill as for San Pietro Ispano, I have no idea how to help with him. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:San Pietro Ispano church, Boville Ernica. Thanks Jarekt. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Cement carriers with correct second lower case 'c' ErickAgain 14:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I flagged it with {{Bad name}} and moved the file to the other category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
new under correct name Category:Poggi Gialli LigaDue (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept as redirect because the page is 6 years old. --Achim (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggest rename to Bishops of the Diocese of Kensington, as all other subcategories under Anglican Bishops include "the Diocese of..." Drbones1950 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- But is there a diocese of Kensington? According to en:Bishops of Kensington, they are Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of London, like Category:Bishops of Stepney. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- You are right, I see the category scheme now. It is correctly included under Bishops of London. Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Category kept as is. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a misspelled duplicate; all its content has been moved to the correctly spelled Category:Avi Eisenstein, so the empty Category:Avi eisenstein is now redundant and ready for deletion Deborahjay (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Deborahjay, non-controversial changes like this can be made without discussion by placing {{Bad name|Avi Eisenstein}} on the category with the typo. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Should be Bishops of the Diocese of Newcastle. My mistake (again) Drbones1950 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved without redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschiebungsrest - bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschieberest bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Tagged bad name. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschieberest bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wilhelm, in einem Fall wie diesem besteht ja eigentlich kein Diskussionsbedarf. Da ist es einfacher, du änderst den Veschieberest
{{category redirect|Category:Schweineläukchen (FNa Ruhland)}}in{{bad name|Category:Schweineläukchen (FNa Ruhland)}}wie ich es jetzt gemacht habe. Damit erscheint die Seite automatisch in der Category:Other speedy deletions und wird in Kürze gelöscht werden. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Tagged bad name. --Achim (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschieberest bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Tagged bad name. --Achim (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschieberest - bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Tagged bad name. --Achim (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Verschieberest - bitte löschen Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Requesting deletion as creator - didn't notice that there was already a category for this topic. Blythwood (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you're asking for the deletion of this category so that Category:London's Transport Museum Depot can be moved here? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Blythwood (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Blythwood. That makes sense, and I understand why you made two nominations. I'd like to suggest, however, that any further comments should be placed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:London's Transport Museum Depot. It's basically the same issue, as whatever is decided there will necessarily determine the result of this cfd. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted tempor. --Achim (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Request rename to "London Transport Museum Depot, Acton". This is the current name. Blythwood (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Move order given to COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that t Bossanoven (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to Auntof6 for cleaning up! Anything left to do? --Achim (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Everthing seems in order. - Bossanoven (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved & disambig'd by Bossanoven. --Achim (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
please delete Austriantraveler (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
category moved. please delete. Austriantraveler (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept as redirect because it's not misspelled and more than 5 years old. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
uncategorized, unused category; actually not a category at all. El Grafo (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Might be recreated if there are fitting media. --Achim (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Empty cat after the re-cat with correct spelling of name. Should be removed, thanks. Poeticbent talk 05:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Best to leave it as a redirect for users without a Polish keyboard. Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Themightyquill. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept as redirect per above. --Achim (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I made this by mistake - I am the only user and I just made this Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. @Bluerasberry: In the future, if you make typos or other mistakes, just put {{Badname|Images from Weedmaps}} (with the correct category) on the category with the mistake, and it will be deleted without the need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Can this be safely redirected to Category:Psychiatric hospitals in Germany ? Themightyquill (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Even though the buildings of many former asylums are still being used as psychiatric health care institutions, my intention when I created this category wss to emphasise tghe historic character. Maybe Psychiatric hospitals in Germany in the 19th century would be a valid alternative?--Haendelfan (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Haendelfan. That's totally reasonable, but "in the 19th century" suggests old pictures. What about Category:19th-century psychiatric hospitals in Germany to match similar sub-categories of Category:19th-century architecture in Germany ? We could also place it in Category:History of psychiatry. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine!--Haendelfan (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:19th-century psychiatric hospitals in Germany - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that it's almost impossible to take a photo of only the mainline platforms, could we please merge the Achensee- and Zillertalbahn subcats into the main one? Ping Bahnfrend. FDMS 4 22:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Implemented. FDMS 4 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice images, but I'm not sure what to make of the (uncategorized) category. Can anyone help? Themightyquill (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be dupe of Category:Uploaded via Campaign:OFBA2016. --Achim (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes! Thank you. And possibly also redundant with Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016. Wouldn't one category do? I've tagged all three for further input. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi!, Yeah, Category:Campaign:OFBA2016 should't exist. Category:Uploaded via Campaign:OFBA2016 and Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016 can be just one, i did it like we do in other GLAM project, but this don't really needs it because all the content is from this unique campaign. I'll fix this tonight :) --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mauricio V. Genta: Did you want to merge those two categories yourself? I can do it if you tell me which one you want to keep. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I want to keep Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016, already requested to delete Category:Uploaded via Campaign:OFBA2016, thanks! --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Mauricio V. Genta: Did you want to merge those two categories yourself? I can do it if you tell me which one you want to keep. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi!, Yeah, Category:Campaign:OFBA2016 should't exist. Category:Uploaded via Campaign:OFBA2016 and Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016 can be just one, i did it like we do in other GLAM project, but this don't really needs it because all the content is from this unique campaign. I'll fix this tonight :) --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes! Thank you. And possibly also redundant with Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016. Wouldn't one category do? I've tagged all three for further input. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016. Thanks for your help, Mauricio V. Genta. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
None of these are identified as having been struck exactly in 405 BC. The descriptions say "405-400 BC" and similar. I suggest we upmerge to Category:400s BC coins, and do the same with other BC years further than 400, to begin with. Zoupan (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree Merge. --Carlomorino (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree I would have just gone ahead and made the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:400s BC coins as per consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Combination of file format and topic; should be moved to Category:Videos of yeast, which doesn't yet exist. grendel|khan 10:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Destination category created; the category is now empty. grendel|khan 21:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Grendelkhan: It's bad form to empty a category and then nominate it for discussion. That said, I support the move. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks; I'll bear that in mind in future. grendel|khan 23:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Videos of yeast. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need a category of people by season? Mjrmtg (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I could actually see this being useful. We do have Category:Boys by setting with Category:Boys in water and Category:Boys at beaches. This seems similar, and probably more useful that Category:Pigeons in winter. =) To be honest, I'm kind of surprised we don't have Category:People by season. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- How about Category:Boys in snow instead (removing any that don't show snow)? That would at least have something distinctive in the images. Or maybe merge to Category:Children with snow? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support That makes much more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Children with snow. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Combination of format and topic. Contents have been moved to Category:Videos of cartoons. grendel|khan 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't sort by file format and topic; general type (video, animation) and topic is plenty. grendel|khan 21:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- So there are three identified topical categories for OGV videos:
- Category:Ogv files of cartoons (empty)
- Category:Ogv videos of sexuality (2 subcategories)
- Category:Videos of animal evolution (84 files)
- If we want to delete Ogv videos by topic, we should remove the first twos and recategorize the third under Videos of animal.
- --Dereckson (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There's already a Category:Videos of cell biology, which this is under; I can't quite tell what happened here. Can anyone suss out the difference? --grendel|khan 21:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- The user that created this category is no longer editing, so he won't be able to explain himself. I'd suggest we redirect to Category:Videos of cell biology, the older category which properly follows the form of its parent. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Videos of cell biology. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Please delete as there exists also Category:Kirchstraße in Meersburg. Roland.h.bueb (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can we merge them both into Category:Kirchstraße, Meersburg ? I think that's the standard format for streets. The "in Meersburg" is definitely non-standard. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, thank you for the hint. Merger in Category:Kirchstraße, Meersburg done. I suggest now to delete Category:Kirchstraße (Meersburg) and Category:Kirchstraße in Meersburg.--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Kirchstraße, Meersburg and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggest rename to Bishops of the Diocese of Guildford, as all other subcategories under Anglican Bishops include "the Diocese of..." Drbones1950 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support I've just added the category to Category:Diocese of Guildford. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bishops of the Diocese of Guildford. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there an important difference from Category:Beheadings that I'm missing? Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe beheadings are deliberate (for example, executions) and decapitations can be accidental (such as in vehicle accidents)? Also, "beheading" may apply only to people, not animals or statues. I'm not sure that was the intent with these categories, but they could be distinguished in those ways. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Valid points. How about the following tree:
Does that look okay? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Support that makes sens to me. --Bohème (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- That makes sense, with a description in each explaining how they're used. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved into the categorization tree listed above and renamed as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to move this category to Category:The Virgin Tour per the parent tour article in the English Wikipedia. IndianBio (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support The Virgin Tour and images suggest it should indeed be at "The Virgin Tour". - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:The Virgin Tour. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need a category for places with the word "maritime" in their names, especially since Category:Maritime is being deleted as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:Maritime. Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in weeks. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
As per Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Historical images of Barcelona by Jenny Bergensten, Jenny Bergensten is merely the person who scanned these images, not the creator. I would suggested that all the images be moved to Category:Images from Hallwylska museet and this category deleted. But 3000+ images is more than I want to do manually. Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Unless the images of porcelain and other artifacts were actually taken by Jenny Bergensten, in which case the photos need to be sorted out, and this task is even more difficult. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jenny Bergensten was the scanner of the old photographs and blueprints, but yes the photographer of the 3D objects (e.g. furniture, porcelain etc.). I'm not sure the current category is really a problem. What practically is the problem with having all of these images in the same category? The copyright related distinctions are of course captured on the image descriptions themselves. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think putting an image of a photograph in the category of a photographer implies that the content was created by that photographer, particularly when a "Creator" template is placed on the image with said photographer's name. I also don't see the benefit of having all these photographs in a single category. Others may disagree, so I opened discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree very strong with Themightyquill. This category and many file descriptions in it are misleading. so I do not accept André Costa (WMSE). For the category we can move the files with cat-a-lot. Perhaps we can change the file descriptions and cats with Help:VisualFileChange.js. In any case it must be changed to Pictures/photos by and must be a hidden cat--Oursana (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. There are 3000+ photos in that category, though, so even with catalot, it will still take a lot of work to sort between photos taken by Jenny Bergensten and scanned photographs by others. If anyone has any other good ideas to help sort via bot, it would be greatly appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- There is also a photo from a 2D artwork File:Fotografi föreställande självporträtt av Albrecht Dürer som trettonåring - Hallwylska museet - 103108.tif--Oursana (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. There are 3000+ photos in that category, though, so even with catalot, it will still take a lot of work to sort between photos taken by Jenny Bergensten and scanned photographs by others. If anyone has any other good ideas to help sort via bot, it would be greatly appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree very strong with Themightyquill. This category and many file descriptions in it are misleading. so I do not accept André Costa (WMSE). For the category we can move the files with cat-a-lot. Perhaps we can change the file descriptions and cats with Help:VisualFileChange.js. In any case it must be changed to Pictures/photos by and must be a hidden cat--Oursana (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @André Costa (WMSE) and Oursana: I'm sure that any photographs of furniture etc deserve to be credited, and should be placed in Category:Photographs by Jenny Bergensten (in Category:Photographs by photographer). I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary, but just to avoid conflict, I'd propose we place all the other images in Category:Scans by Jenny Bergensten (in Category:Scans by source. Does that work for everyone? This latter category can include all the images moved as a result of the other CfD, linked above. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- ok, as hidden cat and then this cat can be the supercat, also hidden--Oursana (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The "scans" folder would be hidden like the others in "scans by source". The "photographs" folder would be visible, like the other sub-categories of "Photographs by photographer." - Themightyquill (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good solution to me. New uploads will probably still put the images in the super category (since the bot cannot easily distinguished between the objects) but I'll then add migrating them into subcategories as a manual clean-up job afterwards. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The "scans" folder would be hidden like the others in "scans by source". The "photographs" folder would be visible, like the other sub-categories of "Photographs by photographer." - Themightyquill (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- ok, as hidden cat and then this cat can be the supercat, also hidden--Oursana (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorted into Category:Photographs by Jenny Bergensten and Category:Scans by Jenny Bergensten. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. All categories are Unidentified..., not Unclassified. Unuseful redirect Tangopaso (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The category has already been redirected, but I agree there is no reason to maintain the redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favoure of Category:Unidentified succulents. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. Files have been moved to correct Category:Ao Phang Nga National Park. Takeaway (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ao Phang Nga National Park. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
redundant category. Category:Tomb of Lalon is exactly same Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support redirect to Tomb of Lalon, older category. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support, actually I didn't notice Category:Tomb of Lalon, thats why I created Category:Lalon's Tomb. You can delete this category.----IqbalHossain (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Tomb of Lalon. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Plaques by year is logically broken down into Category:Plaques referencing years and Category:Plaques by installation year. This Florence category, however, makes no such distinction. It should be one or the other (or split if necessary). Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is by installation year (roughly). You are welcome to fix category names. --Sailko (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- rename--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Could you please help with this? Moving Category:1250s plaques in Florence to Category:Plaques in Florence installed in the 1250s, etc. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Done: DoneCategories moved to a new name. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ondercategorie "Former rectory (Viane)" van categorie "Onroerend erfgoed in Geraardsbergen" zou ik herbenoemen als ondercategorie "Viane". Ik zou trouwens voor elke deelgemeeente een ondercategorie maken: zo kan je meer orde scheppen en de huidige 23 ondercategorieën herleiden tot 16 deelgemeenten en 1 categorie "Centrum". Deze categorisering stemt trouwens ook overeen met die in de Inventaris Bouwkudig Erfgoed die op Wikipedia overgenomen is. Louisdecock (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- The remarks above are actually a call for further sub-categorization and therefore don't apply to suppression or renaming of the category. I propose to replace this to the talk page and to close this cfd page. Henxter (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Moved remarks to category talk page. Henxter (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
According Commons:Categories#Category names, non-Latin alphabets <in the category names> are transcribed to the English Latin script. Civa (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The category is now empty as well. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there some distinction from Category:Duchesses of Spain that I'm missing? Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I haven't checked the specific entries here, but maybe the difference is whether the woman in question is a native Spaniard (and a duchess either in her own right or by marriage to a non-Spanish duke) or is Spanish only by marriage to a duke of Spain. In other words, is it the person or the position that is Spanish? Somehow, though, I doubt that was the intention, and I'm not sure we need to make that distinction anyway. Besides that, aren't we supposed to avoid using the demonyms (for example, "Spanish") in category names? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I had wondered about that, but at least in terms of the parent categories, that doesn't seem to be the case. It would also be hard to classify royalty from past eras by their personal nationality, since they were all marrying cousins from elsewhere in europe, and frequently preferred to use non-local languages. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Duchesses of Spain. I left a redirect but it might well be deleted instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Photographs by Wikimedia Commons users to distinguish from Category:Commons photographers and to match parent Category:Photographs by photographer Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Photographs by Wikimedia Commons users, then redirected to Category:Commons photographers. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Obsolete after splitting contents per consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/09/Category:Naval engineers Fayenatic london (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this a useful category, or are Category:Instructional videos on using Wikipedia & Category:Wikimedia tutorials sufficient? Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved three videos to more appropriate categories. Deleting as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Santa Catalina Island, California, its proper name? Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved, and replaced with disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No category tree for this to join, as far as I can see. I'm not sure diving europe by year into sub-regions is a good ida. Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Central Europe at large and in years is important. It would be useful to talk about this question. Photos, images tend to give lots of information to understand history. Unfortunately exact time when the photo/image was taken is unually not known. When we know the date, its value. So why not ? We have 1900 in Alaska. To delete/prohibit the cathegory Central Europe is a bad idea. --Elekes Andor (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- The category tree has only this one Category:XXXX in Central Europe category. This lonely Category:1862 in Central Europe has only one single image, which is also in Category:1862 in Hungary. It would make more sense to leave it in Category:1862 in Hungary and in the underpopulated Category:Central Europe (if you wish) and delete Category:1862 in Central Europe. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. We have too many categorizations by region that don't seem meaningful or helpful. Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait a minute. There are awful lot of items for Central Europe, for every year. We, central europeans had no possibility to arrenge it. There is no Middle of Europe, but there are lots of photos in that cathegory. Don't hurry, give me a break. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Of course there are lots of pictures taken in Central Europe each year, just as there are many taken in Category:Western Europe, Category:Southwestern Europe, Category:Northern Europe, Category:The Nordic region, Category:Scandinavia, Category:Eastern Europe, Category:Baltic region, Category:Southeastern Europe, and Category:Southern Europe (etc, etc,) each year, but none of them are sorted by year. Since nearly all photos can be sorted by country by year, and all the countries of Central Europe would be sub-categories of Central Europe, we'd just be creating an extra layer of empty categories for limited benefit. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note, I just found that Category:1918 in Central Europe also exists, though it was without parent categories, so similarly empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No content added. No strong reason for keeping. Categories deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced Zagora-Mouresi has enough images to justify sub-dividing by year. Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Judging by the current content here (one single, solitary file), it doesn't seem to. I think that file can move to Category:2010 in Greece or one of its subcategories. If kept, it needs to be more fully categorized (maybe the redlinked template would have taken care of that). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Zagora-Mouresi in the 21st century. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Given the many many things named Lagoa, can we move this to Category:Lagoa (genus) or Category:Lagoa (Megalopygidae)? Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, please, and turn this one into a disambiguation category. I have this on my watch list because it keeps getting files for lakes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, there is no reason to wait any longer --JotaCartas (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
For consistency with other Seattle categories, the ", Washington" part should be dropped. JesseW (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe this could wait for a resolution at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio. That discussion covers more than just Cleveland, Ohio. I realize that other Seattle categories don't use the state name, but the outcome of the other discussion might mean this cat would have to be named back. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy to wait, and my only basis for preferring "X in Seattle" categories over "X in Seattle, Washington" categories is brevity -- I agree that consistency, either way, is (slightly) more important. JesseW (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd Support this specific move: The version without "Washington" just redirects to the one with "Washington" in any case, so there is zero harm in a move (if the bots are going to get it wrong, they already are) and the benefit that users will not land at Category:Sports in Seattle and have to follow the soft redirect to get to content. If the category for Seattle itself is moved its easy enough to revert back - its just the one cat. Keeping this one on ice for the months that other CFD is likely to take isn't productive.
- The logical desire to have consistent naming down the tree is a major reason to oppose moving the categories for the cities themselves. A move of Category:Seattle to Category:Seattle, Washington is something that will involve hundreds of categories, and is likely to break hundreds of incoming links. Sure its fixable, but why do it when there isn't actually any benefit?--Nilfanion (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Support per Nilfanion, unless there is a desire to keep the state on all US city categories. Looking at w:Seattle (disambiguation) there appears to be no risk of confusion (as there aren't any other settlements listed) unlike Category:Seattle its self which is at the base name. There doesn't seem to be any logic in having this sub category disambiguate but not the parent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support only for the city of Seattle, not Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio generally. Seattle is just en:Seattle on English Wikipedia also, as one of the 30 Associated Press cities that are also primary topics. (Though, to be fair, the "consistency" here on Commons was changed in 2016 without apparent discussion: It was Category:Seattle, Washington before that.) --Closeapple (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I've renamed it, since there's general agreement here, and it's unlikely that all the other Seattle categories are going to be renamed in the other direction any time soon. --ghouston (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And also:
Unclear purpose – not all media must be "categorised by city of publication". FDMS 4 14:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: no oppose. seems reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Photographs from Flickr by photographer or Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer or Category:Flickr photographs by photographer to accurately represent what is being categorized here (not images of photographers on flickr, but images by photographers on Flickr) Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- The same applies to Category:Photographers on Panoramio and Category:Photographers from Amphibiaweb.org, which I've also tagged. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: No concerns/oppose for a few months. Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect naming (see Category talk:Rice plantations in the United States). All files moved to correct Category:Rice plantations in the United States (for some reason, for now at least, image File:Wooden rice mortar 3.jpg seems to be kind of "sticky" even though it has been moved to the correct category. If it still is sticking on to the old category, please remedy.). There is no need for keeping this category as it doesn't fit in with the standard categorisation of Wikimedia Commons. Takeaway (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I made the category, and it was a poor bit of categorization. Thanks for figuring out where the images belongǃ HLHJ (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can some admin please delete the category per the above consensus? - Takeaway (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Emha (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The description suggests there is no clear English translation, but Category:Jack plugs should work, no? Redirect? Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- It should be merged, yes, but there is also Category:TRS connectors with subcats. But on the other hand en:TRS connector has been made a redirect. I can't say which English term fits best. --Achim (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- "It is cylindrical in shape, typically with two, three, four and, recently, five contacts. Three-contact versions are known as TRS connectors, where T stands for "tip", R stands for "ring" and S stands for "sleeve". Similarly, two-, four- and five- contact versions are called TS, TRRS and TRRRS connectors respectively." So, all TRS connectors are jack plugs, but not all jack plugs are TRS connectors. We could alternately call TRS connectors "three-contact jacks" or something, but I have no strong preference. Either way, something like Category:Jack plugs by number of connectors might make sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Wenn Category:Klinkenstecker und Category:Jack plugs das Gleiche sind, und wenn man die Objekte nach dem Mergen unter beiden Begriffen finden kann, dann sollte man das so machen (ich weiss aber nicht wie das geht). Gruss, --Markus (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll redirect it to Category:Phone connectors (audio), since de:Klinkenstecker is linked to en:Phone connector (audio), and the term seems to encompass all sizes of plugs and sockets with their varying numbers of contacts. --ghouston (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation. The current category is about the courthouse in Texas, while there are several U.S. counties named Wilson. As an example, there is Category:Wilson County courthouse (North Carolina) which is also listed on the NRHP and should probably also be capitalized as a proper noun for the building. Fortguy (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Create a disambiguation page and move existing content to Category:Wilson County Courthouse, Texas as the preferred format. The one is North Carolina should technically be moved to Category:Wilson County Courthouse, North Carolina but that's not really important. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how disambiguation pages work. Is that the situation when I put in a category page name and I'm forced to choose a selection when none of them is the one I want? Kalbbes (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Kalbbes: If I understand you correctly, then yes. Take a look ing Category:Disambiguation for examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
With no objections, I have renamed the category. Fortguy (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Category name should be in English, but I'm not sure how to translate. South portal of Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux? South portal of Saint-Seurin basilica? Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- You could say : Saint-Seurin basilica - south door William Ellison (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:South portal of Saint-Seurin Basilica, Bordeaux. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This category should be renamed Category:Things named after freedom (or liberty), because it contains both some liberty bridges and freedom squares. Civa (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable, I guess. For English items, we could separate into "things named after freedom" and "things named after liberty" but if we're going to include things in other languages, the precise translation is not always clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in a year. Moving to Category:Things named after freedom (or liberty). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the diverse nature of "salad" (tuna salad, chicken salad, fruit salad, ambrosia salad, potato salad, bean salad, various asian noodle salads, etc), I'm not entirely convinced this is a useful category. Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I do see it useful. When I opened this cat I asked contributions (you may also read it as "opinions") from several colleagues I noticed that had some interest in food categories, but I don't remember getting a concrete feedback. --E4024 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think this is very useful, either. Almost anything can be put in a salad, even if we limit it to green/tossed salads. I would say the same for Category:Soup ingredients, Category:Meatball ingredients, and maybe others. Maybe categories of ingredients for specific salads (Caesar, Waldorf, Cobb, etc.) would be useful, maybe, but not this general category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear, it would make sense to have a category for images like this or this which display all the pre-mixed ingredients of a dish. I don't know if we have that kind of category? But the way salad ingredients is being used here, it could reasonably contain basically all basic foods we have on commons. So, maybe I'm suggesting this category could stay, but the sub-categories should be removed? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- In the mean time, I've created Category:Displays of ingredients. That may or may not affect this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do as you wish, with this cat, Themightyquill; I opened it thinking it was useful. If others don't think so I cannot impose my preferences to the community. You have all my trust to also act in my name in this issue. --E4024 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Auntof6: What do you think about moves to Category:Displays of salad ingredients, Category:Displays of soup ingredients, Category:Displays of borscht ingredients, Category:Displays of meatball ingredients? Category:Kapusniak ingredients could be moved to Category:Kapusniak cooking (like Category:Borscht cooking). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- That would work. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- For me too. --E4024 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the salad ingredients category, but since I only added CFD tags to the other categories yesterday, let's wait and make sure no one disagrees before moving the rest. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I created Category:Kapusniak cooking but also kept Category:Kapusniak ingredients for a while (similarly to Category:Borscht ingredients) to have it also as subcategory in Category:Soup ingredients. In general it's fine with me to rename "... ingredients" categories to "displays of ... ingredients" --Off-shell (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Displays of salad ingredients, Category:Displays of soup ingredients, Category:Displays of borscht ingredients, Category:Displays of meatball ingredients, and Category:Displays of kapusniak ingredients. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a badly named category, with no Schema. If it contains "Photographs taken by Justin Hoch" then its name should be that, or reasonable equivalent. Geo Swan (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed! We have too many categories whose names are a person's name but which directly contain works by the person. Sometimes those categories get (poorly) categorized under the type of works involved, but that hasn't happened with this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- +1 Per our usual categorization practices, this category name implies to me that it contains photographs of Justin Hoch, not photography by Justin Hoch. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't have such a problem with mixing photos of a person and works by a person, but in this case, we're unlikely to have photos of Justin Hoch since he's not an especially notable photographer. In other words, mixing is one thing, but if we're only going to have photos by justin hoch, Category:Photographs by Justin Hoch or something equivalent would make more sense. It can be added to Category:Photographs by photographer from the United States- Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Photographs by Justin Hoch. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Zakopiane style refers to architecture (en:Zakopane Style architecture, Category:Zakopane style architecture). This category seems like some OR/misunderstanding. It should be deleted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- According to the English wikipedia article, you are certainly right, but a search for "zakopane furniture" suggests that, according to the Tatra museum, there are "pieces of furniture, household utensils and small craftsmen’s articles, all in the Zakopane Style". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Hmmm, you are right. How should we place this in the structure, and should we rename it at all or leave it be? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I guess something like Category:Art Deco? Put Category:Zakopane style under Category:Art by style and then Category:Zakopane style architecture as a sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Seems reasonable, unless someone with more specialist knowledge comes up with a better idea - in which case they can adjust the categories later. I guess we can do what you propose and close this discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Closed as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be Episcopal churches, not Episcopal Churches, to make consistent with other categories. I just created this category and made mistake. Drbones1950 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would you be okay with Category:Interiors of Episcopal churches in the United States to match with Category: Interiors of Roman Catholic churches in the United States and parent categories Category:Interiors of churches in the United States and Category:Episcopal churches in the United States ? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Interiors of Episcopal churches in the United States. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The name is not very idiomatic English, and I believe the content would go just as well in Lighthouse signals. I’m not sure this even needs discussing, but there may be a nuance I’m missing—so I’m basically asking if anyone objects before I move the files & descriptive text myself. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support. --Achim (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in a year. Redirected to Category:Lighthouse signals. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Consistency with the parent category, Category:Demolitions by country, would see the elements in this category, Category:Demolition in the United Kingdom moved into Category:Demolitions in the United Kingdom Geo Swan (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Merge for consistency. Same with Category:Demolition in Scotland and Category:Demolitions in England, as well as Category:Demolition in Canada and its sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support a merge for consistency. Though may be we should reconsider the whole tree and go for the singular. Keith D (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to "Demolitions in..." - Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest rename to Category:Locomotive, Friedrich Wilhelm Alexander Held or something similar. As the current category is predictably full of railway locomotives, Not much point in removing those files until the category is renamed, It will just fill up with more of the same. Oxyman (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that a rename would be good. How about "Locomotive (newspaper)"? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- The category description suggests the paper was actually called Die Locomotive (which could work) but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the images themselves. I'd support either Category:Die Locomotive or Auntof6's idea of Category:Locomotive (newspaper). And then delete or another disambiguation page? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Locomotive (newspaper). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Schloss Isareck ? Themightyquill (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly a year. Merged. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Should this be renamed Category:Journalism in the 20th century (or Category:20th-century journalism or simply deleted? There is a Category:20th-century journalists from France but not much else set up for this tree. On the other hand, we could easily categorize journalists, newspapers, and various other things by century. Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No signs of growth in a year. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Politicians of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania. I have no preference which direction we merge. Category:Politicians by party shows no consistent style for these types of categories. Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Politicians of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
These images belong in Category:Wind turbines and its subcategories. Do we delete the category or redirect? Themightyquill (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Diya. English wikipedia article is at en:Diya (lamp), but otherwise, I have no preference. Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Diya. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Flora of Chemanchery Themightyquill (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Flora of Chemanchery. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant with Category:Shrine of Manchan. I have no preference. Themightyquill (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe. One is personality, one is object and the association has reputables sources but also disputing sources so for this reason I kept the categories distinct. I have no preference either and Manchan of Mohill category could probably be deleted. Nmclough (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nmclough, that's fair enough. Any chance of finding other images Manchán of Mohill, beyond the shrine, at some later date? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- It might not be possible to find more images for Manchan of Mohill (certainly nothing specific) and probably difficult. So, for this reason, I support deleting category named: Manchan of Mohill without any strong preference either way Nmclough (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nmclough, that's fair enough. Any chance of finding other images Manchán of Mohill, beyond the shrine, at some later date? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe. One is personality, one is object and the association has reputables sources but also disputing sources so for this reason I kept the categories distinct. I have no preference either and Manchan of Mohill category could probably be deleted. Nmclough (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Shrine of Manchan. If someone finds a photo of Manchán of Mohill, the category can certainly be recreated. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the purpose of this category is to organize images of plaques according to the year referenced on the plaque. (Different from Category:Plaques by installation year by decade) I would therefore suggest a move of all sub-categories to Category:Plaques referencing the XXXXs and all grandchild categories to Category:Plaques referencing XXXX. Sub-categories of Category:Plaques referencing years by century should be moved from Category:XXth-century plaques referencing years to Category:Plaques referencing the XXth century. Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- No opposition. Ruthven, could you please help out with this? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Done: Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
What about Category:Jesus Christ with tools? Zoupan (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- No need for that. "Jesus Christ with tools" has 4 Google hits, the well-established scholar term "Feiertagschristus" 1.440 hits. The German word is even used in "Iconclass: an iconographic classification system" with only an explanation as "Christ with craftman's tools" (which is not even really correct, since there are often also agricultural tools present). It's enough to include an English description in the category description page, as it is already now. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt people understand this German word. It doesn't seem to have been adopted in English.--Zoupan (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, it's the scholarly accepted word, and there is none in English. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt people understand this German word. It doesn't seem to have been adopted in English.--Zoupan (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan, AndreasPraefcke, and Anvilaquarius: The enWP article on the matter is en:Sunday Christ, which would make a good category name. The old category should be kept as a redirect. The main point of the depiction is the Feiertag (holiday), these pictures were supposed to discourage people from working on holidays. A name like "Christ with tools" would be misleading. --rimshottalk 22:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sunday Christ seems indeed to be the English phrase used also in scholarly writings. So no objection from me to have the category moved, but with a category redirect from the old name. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Sunday Christ as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems redundant to Category:Roads numbered 420. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or at least redundant to its own parent, Category:Number 420 on highway signs, which contains only this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I defer to your greater expertise with categories! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Two issues:
- 1) This particularly category had its parent categories removed (and the categories of the files therein) such that it did not make sense--that issue had been corrected by re-adding/correcting the categories.
- 2) The overall issue of 420 roads and highways follows the established pattern of the lower numbered ones (work on higher numbers is ongoing), which is as follows:
- Number n on highway signs includes signs (including diagrams of such signs) for highways, or equivlant (i.e., expressway, interstate, etc.), numbered n and is a subcategory of Highway signs by number and . . .
- Signs for roads numbered n includes signs for the applicable roads, except those roads that qualify as highways. Such roads include county roads, urban roads, forest roads, streets (fairly rare, but they do exist, particularly is certain regions), non-state-highway state roads, etc. This category is a subcategory of Roads numbered n (which includes images of the actual roads and highways numbered n--many such roads have their own specific subcategory) and . . .
- Number n on road signs includes all road signs with n, except those included in the subcategories Signs for roads numbered n and Number n on highway signs. Such signs include mile markers (and milestone markers, even though they are not actually "signs"), exit signs (a specific subcategory), speed limit signs (also specific subcategories and are divided between mph and km/h), etc. This category is a subcategory of Number n on signs (which includes non-road related signs) and Road signs by number ([Number subdivided by groups of about 500]).
- The need for the various categories and subcategories is much greater among the lower numbers, but the established category pattern should continue for the higher numbers. Hope this clarifies any confusion that may exist and justify the need for the various established categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Kept as per An Errant Knight: the category follows an established system. --rimshottalk 22:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
the Italian plural word for wonders, miracles. Contains few images of Italian architecture and of the German convenience food with this name. Ikar.us (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It was originally created for the German food brand. Unfortunately, the panoramio upload bot seems to have filled it with files which were tagged "miracoli" at the panoramio website. These files should be removed from the category. In a similar vein, nearly each day I have to remove panoramio bot uploads of images of (most often) Las Vegas from category:Paradise even though I had requested the user of that upload bot to stop uploading files to it months ago. - Takeaway (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed the panoramio bot uploaded images of Italian architecture from the category in the meantime. - Takeaway (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Miracoli (brand) ? Unfortunately, I can't think of a similar fix for Category:Paradise. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is possible to have this moved to Category:Miracoli (brand) but other than the Panoramio Bot, in the 2 1/2 years since it was created, no one else has ever placed anything into this category. We could also just remove anything idiotic that the Panoramio Bot places in there until the whole Panoramio upload has run its course. - Takeaway (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Miracoli (brand) ? Unfortunately, I can't think of a similar fix for Category:Paradise. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Kept, a year has gone by and there are only valid images in the category. --rimshottalk 22:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The icon of Christ Chalkites is lost. See Chalke. Zoupan (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- So what? Many pictures are lost, but we have categories for their copies, see da Vinci, etc. --Shakko (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Should we add Category:Lost paintings? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- As Christ Chalkites is a type of icon (see here and here), it should be kept although the original Chalke Gate is lost. --Achim (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Should we add Category:Lost paintings? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per Achim. Ruthven (msg) 06:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we eliminate this category? The only thing in it is Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States by county by state, and I don't think we need a category to hold only that. Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. What happens to Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.? - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think they're fine where they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It's customary that a category "by county by state" has two mother categories (in this case "by county" and "by state"). Frankly I don't see the problem in having that category but you for sure see far beyond than I can :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per Sergio: the category is not empty (has 1 sub-category), which means that it's in use because it's a meta-category. Ruthven (msg) 06:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Should be the easily recognized Constantine the Great. Same with sub-categories. Zoupan (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Category "Constantine the Great" is a redirect, which works perfectly well. Ruthven (msg) 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Category name should be in English, but I'm not sure how to translate. Roman porch of Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux? Roman porch of Saint-Seurin basilica? Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've added it to Category:Romanesque porches in France and it's already in Category:Saint Seurin Basilica, Bordeaux. Unless it has more than one porch, I guess it could be just Category:Porch of Saint Seurin Basilica, Bordeaux? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- It does have more than one entrance, so you could use Category:Saint-Seurin basilica, Bordeaux - West door William Ellison (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 06:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Unclear category name because it could mean either "cuisine of present day Rome" or (as intended by the creator of this category) to mean "cuisine of ancient Rome". All files have in the meantime been moved to correct Category:Ancient Roman food. - Takeaway (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't normally use "Roman" to talk about about modern day Rome, but I guess that would be the correct term. Turn it to a disambiguation page with Category:Food in Rome, or just delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Because of the ambiguity of the name as stated here above, I suggest deleting this category. If this is changed into a redirect, pointing to either Category:Food in Rome or to Category:Ancient Roman food, the target category is bound to receive files that belong elsewhere. - Takeaway (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- That, I assume, is why Themightyquill suggested making it a disambiguation category (not a redirect). Anything categorized in a disambiguation category shows up at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories where it will be seen and can be addressed. I support making it a disambiguation category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- This seems to me to create more work than when the category is deleted. With all the files that await categorisation already here in Wikimedia Commons, do we need even more? - Takeaway (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- That, I assume, is why Themightyquill suggested making it a disambiguation category (not a redirect). Anything categorized in a disambiguation category shows up at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories where it will be seen and can be addressed. I support making it a disambiguation category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't think there's a great chance of someone accidentally putting a file in Category:Roman cuisine if it doesn't exist. I'm not totally sure a disambig page is necessary in this case, but it doesn't matter much either way. `- Themightyquill (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, @Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Takeaway: , since I'm from Rome, I solved the question this way:
- the current category becomes the mother cat of Category:Ancient Roman food (Category:Cuisine of ancient Rome also to be consistent with the mother cat Ancient Rome)
- the modern dishes go into the brand new Category:Cuisine of Rome.
- I am reasonably confident that we all agree. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: This is offered by me, I was in the mood of food porn and photographed a Carbonara made my me :)
Intersection category; should use Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. grendel|khan 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest we keep it as it is. It has a lot of content and it's a hidden category. It serves a purpose. Can't see the harm in keeping it. Toresetre (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep --MB-one (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete intersection categories, especially ones this populated. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Combination of camera and lens; this sort of thing leads to combinatoric blowup and can be generated by intersecting Category:Taken with Canon EOS 7D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM. grendel|khan 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Merged discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; should use Category:Taken with Canon EOS 70D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM. grendel|khan 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; should use Category:Taken with Canon EOS 7D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM. grendel|khan 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; should use Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D. grendel|khan 22:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest we keep it. It has a lot of content and it's a hidden category. It serves a purpose. Can't see the harm in keeping it. Toresetre (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Grendelkhan. Don't understand the use of these kind of categories. --Code (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Merged discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II. grendel|khan 22:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Category was initially created based on Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM + Raynox DCR-250. I have yet to see a policy basis for deletion of such intersection. In fact, Commons policy (Commons:Categories) encourages modularity and allows intersection categories: "A category can combine two (or more) different criteria; such categories are called "compound categories" or "intersection categories" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Categories like this are useful for identifying the technical capabilities of a particular combination. This lens used with a 5D would have quite different results. This is also useful for keeping track of different combinations used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Merged discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; images should be in Category:Taken with Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD A011 and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D. grendel|khan 22:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; images should be in Category:Taken with Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D. grendel|khan 22:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM. grendel|khan 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; images should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS. grendel|khan 22:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; images should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Cosina 28mm f2.8-22 MC Macro. grendel|khan 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Rename to 'Category:Taken with Helios-44M-4' to be more like the other photography-equipment categories. grendel|khan 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in 2 years. Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Photographs taken with Helios-44M-4. grendel|khan 23:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete useless intersection category. --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Pallas Auto TM 50mm f1.8. grendel|khan 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon MP-E 65mm F2.8 1-5x Macro and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark II. grendel|khan 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Vivitar 55-135mm F3.5 T4. grendel|khan 23:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Vivitar 28mm f2.8-22 MC Wide Angle. grendel|khan 23:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Sigma 80-200mm F4.5-5.6. grendel|khan 23:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; files should be in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Category:Taken with Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro. grendel|khan 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This category was uncategorized. Some online sources suggest it's a member of Neocyclotidae, while others say Cyclophoridae. Can anyone help? Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think Neocyclotidae is right, maybe JoJan will be so kind to help us. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- All recent literature about this genus, puts this genus in the family Neocyclotidae. In the past some species were described as belonging to Cyclophorus such as Cyclophorus mexicanus (Menke). Strebel 1873 (as did von Martens in 1890), which is now accepted as Aperostoma mexicanum mexicanum (Menke 1830). Both families belong to the superfamily Cyclophoroidea, according to Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) (the most recent taxonomy of the Gastropoda). You can also check a study published in 2011 : Thompson, Fred Gilbert, and Richard C. Hulbert. An annotated checklist and bibliography of the land and freshwater snails of Mexico and Central America. University of Florida, 2011. I hope this helps. JoJan (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Now in Category:Neocyclotidae only. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Intersection category; images should be in Category:Taken with Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D. grendel|khan 22:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree grendel --XRay talk 13:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree. What's wrong with that? And, by the way, grendel|khan, what do you think about such categories like Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM, Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, Category:Taken with AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, Category:Taken with Nikon D2X and AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED (to name only a few...)? --J.-H. Janßen (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think that they should likewise be split up. See 2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Archive/Improve_FastCCI_capabilities_and_performance for a proposal on Meta (since withdrawn due to too many other active proposals) for an attempt to make them less-needed. Combinatorial blowup is, to me, a code smell, an indication that something else is wrong. grendel|khan 20:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Merging discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This church is dedicated to Sfantul Sava-St. Sabbas (and not Sveti Sava-St. Sava); rename to Category:Church of St. Sabbas, Iași Zoupan (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in years. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Should this be redirected to Category:Orgyia ? And what to do with the sub-category? Themightyquill (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Category:Hemerocampa is the redirect. Enwiki en:Hemerocampa does also this way--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Orgyia by Pmau. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Pointless category - I get the logic to it however in short I don't see the need for the category - The dates to the images won't ever be found so in the end the category is only being used as a storage category which in the end will grow and grow and grow,
Ofcourse if anyone can find a valid reason as to why these should be kept I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged the parent category, Category:Buses photographed in unknown years by country because I'd think it should apply to all the parallel categories, unless there's something specifically pointless about the UK category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah thank you I had no idea there were more like these - Just assumed we had UK category only. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Pointless and useless. For me can be nuked soon. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The phrase "unknown_photography_date" is unique in Commons database. I suggest to move the files into category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in unknown years, and after that this category to be deleted. Any objections, @Davey2010, Themightyquill, and Blackcat: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: do we have categories by unkown date so far? -- Blackcat
23:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: "by unknown date" = 0 category, but "unknown date" = 32 category (with redirects), see https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/39851 --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: keep in mind that some are redirects, see i.e. Images of unknown date which redirects to Unidentified date. -- Blackcat 10:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Blackcat, So do you have any objections to the new category mentioned by Estopedist1?, If not I'll close and move all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: , I was wondering whether for @Estopedist1: were ok to use unidentified instead of unknown but basically his is a good idea. -- Blackcat 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: At first, let's match with Category:Buses photographed in unknown years by country, which uses the word "unknown". With new CFD we can discuss "unknown" vs "unidentified" question--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Blackcat, My thoughts are the same as Estopedist1's - All subcats at Category:Buses photographed in unknown years by country go by unknown so really I can't see why we can't either - It would also look silly having the UK as "unidentified" whilst having the rest as "Unknown" .... it would stick out like a sore thumb imho, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Davey2010: for me it's ok. Once moved all, though , consider also the idea to propose all the "unknown date" stuff to me moved to "undetermined date" and so on. -- Blackcat 14:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your feedback User:Blackcat, I've moved these now - You're more than welcome to seek further consensus on the talkpage, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Davey2010: for me it's ok. Once moved all, though , consider also the idea to propose all the "unknown date" stuff to me moved to "undetermined date" and so on. -- Blackcat
- @Davey2010: , I was wondering whether for @Estopedist1: were ok to use unidentified instead of unknown but basically his is a good idea. -- Blackcat
- Hi Blackcat, So do you have any objections to the new category mentioned by Estopedist1?, If not I'll close and move all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: keep in mind that some are redirects, see i.e. Images of unknown date which redirects to Unidentified date. -- Blackcat
- @Blackcat: "by unknown date" = 0 category, but "unknown date" = 32 category (with redirects), see https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/39851 --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus was to move all to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in unknown years. –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Pointless category - I fail to see the point in this category at all - No one is going to look at this, this or this and say "oh yes this is at X" .... Not one person is going to have any idea where it's at,
If any of the images had a shred of hope of ever being rally/muesuem/event-identified then I wouldn't have an issue but in short they have no hope in hell of ever being identified thus making this category pointless,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
_1964_Dennis_Loline_III_Weymann.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete. Upmerge to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in unknown locations--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Estopedist1, I'm going to oppose merging to that category for one obvious reason - The majority of the images in the nominated category cannot be identified by location (the example images are a perfect example), For instance can this image be identified by location ? .... Obvious answer is no so therefore moving it to a "Unidentified location" category is pointless ....., There are a few in this cat that can maybe be identified (by building, garage signs etc) which I'll copy over if wanted but I certainly don't agree with merging all images over, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: correct! Upmerge to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom and after that let's experts do the subcategorization by model etc --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problems with that, I've gone ahead and added a few images to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in unknown locations (where unknown but identifiable) and removed the cat from those already location-identified, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: correct! Upmerge to Category:Buses in the United Kingdom and after that let's experts do the subcategorization by model etc --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Estopedist1, I'm going to oppose merging to that category for one obvious reason - The majority of the images in the nominated category cannot be identified by location (the example images are a perfect example), For instance can this image be identified by location ? .... Obvious answer is no so therefore moving it to a "Unidentified location" category is pointless ....., There are a few in this cat that can maybe be identified (by building, garage signs etc) which I'll copy over if wanted but I certainly don't agree with merging all images over, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Stale discussion. Any objections, or to finish the task which was started by user:Davey2010? And when this category is empty, then to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Estopedist1 I'd long forgotten about this - I've gone through all images in the hope some could be identified but unfortunately none could be so I've removed them all from the category and have CSD'd the category, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus overall was to delete. –Davey2010Talk 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
For those plaques when the precise year of installation is unknown, these categories could be moved to Category:Plaques by year of installation / Category:Plaques by century of installation / Category:Plaques by decade of installation, and [[:Category:Plaques installed in the XXXs]], [[:Category:Plaques installed in the XXth century]]. Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion @Themightyquill: four year later, the category in question is changed to redirect (Category:Plaques installed in the 20th century) by you. I also see that "by year" categories has been created. Can we close the discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Issue seemingly resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Wrong title 2.39.175.103 10:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: English wikipedia article is at en:Saint Nicholas Cathedral, Monaco but acknowledges the actual name is "Cathédrale Notre-Dame-Immaculée" and that "Saint Nicholas" is actually the name of the former church on that location which was demolished in 1874. Apparently it's also known as "Monaco Cathedral" if we're looking for other options. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: The category is redirected to Category:Cathedral of Our Lady Immaculate, Monaco by user:Anjo-sozinho. Enwiki title is en:Cathedral of Our Lady Immaculate. Unless we have any church naming traditions in Commons, the logical name would be Category:Cathedral of Our Lady Immaculate--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Category was redirected in 2018. Problem is apparently resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between Category:Mazes and Category:Labyrinths. If we want a category for garden mazes, let's call it that? Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- A labyrinth has only one path: you start in one place, follow it around, and you end up back where you started. They are often used for meditation or for religious or ceremonial purposes. With a maze, you want to get from one point to a different one, and there are branches off of the path designed to confuse or mislead. They are often used for amusement. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I accept that as one way to differentiate between the two, but en:Labyrinth describes that as "specialized usage" among many (but apparently not all) "contemporary scholars and enthusiasts." If there's consensus, I'd accept such a separation, but at very least it should be mentioned in a category description, and Labyrinths should be a sub-category of mazes, not vice-versa, no? Something like Category:Unicursal labyrinths might make more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have no particular preference for how to categorize them. Maybe combine them into Category:Labyrinths and mazes? I do see that they're both categorized under Category:Puzzles, but I think only mazes can be considered puzzles. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I accept that as one way to differentiate between the two, but en:Labyrinth describes that as "specialized usage" among many (but apparently not all) "contemporary scholars and enthusiasts." If there's consensus, I'd accept such a separation, but at very least it should be mentioned in a category description, and Labyrinths should be a sub-category of mazes, not vice-versa, no? Something like Category:Unicursal labyrinths might make more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- You're right on that last point - so then maybe mazes are a puzzling type of labyrinth, rather than labyrinths being a meditative type of maze. =) Maybe someone else will come along with a good idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't see any reason to change things, based on what has been said so far. AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you're right, AnonMoos, that the basic structure doesn't need changing but there are a few things that need fixing. Category:Labyrinth (mythology) is an inescapable maze, not a simple line you follow on the ground. Category: Houses of mirrors are, by the definition above, usually mazes not labyrinths. And Labyrinths aren't puzzles, only mazes are. Labyrinths might fit under Category:Designs if we had one.
- How's this for a category description: "For categorization at Wikimedia Commons, Labyrinths refers to any structure designed for someone to pass through with twists and turns. This includes unicursal (one path) structures where the participant cannot make choices or get lost. For multicursal puzzles with branching directions and dead-end paths, see the sub-category Category:Mazes." - Themightyquill (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- That description could work. Not all labyrinths are structures, though: some are just markings on a floor (see Category:Church labyrinths). By the way, the mythological labyrinth wasn't inescapable: Theseus et al. did get out after he killed the Minotaur. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, I should have said nearly inescapable. As for structures, I guess it depends on your definition of "structure". A quick google search says, "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex" which works, even for a church labyrinth or graphic labyrinth. If we're not going to put Category:Labyrinths in Category:Puzzles or Category:Structures, I really wouldn't know where to put it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: both categories (Mazes and Labyrinths) are provided with explanatory hatnotes. Can we close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Categories disambiguated with hatnotes. Mazes are a subset of labyrinths with branching directions and dead-end paths. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this redundant to Category:Palais Trautson or did the Hungarian Noble Guard have more than one palace? Themightyquill (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
enː Same place. Built beetween 1710 and 1712 by Donat Trautson, in 1760 buyed by Maria Theresia for the Magyar Nemes Testőrség (her hungarian body guard). The hungarian name since 1760ː Magyar Nemes Testőrség Palota, For some time Collegium Hungaricum worked here. huː 1710 és 1712 között építtette Leopold Donat Trautson gróf, későbbi herceg építtette Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach tervei alapján, Christian Alexander Oedtl építőmester irányításával. Mintája a 17. század második felében épült amsterdami városháza volt. 1760-ban Mária Terézia vásárolta meg a palotát az abban az évben életre hívott Magyar Testőrgárda számára. Az épületet átalakították, többek között istállókat építettek hozzá. A magyar testőrgárdát 1848-ban feloszlatták, majd 1867-ben újjászervezték. A palota ekkor a magyar állam tulajdonába került. Az első világháborúban jelentősen megrongálódott épület a Monarchia széthullása után is a magyar állam tulajdonában maradt, 1924-től 1963-ig a Collegium Hungaricumnak adott otthont. A második világháborúban elszenvedett pusztítások után nem hozták helyre az épületet, így állapotának folyamatos romlása miatt a lebontás gondolata is felmerült. Végül 1963-ban az osztrák állam megvásárolta és renoválta a műemlékvédelem alatt álló épületet. --Elekes Andor (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Elekes Andor: I merged these two categories. Just in case I will wait two weeks--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The result was merge Estopedist1 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest Category:Eastern Orthodox frescos in Romania to better describe the content. Zoupan (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: The parent categories Category:Orthodox paintings in Romania, Category:Orthodox art in Romania don't contain the word "Eastern". Shouldn't be renamed a whole branch of categories, including sister categories for other countries? Is the word "Eastern" necessary, or not? --ŠJů (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- For now, this category needs to be moved as the subject is Eastern Orthodox frescos, and not general Orthodox murals. To avoid ambiguousness with Oriental Orthodox art, yes.--Zoupan (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. In 2021 the category in questions is moved to Category:Eastern Orthodox murals in Romania. Can we close this discussion, @Veverve, Zoupan, and ŠJů: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I guess we can. Veverve (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Eastern Orthodox murals in Romania some time ago. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Intersection category; only exists to contain Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM, also under discussion at this point. grendel|khan 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wait - Rather pointless to keep/delete this until the fate of the child category is determined. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: This category is now empty. The former child category has been recategorized, and is itself being discussed now. Are you OK with deleting this one now? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II, which is also under discussion for being an intersection category. grendel|khan 22:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wait - Rather pointless to keep/delete this until the fate of the child category is determined. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: This category is now empty. The child category has been recategorized (and is itself being discussed now). Are you OK with deleting this one now? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain an intersection category (Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM), which is also under discussion. grendel|khan 22:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS, which is also under discussion. grendel|khan 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Cosina 28mm f2.8-22 MC Macro, which is also under discussion. grendel|khan 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Pallas Auto TM 50mm f1.8, also under discussion. grendel|khan 23:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Vivitar 55-135mm F3.5 T4, also under discussion. grendel|khan 23:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Vivitar 28mm f2.8-22 MC Wide Angle. grendel|khan 23:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Sigma 80-200mm F4.5-5.6, also under discussion. grendel|khan 23:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro. grendel|khan 23:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Bilder eines Bauwerkes genau zu einem Tag kategorisieren ist nicht üblich. Oder gibt es Category:Reichstag (building) - 2010-09-05? Mein Vorschlag: zu jedem Bild Category:Photographs taken on 2010-09-05 anfügen und alle Bilder nach Category:Schwebebahn_Dresden verschieben. Atamari (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- p.s. evtl. die Category:2010 in Dresden noch anfügen. --Atamari (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- If such categorization is not suitable for Commons, of course, we can change categories in each photo. My proposal: Category:Germany photographs taken on 2010-09-05 (subcategory of Category:Photographs taken on 2010-09-05), Category:Schwebebahn_Dresden and Category:2010 in Dresden. Dinamik (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Solution per user:Dinamik seems to be OK. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: . —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The operator's English official website (and the English Wikipedia) consistently use the term Wuppertal Suspension Railway, per our language policy I hereby suggest we do the same. FDMS 4 13:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as Category:Wuppertaler Schwebebahn. This is the name in Germany, this is also the more widely used name for it in English. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: The operator is German, and it consistently uses the term Wuppertal Suspension Railway on its English-language website – why would it do so if not because Wuppertal Suspension Railway the more common term understood by non-German speakers? FDMS 4 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- You should ask them that, not me. All I can see is that on my bookshelves and elsewhere, English language descriptions of it don't attempt to anglicise "Schwebebahn". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: The operator is German, and it consistently uses the term Wuppertal Suspension Railway on its English-language website – why would it do so if not because Wuppertal Suspension Railway the more common term understood by non-German speakers? FDMS 4 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wuppertal Suspension Railway back translated into german: Wuppertaler Hängebahn is unknown in Germany (170 Google-hits). Wuppertaler Schwebebahn is a name similar to the golden gate bridge. Wuppertaler Schwebebahn is a name, because really nothing levitate. --Atamari (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Atamari: On LEO, Schwebebahn is the only translation of suspension railway. FDMS 4 06:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Keep. Enwiki article is under the name en:Wuppertal Schwebebahn. We probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Not moved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
unnecessary, Already there is a Category:Ananta Basudeba Temple, which is the same temple. Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral comment: They are listed at en:List of Monuments of National Importance in West Bengal as "Haneswari and Vasudev temples". Note that we also have Category:Hangseshwari Temple if we want to sub-categorize. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Bodhisattwa and Themightyquill: Currently the nominated category is empty. For both temples we have a standalone category: Category:Hangseshwari Temple and Category:Ananta Basudeba Temple. I think that we can delete the nominated category if the above-mentioned two categories have a explanatory hatnote (both temples have the same identifier: N-WB-63)--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: That makes sense. If a wikipedia entry for both ever gets created, it could maybe link to Category:Bansberia Royal Estate. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Since the category is empty, the best thing to do is to redirect the category to Bansberia Royal Estate, where both temples are covered. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not a special depiction of Jesus. Largely dupes Category:Crucifixion of Christ, except two images. Zoupan (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: What to do with the sub-categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support The category is superfluous. The subcategories have other parent categories. --Jonund (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Zoupan, Themightyquill, and Jonund: Two subcategories are:
- Category:Santo Cristo churches, already categorized properly
- Category:Cult of Senhor Santo Cristo dos Milagres to be categorized under Category:Jesus Christ in art
- The nominated category itself to be deleted, because seems to be an ambigious name
- Objections, suggestions?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the category | |||
| Actions | The child categories were up-merged and the category was deleted due to being empty. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
All of those flags are fictitious, fake, unofficial, and never proposed by someone. Hddty. (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you provide anything to support this claim? The Indonesian wiki even uses these flags, so it seems unlikely that such a bold a statement is true. It could be, but if you can provide something to support your clam that Indonesian provinces don't have official flags that would help. Cycn (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: As an Indonesian I never heard such a thing. But there are one of user who made the flag and one of it named "proposed" ([11]) Hddty. (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Hddty.: , as you are Indonesian, could you check the idwiki. If these images are used there, the person who did so may be able to provide information about this. It may be that they are official and this person has more information than you have, or this person may have added the images without any support about the status of these flags. The idwiki seems the best place to discuss the status of these images as the people there should be able to interpret the most relevant sources, as they most likely are in Bahasa. Govenement and provincial sites, also most likely to provide the bulk of their information in Bahasa, should provide valid information about the status, whether they have any official status or are just proposed or fictional.
- If these flags are, as you say, fictional or only proposed, the images should be marked as such but they don't actually have to be removed, unless Indonesian officials state they have to be. We have a lot of proposed and even fictional flags on Commons. You can find these in Category:Proposed flags by country and Category:Special or fictional flags by country. If we know the status, this category could be renamed accordingly and we can take steps to remove them from Wikidata or from Wikipedias if the status makes the placement of these flags invalled on these local wikis. If we simply remove them here and take no follow-up steps a lot of local wikis will simply revert back to showing a blank flag, urging people to provide flags that should not be provided. Cycn (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: As an Indonesian I never heard such a thing. But there are one of user who made the flag and one of it named "proposed" ([11]) Hddty. (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- This preceding conversation should be mentioned here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: Shouldn't it be the uploader's burden to show references for the flag they upload? It's especially hard to prove a negative. When those provinces don't have flag, why would they publish information that says "Hey everyone, I have no flag!". HaEr48 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: , did you notifty the uploader? If the uploader reacts and is able to provide a source for the validity or informs us that these flags are indeed fictional we have what we need. Otherwise I'd suggest someone contacts an official gouvernemental or provicial office to confirm this one way or the other. Cycn (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: I would not count on @AlexR.L.: to comment any time soon, considering that his last login was in April 2016, but consider him notified by this ping. Meanwhile, there is this similar deletion discussion concerning AlexR.L.'s Mexican flag creations. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: I just contacted him in his talk page. As HyperGaruda we probably can't count on him responding, but for what it's worth, his talk page is full of people notifying him about deletion of his fictional flags. HaEr48 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: I would not count on @AlexR.L.: to comment any time soon, considering that his last login was in April 2016, but consider him notified by this ping. Meanwhile, there is this similar deletion discussion concerning AlexR.L.'s Mexican flag creations. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: , did you notifty the uploader? If the uploader reacts and is able to provide a source for the validity or informs us that these flags are indeed fictional we have what we need. Otherwise I'd suggest someone contacts an official gouvernemental or provicial office to confirm this one way or the other. Cycn (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cycn: Shouldn't it be the uploader's burden to show references for the flag they upload? It's especially hard to prove a negative. When those provinces don't have flag, why would they publish information that says "Hey everyone, I have no flag!". HaEr48 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: this news article, titled "Other than Aceh, these provinces also have their own flag" implies that provincial flags are rare. In fact, that article only mentions three. What is even more striking: the green Acehnese flag on Commons is nothing like the official red one (just google some imagery of bendera aceh or aceh flag).
- This blog about provincial logos/seals says Bendera juga hanya beberapa daerah yang punya. Di Indonesia nasionalisme sangat kuat kali ya, cuma bendera Indonesia saja yang dikenal rakyat kita., translated "Also, only a few regions also have a flag. In Indonesia, nationalism is very strong; only the Indonesian flag is known to our people". And then the blog goes on to present self-made flags for the provinces.
- I am pretty sure that the flags in this category and its subcategories (save for the historical flags) are the figments of one user's imagination, if slapping a coat of arms/logo/seal on a coloured rectangle can be called imagination. All those flags should at least move to Fictional flags of Indonesia. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete those images or at least rename and tag all pictures as fanfic or generated by the uploader to avoid misleading people. No evidence provided that those flags are official, and I have never heard that Indonesian provinces have flags. Even if they do have flags, there is no evidence here showing that the flags uploaded here are the correct one. PS: Indonesian provinces do have coat of arms, my guess is that the "flags" uploaded in this category are those CoAs wrapped in rectangles whose colours are decided by the uploader. HaEr48 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Hddty., HaEr48, and HyperGaruda: Could you please nominate these images for deletion (invidiually or via batch)? So long as they exist, it makes sense to keep them together in one category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- An anon IP removed the {Fictitious flag} tags a while ago, so I have reinstated them. @Themightyquill: the flags were kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flags of provinces of Indonesia, meaning that this CfD is probably moot. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda: What about the creation of a subcategory, Category:Fictional flags of provinces of Indonesia or Category:Proposed flags of provinces of Indonesia, in both Category:Flags of provinces of Indonesia and Category:Special or fictional flags or one of its subcategories? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hang on, pending new developments in the next section. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Legal foundation
[edit]Pinging @OktaRama2010: , who reverted a couple of {Fictitious flag} tags. You mentioned File:Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 77 Tahun 2007.pdf. That law mentions that regions (e.g. provinces) can have flags, and that a regional flag's design should be rectangular (3:2 aspect ratio) while containing the regional logo (see Pasal 6). However, it does not specify the flag's background colour. Without evidence supporting a particular colour, part of the flag is still made up. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda: The flag is used in official celebrations, please check e.g. here here and here. Were the people in charge of these celebrations subsequently reprimanded for the display of a non official flag? OktaRama2010 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, excuse me, looks like Indonesian provincial flags are usually only displayed inside government and governors offices (the ones I put * are have different color than the ones shown on Wikipedia now). This is some provincial flag that i could find: This image contain some provincial flags This image also contain some provincial flags Aceh (green) North Sumatra (green) West Sumatra* (green) Riau* (green) Riau Islands (white) Bangka Belitung Islands (white) Jambi* (white) Bengkulu (green) South Sumatra (green) Lampung* (yellow) Banten (green) Jakarta (white) West Java (green) Central Java (yellow) Special Region of Yogyakarta (dark blue) East Java (green) Bali* (yellow) West Nusa Tenggara (yellow) East Nusa Tenggara (green) West Kalimantan (green) Central Kalimantan (yellow) South Kalimantan (yellow) East Kalimantan* (white) North Kalimantan (yellow) North Sulawesi (white) Gorontalo (white) Central Sulawesi (white) West Sulawesi (white) South Sulawesi (light blue) Southeast Sulawesi (blue) Maluku (green) North Maluku* (dark blue) West Papua (white) Papua* (dark blue) It turns out that some flags have different colors, for example, Lampung flag in governor office are yellow, but in here and Wikipedia are white. So for some flags the color is still not clear. RizkyJogja (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging everyone here @Cycn@HyperGaruda@HaEr48@AlexR.L.@Themightyquill@OktaRama2010@RizkyJogja.
- Based on the law mentioned here, Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 77 Tahun 2007, using Google search keyword
"77" "2007" "bendera"I found the local law specifying the color: - I guess this discussion can be closed as kept now. Hddty (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | The images have been up-merged to Category:Fictional flags of Indonesia and nominated for deletion | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This category is not hugely practical for two reasons: 1. it is very difficult (if not impossible) to find something when the imput is "unknown". 2. if this category were to be used properly (which is not the case) it would by now have contained thousands of anonymous works, which I think, doesn't make any sense. So I propose to move the content of this category to Category:Paintings from Germany. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the sub-categories of Category:Unknown painters use the word anonymous instead, ie. Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in the Louvre . I think it makes more sense to go that way, so it's clear that editors should not be wasting their time looking for the painters' name (like those in Category:Unidentified painters). And really, we're not actually categorizing unknown/anonymous artists (like Category:Anonymous painters & Category:Anonymous sculptors are for specific artists with pseudonyms etc,), we're categorizing art by anonymous artists. So I'd suggest the following:
- Category:Unknown painters (delete) -> Category:Anonymous artists
- Category:Anonymous painters
- Category:Anonymous sculptors
- Category:Artwork by unknown artists -> Category:Artwork by anonymous artists
- Category:Paintings by anonmyous artists
- Category:Paintings by anonymous artists by museum
- Category:Paintings by Anonymous in the Kunsthistorisches Museum
- Category:Paintings by unknown painter in the Hungarian National Gallery (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in the Hungarian National Gallery
- Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in the Louvre
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Národní galerie v Praze (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in Národní galerie v Praze
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in the Von-der-Heydt-Museum (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in the Von-der-Heydt-Museum
- Category:Unknown painters by country (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists by production area
- Category:Unknown painters from Austria (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists from Austria
- Category:Unknown painters from Germany (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists from Germany
- Category:Unknown painters from Italy (delete) -> Category:Paintings by anonymous artists from Italy
- Category:Paintings by anonymous artists by country of location
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Portugal (delete) - > Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in Portugal
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Sweden (delete) - > Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in Sweden
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Slovenia (delete) - > Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in Slovenia
- Category:Paintings by anonymous artists by museum
- Category:Paintings by anonmyous artists
- And all Category:Unidentified painters... categories should be removed from this category - those are maintenance categories. Category:Artwork by unknown artists by country might take some sorting, as it seems to contain both art by unidentified artists and anonymous artwork. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- yes, thank you, Category:Paintings by anonymous artists from Germany (or simply Category:Anonymous paintings from Germany) would work fine. As long as the focus is on the painting rather than on the painter. And about the Category:Anonymous painters, these are usually sorted under the M of Master of the ... See for example Category:Master of the Karlsruhe Passion. So these should not be a problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the intent here, but "anonymous" is not the same as "unknown", so we can't necessarily just move cats from one to the other. I believe "anonymous" usually indicates that the creator didn't want to be identified, rather than indicating that we don't know who they are/were. At least that's how I've seen the term used in literature. Is it different in art? Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:To be categorised by name might have some bearing here, in that we might not need separate categories for artists whose names we don't happen to know. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say that in art history "unknown" and "anonymous" are the same thing. See for example https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/1984 (anoniem), http://balat.kikirpa.be/results.php?startfrom=1&lang=en-GB (onbekend), http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=Anonymous&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500397994 (anonymous). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I could see if it was "Paintings by Anonymous", which might suggest the artist had specifically chosen to remain anonymous, and signed the work "Anonymous." But "by anonymous artists" suggests the word is just an adjective, and the dictionary definitions I see all include "of unknown name." I think it covers both. "Unknown" is too easily confused with "unidentified", a distinction we've just made up here at commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- ok, I've started moving Category:Unknown painters from Germany to Category:Anonymous paintings from Germany. I hope this is ok. I'm also checking every file with Bildindex to make sure they really are anonymous. So this might take a while. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I could see if it was "Paintings by Anonymous", which might suggest the artist had specifically chosen to remain anonymous, and signed the work "Anonymous." But "by anonymous artists" suggests the word is just an adjective, and the dictionary definitions I see all include "of unknown name." I think it covers both. "Unknown" is too easily confused with "unidentified", a distinction we've just made up here at commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say that in art history "unknown" and "anonymous" are the same thing. See for example https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/1984 (anoniem), http://balat.kikirpa.be/results.php?startfrom=1&lang=en-GB (onbekend), http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=Anonymous&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500397994 (anonymous). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Vincent Steenberg: Wouldn't "anonymous paintings" suggest the paintings themselves don't have names, rather than the artists being unnamed? I guess people will get the point? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, No I don't believe so. Artworks without title are usually called Untitled or Without Title. See for an example Category:Untitled by Naum Gabo (Rotterdam). So "Anonymous paintings" should do the trick, I hope. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vincent Steenberg: Looks like you are done. Are we ready to delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Updated proposal
- Category:Anonymous art
- Category:Anonymous artists (create separate)
- Category:Anonymous painters
- Category:Anonymous sculptors
- Category:Anonymous paintings
- Category:Anonymous paintings by museum
- Category:Paintings by Anonymous in the Kunsthistorisches Museum
- Category:Paintings by unknown painter in the Hungarian National Gallery (delete) -> Category:Anonymous paintings in the Hungarian National Gallery
- Category:Paintings by anonymous artists in the Louvre
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Národní galerie v Praze (delete) -> Category:Anonymous paintings in Národní galerie v Praze
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in the Von-der-Heydt-Museum (delete) -> Category:Anonymous paintings in the Von-der-Heydt-Museum
- Category:Unknown painters by country (delete) -> Category:Anonymous paintings by production area
- Category:Anonymous paintings by country of location
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Portugal (delete) - > Category:Anonymous paintings in Portugal
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Sweden (delete) - > Category:Anonymous paintings in Sweden
- Category:Paintings by unknown painters in Slovenia (delete) - > Category:Anonymous paintings in Slovenia
- Category:Anonymous paintings by museum
- Category:Anonymous artists (create separate)
- Category:Unidentified artists
- Category:Unknown painters (delete) -> Category:Unidentified painters (if neceessary, for images of painters whose identities are unknown)
- Category:Artwork by unknown artists -> Category:Paintings by unidentified artists
- Let's keep working on this. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Unbekannt, anonym oder nicht identifiziert, das sind drei verschiedene Kategorien. Diese drei Kategorienstränge sollten beibehalten und ausdiskutiert werden. Bis zum Ende der Diskussion sollte kein {{speedydelete}} (SLA) auf eine Kategorie gestellt werden. Mein Vorschlag: Wir behalten alle drei Kategorienstränge und auf den Kategorien verlinken diese auf die andere. Hystrix (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Hystrix,
- Unbekannt, anonym oder nicht identifiziert, das sind drei verschiedene Kategorien.
- Possibly, but here's the funny bit:
- Category:Unknown painters is a subcategory of Category:Unidentified painters, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Anonymous painters. Maybe I'm missing the point, but how is this helpful to anyone? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hystrix: Maybe you could explain how you see unknown/unbekannt working? How is it different than unidentified or anonymous? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Zwischen den drei Arten von Kategorien sehe ich Unterschiede und halte sie deshalb für das Einkategorisieren für nützlich:
- Unbekannt für meistens ältere Werke, bei denen bisher nichts über die Künstler bekannt ist
- Anonym für Werke von Künstlern, die einen oder mehrere Pseudonyme verwendeten
- Nicht identifiziert für Dateien, bei denen der Hochlader keine weitere Angaben zum Künstler in der Dateibeschreibung angegeben hat.
- Sicher wird es Schnittmengen zwischen den Kategorien geben. Trotzdem denke ich, dass die drei Kategorien Category:Unknown painters, Category:Unidentified painters und Category:Anonymous painters gleichberechtigt in der Oberkategorie Category:Painters erscheinen sollten. Vielen Dank für diese Diskussion.
- I see differences between the three types of categories, which makes them useful for categorization:
- Unknown for mostly older works, where so far nothing is known about the artists
- Anonymous for works by artists who used one or more pseudonyms
- Unidentified for files where the uploader did not specify any artist details in the file description.
- Certainly there will be intersections between the categories. Nevertheless, I think that the three categories Category:Unknown painters, Category: Unidentified painters and Category:Anonymous painters appear on an equal footing in the Category: Painters category should. Thanks for this discussion. Hystrix (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Zwischen den drei Arten von Kategorien sehe ich Unterschiede und halte sie deshalb für das Einkategorisieren für nützlich:
- For artists using pseudonyms, pseudonymous would make more sense than anonymous. I don't think it makes sense to categorize art that way, though we could have a Category:Artists known under pseudonyms as a sub-category of Category:People known under pseudonyms - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, all right, as a fourth category. Hystrix (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see your point, Hystrix. However as I understand it "Anonymous" really means "anonymous", so a single piece, or series, of which the author is completely unknown. For example File:Österreichischer Meister 001.jpg. So I can't really say this concerns "Werke von Künstlern, die einen oder mehrere Pseudonyme verwendeten". I mean, Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan, not an anonymous artist.
- Well, all right, as a fourth category. Hystrix (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- So to me unknown and anonymous is still more or less the same. But I agree that there's a clear distiction between unknown and unidentified.
- Having said that, these two criteria (unknown and unidentified) coul be very useful, but I believe we should put them in Category:Unidentified art (and/or Category:Anonymous art) en not in Category:Artists, Category:Painters, etc. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Danke. Wir haben dann die Arbeitskategorie "Nicht identifiziert" und die Kategorie "Unbekannt". Wie sieht es mit Werken, die anonym oder unter Pseudonym veröffentlicht wurden? Ein persönliches Beispiel: In meiner Verwandtschaft gibt es einen Literaten. Er hat mehrere Romane und Reiseberichte unter Pseudonym veröffentlicht. In seinen Lesungen gibt er nichts privates preis. Nichts über seine Herkunft, Wohnort oder Familienstand. Bob Dylan ist ein Pseudonym einer sehr bekannten Person. Bei vielen anderen Künstlern wissen einige Insider den Namen. Für andere ist er "unbekannt". Die Kategorie Category:People known under pseudonyms sollte um die Kategorie Category:People unknown under pseudonyms ergänzt werden. Aus diesem Grung sehe ich einige Unterschiede zwischen "unbekannt, anonym und Pseudonym"
- Zum zweiten Punkt ganz kurz: Ich nehme Dein Beispiel: File:Österreichischer Meister 001.jpg auf. Die Art der Kunst scheint bekannt, nur der oder die Künstler nicht. Deshalb bin ich für "Unknown artist"
- Thank you. We then have the work category "Unidentified" and the category "Unknown". What about works published anonymously or under a pseudonym? A personal example: In my relationship there is a writer. He has published several novels and travelogues under a pseudonym. In his readings he gives nothing private price. Nothing about its origin, place of residence or marital status. Bob Dylan is a pseudonym of a very known person. For many other artists, some insiders know the name. For others he is "unknown". The Category: People unknown under pseudonyms category should be supplemented with the Category: People unknown under pseudonyms category. For this reason I see some differences between "unknown, anonymous and pseudonym"
- To the second point very briefly: I assume your example: File:Österreichischer Meister 001.jpg on. The type of art seems familiar, but not the artist. That's why I'm for "Unknown artist"Hystrix (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Recht, es gibt ohne Zweifel Künstler welche under zwei oder mehere Namen bekannt sind und wo mann einfach nicht beweisen kann welcher Pseudonym bei welcher Name gehört. Ein anderes Beispiel sind Schriftsteller die nur mit ihre Initialen publiziert haben. In einiger Fälle sind sie für immer nur ein Initial. Zur File:Österreichischer Meister 001.jpg: Dieses Bild sollte meiner Meinung nach nicht automatisch in eine Kategorie wie Category:Anonymous painters untergebracht werden. In diese Kategorie ist es nämlich unmöchlig irgendwas zu suchen, weil mann einfach keinen Name hat womit man suchen kann, vielleicht eine nationalität oder ein Jahrhundert, aber nicht mehr. Deswege denke ich dass diese Art Kategorien nicht sehr nützlich sind. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Having said that, these two criteria (unknown and unidentified) coul be very useful, but I believe we should put them in Category:Unidentified art (and/or Category:Anonymous art) en not in Category:Artists, Category:Painters, etc. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see your point. Can you give me an example of an image that would fit it Category:Unknown painters but not in Category:Anonymous paintings (and explain why) ? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ein konkretes Beispiel kenne ich nicht, beziehungsweise habe ich noch nicht gefunden. Vielleicht ist der Unterschied auch nur der deutschen Sprache geschuldet. Zwei Belege für den Unterschied zwischen „unbekannt“ und „anonym“:
- Google-Treffer für "Gemälde unbekannter Künstler": 563 / Google-Treffer für "Gemälde anonymer Künstler": zwei // Google-Treffer für "Unbekannte Gemälde": ungefähr 267.000 / Google-Treffer für "Anonyme Gemälde": 863
- „Anonym“ bedeutet im Deutschen: „die Angabe des Urhebers auslassend, unterlassend“ (de-wiktionary). Das bedeutet, der Urheber, der Künstler möchte nicht seinen Namen oder sonst etwas über sich preisgeben. „Unbekannt“ bedeutet dagegen, meistens bei älteren Werken: nach dem jetzigen Stand der Forschung ist nichts über den Künstler bekannt.
- Summary: Für mich ergibt die Kategorie Category:Anonymous paintings keinen Sinn. Sie enthält Werke von unbekannten Künstlern. Wenn Werke anonymer, und damit meist moderner Kunst auf Commons hochgeladen werden sollten, dann ergäbe sich oftmals ein Problem mit der Urheberrechtsschaft. Hystrix (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ein konkretes Beispiel kenne ich nicht, beziehungsweise habe ich noch nicht gefunden. Vielleicht ist der Unterschied auch nur der deutschen Sprache geschuldet. Zwei Belege für den Unterschied zwischen „unbekannt“ und „anonym“:
- I'm not sure that German language google searches are very helpful in deciding which English-language word to use. Perhaps they are used in different ways in German than in English, or used to different degrees. We can't consider how each word is used in each language when deciding on category names, or we'd never decide on anything. Moreover, unknown is sure to be more common, exactly because it's ambiguous. It can mean "currently unidentified" or "formally anonymous" - that's exactly why we shouldn't be using it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- ok, switching back to English. Hystrix, I think you entered the wrong search string. Yes, an unknown arist is a "anonymous artist", but these are usually labeled as simply "Anonymous" (also in German). The correct way of saying this is hat the painting is anonymous ("anonymous painting") rather than the artist.
- Also you say that Category:Anonymous paintings makes no sense. I have to agree to that. In my view it makes slightly more sense than Category:Anonymous painters, but not an awful great deal. So maybe it's a good idea to only use this category when its functional, for example as a sub-category, like Category:Anonymous paintings from the Netherlands is of Category:Paintings from the Netherlands by painter. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Diesmal nur noch zu Information (Ergebnisse per Google-Bücher-Suche ist nicht eindeutig für eine Präferenz):
- Treffer für Unknown paintings: ungefähr 1.540 Ergebnisse / Treffer für Anonymous paintings: ungefähr 1.430 Ergebnisse / Treffer für Unknown painters: ungefähr 2.730 Ergebnisse / Treffer für Anonymous painters: ungefähr 1.990 Ergebnisse.
- @Vincent Steenberg: : Besten Dank für Deine vielen, vielen Einsortierungen. Auf diese Diskussion bin ich ja erst durch Deinen Schnelllöschantrag (
{{speedydelete}}) auf die Kategorie Category:Unidentified painters from France gestoßen. Diese habe ich um eine Information ergänzt. - Die Category:Unknown painters from Germany sollte eine Weiterleitung (redirect) zur Category:Anonymous paintings from Germany sein. Ein Löschen ist sinnlos. Irgendwann wird sie wieder neu angelegt. Die letztere Kategorie sollte in der Beschreibung sinngemäß folgenden Text enthalten: „Diese Kategorie enthält Dateien von anonymen und unbekannten Gemälden, von anonymen und unbekannten Künstlern. Siehe dazu diese Diskussion (Link).“ Ebenso sollte bei allen ähnlichen Kategorien und Unterkategorien verfahren werden. --Hystrix (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- ok, thanks very much. Good idea. Although I would prefer Category:Unidentified paintings from France instead of Category:Unidentified painters from France. This would fit better under Category:Unidentified paintings. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This conversation is from 2017 and the last comment was in 2018. Plus a lot of the categories that were brought up originally are long gone. So I'm closing it as stale. Anyone who wants to continue it though is free to open another CfD with a clearer proposal that actually involves exiting categories. But this one is way to convoluted to resolve to any meaningful degree. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
There is no term “Dorf” in the German article, anyway there should be an English term. -- User:Perhelion 15:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, to make the structure clear: Schwyz refers to
- one of the federal states of Switzerland: en:Canton of Schwyz, de:Kanton Schwyz, en:Category:Canton of Schwyz, de:Kategorie:Kanton Schwyz, c:Category:Canton of Schwyz
- a district thereof: en:Schwyz District, de:Bezirk Schwyz, de:Kategorie:Bezirk Schwyz, c:Category:Schwyz (district)
- a municipality of this district: en:Schwyz, de:Schwyz (Gemeinde), en:Category:Schwyz, de:Kategorie:Schwyz (Gemeinde), c:Category:Schwyz
- an urban subdivision thereof: c:Category:Schwyz (Dorf)
- The latter commonscat contains 39 files and 16 subcats, so upmerging were not a good idea I think. Could be renamed to Category:Schwyz (town) or Category:Schwyz (quarter) for example. IMO village isn't appropriate because of its number of inhabitants and some other reasons. --Achim (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Thanks for comment.
I would suggest to move it to Category:Schwyz (town) (as “Dorf” is more slang and actually meanstown[17] with 14 778 residents)[18], compare Schwyz. :: The English article is maybe wrong, because there is no evidence for the designation “town” but “Flecken” (German article, should I ask in the Schweizer portal? Seltsamer Weise gibt die Populationsseite Schwyz als Stadt aus nicht als Gemeinde[19]). -- User: Perhelion 20:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)- Schwyz ist ein Kanton, innerhalb dieses Kantons gibt es auch einen Bezirk mit dem Namen Schwyz. In diesem Bezirk gibt es eine politische Gemeinde mit dem Namen Schwyz. Diese gilt, weil sie mehr als 10'000 Einwohner hat, als Stadt (auch wenn niemand im Kanton von der Stadt Schwyz sprechen würde). Diese politische Gemeinde Schwyz besteht aus verschiedenen Ortschaften – Ortsteile, die heute fast zusammengewachsen sind. Es sind dies; Ibach, Rickenbach, Seewen und Schwyz. Die ersten drei werden Filialen genannt, die letztere ist der Hauptort und wird auch Flecken genannt. Somit braucht es auf Commons je eine Kategorie für alle Filialen; Ibach (Category:Ibach SZ), Rickenbach (Category:Rickenbach SZ) und Seewen (Category:Seewen SZ), sowie für «Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz (Dorf)). Diese vier Kategorien sind in der Kategorie der «Gemeinde Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz) enthalten, die sich in der Kategorie «Bezirk Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz (district)) befindet und diese ist schlussendlich in der Kategorie «Kanton Schwyz» (Category:Canton of Schwyz) untergebracht. Das SZ am Ende der Filialnamen bedeutet das Kantonskürzel für den Kanton Schwyz – eine in der Schweiz (nicht Schwyz) übliche Ergänzung bei Ortsnamen, die mit gleichlautenden Namen von Ortschaften in anderen Kantonen verwechselt werden könnten. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aja danke (etwas überreichlich Infos :P) wie angekündigt habe ich im Projekt angefragt (zur Vollständigkeit, evtl. hast du es ja erst dadurch gesehen). Also ist es doch eine Stadt, auch der französische Artikel nennt den Ort Stadt = ville (auch wenn en village Dorf ist ^^). Somit ist auch deine neuerliche Einkategorisierung widersprüchlich (as village)⁉ MfG -- User: Perhelion 23:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ich kann nur Benutzer Pakeha beipflichten, der in oben genannter Portal-Diskussion schreibt: «... Der Status "Stadt" hängt in diesem Fall einzig mit der Bevölkerungszahl der Gemeinde, welche die 10'000 überschritten hat, zusammen. Ansonsten ist davon keine Rede, auch nicht in den anderen Schwyzer Gemeinden. Gruss, --Pakeha» Also kann höchstens die Kategorie «Schwyz (Gemeinde - municipality)» in die Kategorie «Stadt in der Schweiz (Category:Cities in Switzerland)» einsortiert werden. Die Ortschaft mit dem Namen Schwyz ist keine Stadt und somit gehört die Kategorie «Schwyz (Dorf)» in die Kategorie «Dörfer im Kanton Schwyz (Category:Villages in the canton of Schwyz)». Und wie Pakeha geschrieben hat, ist es ähnlich bei den anderen Gemeinden im Kanton Schwyz, die ebenfalls über 10'000 Einwohner haben. Bei Küssnacht und Einsiedeln sind die Gemeinden identisch mit den gleichnamigen Bezirken. Die namensgebenden Ortschaften/Dörfer Küssnacht und Einsiedeln aber haben weit weniger als 10'000 Einwohner und sind somit auch statistisch keine Städte. Die Gemeinde Arth, ebenfalls statistisch eine Stadt, schreibt auf ihrer Webseite; „Trotz des stetigen Bevölkerungswachstums hat sich die Gemeinde Arth ihren ländlichen Charakter bewahrt: Die Siedlungsgebiete Arth, Oberarth und Goldau verstehen sich seit jeher als drei Dörfer mit eigenen Identitäten.“ Und da wäre noch die Gemeinde Freienbach als potentielle Stadt. Sie besteht aus fünf Dörfern, wobei der Hauptort und mit Abstand grösster Ortsteil der Gemeinde das Dorf Pfäffikon ist. In der Schweiz gibt es auch das historische Stadtrecht. Die Ortschaften Schwyz und Lachen besitzen ein historisches Marktrecht, aber kein Stadtrecht (nur damit dies hier auch noch geklärt ist). Und mit all diesen Ergänzungen sollte meine kürzliche und als widersprüchlich empfundene Umkategoriesierung geklärt sein. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Schofför Hm* genau genommen ist City tatsächlich falsch, da hiermit nur Großstädte mit Stadtrecht gemeint sind, daher ist deine Änderung dahingehend ok. (Die Cat hatte ich ja erst kurz vorher hinzugefügt, daher wäre eine Entfernung wohl auch ok.)
- Also nochmal, du stimmst hiermit überein: «Der Status "Stadt" hängt in diesem Fall einzig mit der Bevölkerungszahl der Gemeinde [...] zusammen» wie Pakeha und genauso der englische und französische Artikel. Daher ist hier die Verschiebung nach Category:Schwyz (town) wohl die richtige. Die Bezeichnung "Dorf" hat damit umgangssprachlichen Charakter und hier keine Relevanz mehr. -- User: Perhelion 00:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mit „town“ haben wir einen Begriff, der ein Übersetzungsproblem darstellt. Gemäss den englischen Artikeln über „village“, „town“ und „city“ ist es schwierig, diese Begriffe richtig in die deutsche Sprache zu übertragen. Die (unübersetzten) Ausdrücke „Markt“, „Marktflecken“ und „Flecken“ werden im (englischen) Artikel über die Stadt behandelt. Wenn unbedingt ein englisches Wort in die Klammer muss, dann wird wohl „town“ der zutreffendste sein (was bei Schweizern mit deutscher Muttersprache zu Irritationen führen wird).
- Ein weiteres Problem ist bei der Kategorie Schwyz (Gemeinde) die Kategorie «Kantonshauptort in der Schweiz» (Category:Capitals of cantons of Switzerland). Meiner Meinung nach, und damit entgegen dem deutschsprachigen Artikel, ist eben nicht die Gemeinde der Hauptort des Kantons (und auch nicht des Bezirks), sondern der Ort Schwyz. Gleiches gilt beim Kantonshauptort des Kantons Appenzell Innerrhoden; dort ist der Ort Appenzell, ebenfalls als «Flecken» bezeichnet, und nicht die Gemeinde Appenzell (in diesem Kanton übrigens als Bezirk bezeichnet) der Hauptort des Kantons. Und um das Ganze hier noch auf die Spitze zu treiben; der Ort Appenzell, also der Hauptort des Kantons, ist nur teilweise auf dem Gebiet des Bezirks Appenzell. Ein Teil der Ortschaft liegt auf dem Gebiet des Bezirks Schwende und ein weiterer Teil gehört zum Bezirk Rüte ;-). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ich kann nur Benutzer Pakeha beipflichten, der in oben genannter Portal-Diskussion schreibt: «... Der Status "Stadt" hängt in diesem Fall einzig mit der Bevölkerungszahl der Gemeinde, welche die 10'000 überschritten hat, zusammen. Ansonsten ist davon keine Rede, auch nicht in den anderen Schwyzer Gemeinden. Gruss, --Pakeha» Also kann höchstens die Kategorie «Schwyz (Gemeinde - municipality)» in die Kategorie «Stadt in der Schweiz (Category:Cities in Switzerland)» einsortiert werden. Die Ortschaft mit dem Namen Schwyz ist keine Stadt und somit gehört die Kategorie «Schwyz (Dorf)» in die Kategorie «Dörfer im Kanton Schwyz (Category:Villages in the canton of Schwyz)». Und wie Pakeha geschrieben hat, ist es ähnlich bei den anderen Gemeinden im Kanton Schwyz, die ebenfalls über 10'000 Einwohner haben. Bei Küssnacht und Einsiedeln sind die Gemeinden identisch mit den gleichnamigen Bezirken. Die namensgebenden Ortschaften/Dörfer Küssnacht und Einsiedeln aber haben weit weniger als 10'000 Einwohner und sind somit auch statistisch keine Städte. Die Gemeinde Arth, ebenfalls statistisch eine Stadt, schreibt auf ihrer Webseite; „Trotz des stetigen Bevölkerungswachstums hat sich die Gemeinde Arth ihren ländlichen Charakter bewahrt: Die Siedlungsgebiete Arth, Oberarth und Goldau verstehen sich seit jeher als drei Dörfer mit eigenen Identitäten.“ Und da wäre noch die Gemeinde Freienbach als potentielle Stadt. Sie besteht aus fünf Dörfern, wobei der Hauptort und mit Abstand grösster Ortsteil der Gemeinde das Dorf Pfäffikon ist. In der Schweiz gibt es auch das historische Stadtrecht. Die Ortschaften Schwyz und Lachen besitzen ein historisches Marktrecht, aber kein Stadtrecht (nur damit dies hier auch noch geklärt ist). Und mit all diesen Ergänzungen sollte meine kürzliche und als widersprüchlich empfundene Umkategoriesierung geklärt sein. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aja danke (etwas überreichlich Infos :P) wie angekündigt habe ich im Projekt angefragt (zur Vollständigkeit, evtl. hast du es ja erst dadurch gesehen). Also ist es doch eine Stadt, auch der französische Artikel nennt den Ort Stadt = ville (auch wenn en village Dorf ist ^^). Somit ist auch deine neuerliche Einkategorisierung widersprüchlich (as village)⁉ MfG -- User: Perhelion 23:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Schwyz ist ein Kanton, innerhalb dieses Kantons gibt es auch einen Bezirk mit dem Namen Schwyz. In diesem Bezirk gibt es eine politische Gemeinde mit dem Namen Schwyz. Diese gilt, weil sie mehr als 10'000 Einwohner hat, als Stadt (auch wenn niemand im Kanton von der Stadt Schwyz sprechen würde). Diese politische Gemeinde Schwyz besteht aus verschiedenen Ortschaften – Ortsteile, die heute fast zusammengewachsen sind. Es sind dies; Ibach, Rickenbach, Seewen und Schwyz. Die ersten drei werden Filialen genannt, die letztere ist der Hauptort und wird auch Flecken genannt. Somit braucht es auf Commons je eine Kategorie für alle Filialen; Ibach (Category:Ibach SZ), Rickenbach (Category:Rickenbach SZ) und Seewen (Category:Seewen SZ), sowie für «Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz (Dorf)). Diese vier Kategorien sind in der Kategorie der «Gemeinde Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz) enthalten, die sich in der Kategorie «Bezirk Schwyz» (Category:Schwyz (district)) befindet und diese ist schlussendlich in der Kategorie «Kanton Schwyz» (Category:Canton of Schwyz) untergebracht. Das SZ am Ende der Filialnamen bedeutet das Kantonskürzel für den Kanton Schwyz – eine in der Schweiz (nicht Schwyz) übliche Ergänzung bei Ortsnamen, die mit gleichlautenden Namen von Ortschaften in anderen Kantonen verwechselt werden könnten. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Thanks for comment.
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD is from 2017 which was also when someone made the last comment and there was no consensus at that time to make the changes. So I'm closing this as no consensus since it's clearly DOA. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This should be renamed to allow its use to be broadened to categorize such signs and inscriptions also to China, Korea, Vietnam and anywhere else, reflecting the translingual character of Chinese ideographs. ("Kanji" is the Japanese name, essentially the same as "hanja" in Korean and as "hànzì" in Mandarin.) I sugest to replace "Kanji" with "Han" or "Chinese ideographic" in this category name and all its subcategories’. (See: en:Chinese characters) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Did you want to rename Category:Kanji and its various subcategories? It's currently a child category of both Category:Japanese characters and Category:Chinese characters. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's worth noting that the Kanji wikidata currently links to en:Category:Kanji (which serves both Japanese and Chinese) but that the article en:Kanji refers only to the Japanese because "Hanzi" redirects to a separate en:Chinese characters. The Kanji article specifically mentions that Kanji means "Han characters", so that's probably accurate, but maybe confusing for those people (like me) who didn't realize that Japanese characters are Han charaters. I don't know what's best. Incidentally, because of Category:Kanji tattoos, this discussion might also solve the very old discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Chinese glyph tattoos. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Kanji" means "Chinese ideographs" only within the context of Japanese writing, wich also includes katakana and hiragana — and often also punctuation, Indo-Arabic numbers, romaji, hentaigana, any of the above in furigana, and other stuff I don’t know about. I would say that when this (a specific Japanese context) is meant, then "kanji" is the appropriate word; when a broader context is sought, as I argue above about the categories at hand, then the suggested renaming should be done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- ? --Benzoyl (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? --Benzoyl (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- What, for the 3rd time? Just read above, I’m all out of synonyms. (And you’re welcome too — quite the nerve asking me for specifity after uttering such a verbose question as one single question mark.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia (en), Category:Chinese characters >> Category:Kanji. What do you think (of match between Wikipedia / Commons)? --Benzoyl (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hàn-jī in Hokkien, Hanja in Korea, Kanji in Japan. The 3 are each different? --Benzoyl (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Idiom and Glyph also different (Simplified Chinese characters etc).
- It may be necessary, Category:Hàn-jī signs and Category:Hanja signs. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- or Category:Chinese character signs in China / Category:Chinese character signs in South Korea / Category:Chinese character signs in Japan ? but, by case, languages (= Idiom, Glyph, Pronunciation) are different. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- What, for the 3rd time? Just read above, I’m all out of synonyms. (And you’re welcome too — quite the nerve asking me for specifity after uttering such a verbose question as one single question mark.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? --Benzoyl (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- The term "Chinese characters" is ambiguous as it encompasses various different writing systems with different conventions: , "Hanja", "Kanji", "Chunom" and "Hanzi" (two forms: traditional and simplified, plus older forms from which all other scripts are derived) have separate sets of characters, with large intersections, but they are not equivalent, including in their use and the letter forms (as well characters from Hiragana, Katakana and Bopomofo syllabaries, including their older forms are derived from old Hanzi, and have had also their extensions and variants, like Hentaigana and Furigana). It's simply not possible to confuse all of them into the same category and have consistant searches and classifications. So I oppose this merge request (too easy/lazy "solution" that would make things worse). But cleaning up the categories and making them consistant with their orthographic or typographic usages and the languages covered is still something to do as there's lot of inconsistancies (including using consistant naming, possibly with additional redirects). This cannot be done rapidly by a simply merge, but only incrementally, by progressive rearrangements, and addition/correction of missing descriptions (including with data from Unicode, or the IRG and their traditional sources and standards). We don't have too many categories, but not enough (and their completeness is still a long work to do that should be first done according to published standards as much as possible, and possibly with other local subcategories when they are relevant). verdy_p (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody asked for a merge, Philippe. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The merge request that I opposed was effectively part of the suggestion (made above by Benzoyl) to align Commons with Wikipedia, instead of with Wikidata which is more precise and must be able to distinguish at least the all characters encoded in the UCS, and add relevant info. Wikipedia merges various topics in the same article, this does not have to apply to Commons that has many categories of images related to the same topic. As well Wiktionary often covers multiple distinct characters in the same article, not necessarily the same way as Wikidata. Localized versions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary do not match exactly the same articles (for various reasons, including their views of what is "synonym" for them or what seems "homographs". However "Commons" and "Wikidata" are locale-independant and should follow the international encoding standard as much as possible: it will be up to each local version of Wikipedia or Wiktionary to manage what is relevant for them to have their own separate articles or to merge them to expose how the various characters are used. verdy_p (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- The merge request that I opposed was effectively part of the suggestion (made above by Benzoyl) to align Commons with Wikipedia, instead of with Wikidata which is more precise and must be able to distinguish at least the all characters encoded in the UCS, and add relevant info. Wikipedia merges various topics in the same article, this does not have to apply to Commons that has many categories of images related to the same topic. As well Wiktionary often covers multiple distinct characters in the same article, not necessarily the same way as Wikidata. Localized versions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary do not match exactly the same articles (for various reasons, including their views of what is "synonym" for them or what seems "homographs". However "Commons" and "Wikidata" are locale-independant and should follow the international encoding standard as much as possible: it will be up to each local version of Wikipedia or Wiktionary to manage what is relevant for them to have their own separate articles or to merge them to expose how the various characters are used. verdy_p (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Tuválkin, Themightyquill, Verdy p, and Benzoyl: There's a CFD discussion closely related to this: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Chinese script. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody asked for a merge, Philippe. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD is from 2017 and the last comment was at the beginning of 2024. Reading through it there doesn't seem to be a consensus to rename the category and it's pretty well established at this point anyway. Although it seems like there would be some benefits to doing so. That said, I'm closing this as "no consensus" due to the lack of agreement. Whomever disagrees with that is free to start a new CfD that with a summary of the main points and a clear path forward. This one clearly hasn't gone anywhere though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Simple intersection of Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. grendel|khan 22:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Category was initially created based on Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM + Raynox DCR-250. I have yet to see a policy basis for deletion of such intersection. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Categories like this are useful for identifying the technical capabilities of a particular combination. This lens used with a 5D would have quite different results. This is also useful for keeping track of different combinations used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are, for Canon alone, fifty camera models and sixty-five lenses. That's over three thousand categories, not counting, say, ND or polarizing filters. The combinatorial blowup is immense. You can get these query results by using FastCCI, or by searching for incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 60D" incategory:"Taken with Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM". It's true that there's no explicit policy here; I'll nudge about that at the Village Pump--there's also some talk about structured data. (Also, I should have nominated just one of these first, rather than all at once. I'll try to add see-also notes to consolidate discussion. Sorry about that.) --grendel|khan 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is potential for an enormous number of categories. However, space is not at a premium, and other categories have even more potential. Category:Women, for example, has well over 500 sub-subcategories apparent just from the 60+ subcategories listed just listed on the main category page. I don't even dare guess how many images are included in those subcategories, sub-subcategories, sub-sub-subcategories, etc. The intersection doesn't seem problematic to me.
- That structured data project looks interesting. Thanks for the link. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This kind of categorization doesn't make much sense to me. Have a look at the sub-categories of Category:ND filters, for example, where we have huge amounts of Taken with camera + lens + type of ND-filter categories, most of them holding not more than just a couple of files. To be honest, creating all those intersection categories (which hardly anyone is ever going to use) to me seems like a huge waste of energy, especially when the same job can be done on the fly with intersection tools. But more importantly, it also makes other intersections much more difficult, as you have to go through multiple layers of subcategories (see also Dschwen's Taming the Commons Category Tree). I already wrote it at COM:VP/P: If we go on creating intersection categories like this, we'll end up with a single individual category for each image: Category:Black and white photographs of the Statue of Liberty at dawn taken on 2015-05-26 with iPhone 9. That's what the word "overcategorization" should be used for, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: Multiple identical CFDs merged: This discussion also refers to: Category:Taken with Canon EOS 7D and Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Vivitar 55-135mm F3.5 T4, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Helios-44M-4, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon MP-E 65mm F2.8 1-5x Macro, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD A011, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 70D and Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Sigma 80-200mm F4.5-5.6, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Vivitar 28mm f2.8-22 MC Wide Angle, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L II USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Cosina 28mm f2.8-22 MC Macro, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Pallas Auto TM 50mm f1.8, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L II USM, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II, Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM, and Category:Taken with Canon EOS 7D and Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest we keep it. It has a lot of content and it's a hidden category. It serves a purpose. Can't see the harm in keeping it. Toresetre (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Grendelkhan. Don't understand the use of these kind of categories. --Code (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Category was initially created based on Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM + Raynox DCR-250. I have yet to see a policy basis for deletion of such intersection. In fact, Commons policy (Commons:Categories) encourages modularity and allows intersection categories: "A category can combine two (or more) different criteria; such categories are called "compound categories" or "intersection categories" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Categories like this are useful for identifying the technical capabilities of a particular combination. This lens used with a 5D would have quite different results. This is also useful for keeping track of different combinations used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree. What's wrong with that? And, by the way, grendel|khan, what do you think about such categories like Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM, Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, Category:Taken with AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, Category:Taken with Nikon D2X and AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED (to name only a few...)? --J.-H. Janßen (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think that they should likewise be split up. See 2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Archive/Improve_FastCCI_capabilities_and_performance for a proposal on Meta (since withdrawn due to too many other active proposals) for an attempt to make them less-needed. Combinatorial blowup is, to me, a code smell, an indication that something else is wrong. grendel|khan 20:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete Detailed category trees should be implemented where they are useful. Categories of random combinations of cameras and lenses are not useful since they add nothing to the overall image or it's description. If you want to see what camera A can do with lens B then you can use PetScan (direct link). With this tool you don't need a large pile of categories with 2-5 images in it, but can check several categories for matches. On the top right you can find "Examples" where I added one that displays all images in category A and B. Here you can find an example for images listed in Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Taken with Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM --D-Kuru (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- After 4 years of intense discussion I think we can narrow it down to this:
Oppose
- Most of these specialised categories do not hold more than just a couple of files (eg. Category:Taken with Canon EOS 600D and Tamron SP 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD + Raynox DCR-250 with only two files)
- The same effect can be achieved with already existing intersection tools (eg. PetScan)
- Huuuuge possible intersections just with the used camera and lens alone - not speaking about any filters, extenders or adapters - also overcategorisation
- Very little possible use - Yes, you could use it to search for a combination of camera X and lens Y, but I never heard of anybody looking at a lens like this. If this is really a thing, there could be a detailed documentation for the intersection tools
- You could create these categories, but who would ever find them if they are a hidden category listed inside another hidden category etc.
Support
- Space is not limited - we can have as many categories as we like
- keeping track of different combinations used
- You do not have to know how to use an intersection tool
For me it's a clear win for the contra side.
Categories like [[:Category:Taken with Canon EOS M6 and Canon Lens Mount Adapter EF-EOS M and Tamron SP 70-300 mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter + Hoya Polirization filter while juggling three balls (one blue, one yellow, one red) while eating pumpkin cheesecake with a fork in my basement]] just have no use other than existing. Even you could sort them images like this there is not only no need for it, but it binds workforce that could be used pretty much everywhere else!
But they could have a use - why don't we sort object categories by used lens as well? Why don't we sort Category:Human penis into different categories that show the used focal length. Maybe there is somebody interested in studying and comparing a 28mm dick to a 50mm dick to a 100 or even 200mm dick - how knows, right?
Since there was pretty much no discussion on this for the last 4 years I do not expect anybody to really care. If you disagree drop a comment.
If there are no additional comments within a month or so, I will start to slowly merge the categories. --D-Kuru (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 7D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D and Canon EF 17-40mm F4L USM + Variable ND filter - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L IS USM - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM + ND filters - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS R and Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM + Raynox DCR-250 - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 500D and Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM + ND1000 filter - 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM + ND400 filter -> 1 Category, 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM + ND filters -> 1 Category, 1 File
- Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM + ND filters -> 1 Category
- The last example shows exactly why the setup is useless. Space is maybe not limited, but all you do is nest one single file inside a hole category tree. Who would be able to find the image down there? Who would even search for a file like this?
- ComputerHotline created quite a few of these categories. Maybe we can get a comment from @ComputerHotline: --D-Kuru (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Camera body and lens combinations. The camera body and the lens are by far the most important technical contributors to the final image file. Since different camera bodies can use an identical sensor, sensor + lens could be an alternative. Neutral on accessory categories such as filters. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Njardarlogar: Please explain to me how there is a need for categories with only one image when you do the exact same thing with tools like PetScan that even has a template for in category A and B --D-Kuru (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @D-Kuru: So you do not have to use a tool like that, but can navigate by using the user interface instead. In principle, we do not need categories - the structured data would suffice. --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD is from 2017 and there still doesn't seem to be a consensus 7 years later. So I'm closing it as dead. As well as to long to get anything useful out of. It's unfortunate, but barely used categories like these is a wider problem that there doesn't seem to be any will to deal with. So getting rid of the categories probably wouldn't follow the current consensus more broadly about it. That said, anyone is free to restart this in a new CfD at a later time. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Propose renaming this category to Category:Canterbury, Kent (with similar renames for relevant subcategories), and making this a disambiguation category. Reason: to avoid confusion with other places called Canterbury. The category currently has some files in it that are for Category:Canterbury Region in New Zealand. Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Bot categorisation errors are a reason to fix the bots, not a reason to move categories. The English city is the predominant meaning of the word on every Wikipedia, and it is probable that the majority of traffic to the category page is also for that locality. That's simply because cities are of much higher interest than regions. The traffic that matters to category structure is those after content, not those providing content
- In the event disambiguation is necessary, a better target is needed. Canterbury, Kent, is not really suitable as it is still ambiguous. How on earth is someone meant to know that Canterbury is for the ancient city, while Category:City of Canterbury is for the surrounding local government district? That can be addressed by using primary topic-type logic, but its clearly not ideal as the same bot-uploads that mistake Canterbury, NZ for Canterbury, Kent could also mistake the district for the city proper. If the city is disambiguated at all - then both the city and the district, within Kent, should be disambiguated from each other as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- The district is a subtopic of the cathedral city (even though it is a parent category) so using "Category:Canterbury, Kent" should be OK (I doubt there would be many errors though), unless we do it with all "City of..." categories there's no point in just disambiguating this one further. Disambuiguation may be appropriate but the one in Kent appears to be the original and much more well known, the common name of the region may well be "Canterbury Region" not just "Canterbury" though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's only bots that miscategorize. Even if it were, and even if existing bots were fixed, new bots eventually come along and could have the same problem. Why not do all we can to help things get categorized correctly, or at worst have them end up on a dab page where someone will see that they need recategorizing? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Having the DAB at Category:Canterbury was what I was all I was recommending if needed, DABing the English cats further could be problematic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: All the incorrectly placed files in this category at the time of the CFD were result of the panoramio bot upload. When it comes to human categorisation errors, the biggest problems there aren't getting the wrong subject (ie Canterbury, England not Canterbury, NZ) but misunderstanding the boundary of the subject - which is a very different problem and cannot be solved by a rename.
- Utility to end-users (those looking for not those providing files) is paramount. If there is only the occasional misplaced file and avoiding ambiguity makes it much harder for people to find images of the primary term then we should not make that move. Primary subject categories can be policed for the occasional incorrect file just as easily as a dab category. That's particularly true in cases like this, where the main category should be empty (content for the English Canterbury should be in sub-cats). We could develop a bot to detect errors like New Zealand files in this category, and that is a much better solution than disambiguating, as it doesn't impact on end-users.
- On the other hand if there is a chronic problem with incorrect files constantly getting misplaced, by a wide variety of users (ie not a single bot) then the risk of an end-user selecting an incorrect file is substantial and offsets any ease-of-use benefit. That means disambiguating. The difference is that there is a negative impact on end-users. We ought to move categories for them, not just to make categorising "easier" for ourselves.
- With regards to the target of the move: If we want to actually eliminate ambiguity for the term "Canterbury" then Canterbury, Kent, is NOT acceptable as a destination for either English term. Neither of them could be put before the other without causing problems. As a result of that, I oppose moving this category to Category:Canterbury, Kent and would want to see a better solution.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Another qualified name would be acceptable. It doesn't have to be Category:Canterbury, Kent. That was just the best I could think of at the time. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's only bots that miscategorize. Even if it were, and even if existing bots were fixed, new bots eventually come along and could have the same problem. Why not do all we can to help things get categorized correctly, or at worst have them end up on a dab page where someone will see that they need recategorizing? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment maybe Category:Marlborough should also be included in this as that one appears to have a weaker claim. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. Separate case. Similar but distinct issues (eg two Canterburys in Kent, but one Marlborough in Essex) - and we already have a confusing mess of CFDs open. This one is simple as a single CFD.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What about moving it to Category:Canterbury (town)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Canterbury, Connecticut is also a town and people would probably object to the "town" qualifier due to the fact it has city status even though that's actually held by the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Good point. Then I lean towards keeping it as is and having people fix errors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- It should probably be a DAB given that we have a higher threshold then WP for PTs noting that Category:Christchurch and Category:Wellington and Category:Perth are DABs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that to DAB. Quite massive Category:Canterbury (disambiguation) should be a sufficient proof--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this as stale. It doesn't seem like there's a consensus to implement any of the alternatives that have been suggested and the last comment is from 3 years ago. So the CfD is clearly DOA. It sounds like changing it would cause problems with a bot anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
See also: en:Talk:Ukrainian Skycutter. I suggest renaming this to Ukrainian Skycutter per en:Ukrainian Skycutter English wiki. Current name also causes confusion, I just removed half of the images there which were based on the Polish Eagle coat of arms. On en wiki, Polish Eagle redirects to en:Coat of arms of Poland. Also, this is a pigeon, not an eagle. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support, it's a good suggestion to avoid confusion with polski koguta (scnr). --Achim (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- On en:List of pigeon breeds we see Polish Eagle as well as Polish Orlik, pl:Rasy gołębia reads orlik polski. So we could move & redirect to either Category:Polish Orlik or Category:Ukrainian Skycutter. And Category:Polish Eagle could be a disambiguating cat so that one can see uploads (or moves) showing up at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. --Achim (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- One weird thing is that the pl wiki doesn't have a page for this, doesn't mention it in the pl:Orlik disambig, and Orlik in Poland does refer to an eagle, not pigeon. It is not a hoax, but I would be curious to find out who came up with a name. Oh well, I am off to stub this pigeon on pl wiki.PS. Upon further investigation, this is a mess en:Talk:Ukrainian_Skycutter#Name. It seems that Ukrainian Skycutter is an improper name for 4 breeds, not sure how we should handle it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Polish Eagle is not identical with Ukrainian Skycutter (but may derived from then, if Ukrainian Skycutter refers to the Nikolayev tumbler the group of Nikolayev tumblers).
- "Polish eagle" is the english name of the breed (no 0963 in EE-List of the breeds of fancy pigeons)
another referenced name of the breed is "Polish Orlik"(pl:Orlik polski) ("Orlik" is polish word for "eagle"). The Polish Eagle is derived from the Nikolayev tumbler (after WWI). That happened in Lublin and Wilna, so there were two types ofPolishOrlik tubler pigeons: the Lublin type and the Wilna type. ""Polish Eagle" refers to the Lublin pigeon. Category:Polish Wilna Eagle (EE-No 0964) is the breed that derived from the Wilna type (pl:Orlik Wilenski). (see also http://www.entente-ee.com/wp-content/uploads/Liste-Querverweisung-Deutsche-Rassename-Nationale-Rassename.pdf ee-list of original national names of pigeon breeds]) - The NPA (US) does just know the "Polish Orlik (Ukranian Skycutter)" [sic!]. And as it was given on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Skycutter#Name it is a bit messy and not helpful at all. I would be happy if we could have categories on commons for specific breeds (as specific as possible) and not for some rather unspecified groups of flying pigeons.
- It may be an option to move Category:Polish Eagle to Category:Polish Eagle (pigeon) and to have a category disambiguation on Category:Polish Eagle (with pigeon and coat of arms). Polish Orlik (US, NPA) may at least refer to the breeds Polish Eagle and Polnish Wilna Eagle if not also to the Nikolayev tumblers and other pigeon breeds derived from it (show Nikolayev tumbler, Nikolayev shield tumbler, nikolayev highflyer, nikolayev roller and others. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Very specific topic. The same question is discussed at en:Talk:Ukrainian Skycutter--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD was started in 2017 and there has been no consensus to make the suggested changes since then. Worse the last comment is from the same year. So I'm closing this as no consensus due to being DOA. From the comments it seems like they are different birds anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
all hamlets or Villages moved to Monalcino, seen that San Giovanni d'Asso is since 1st Jan 2017 part of Montalcino LigaDue (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @LigaDue: can we redirect this category to Category:Villages in Montalcino?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Estopedist1: , sincerely i have no idea. If you redirect, you will find there also the other villages of Montalcino, who have not been part of former San Giovanni d’Asso. Sorry for not beeing very helpful, best regards LigaDue (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD is from 2017, the last comment was in 2021, and there doesn't seem to be a clear path forward. So I'm closing it as "no consensus." Anyone who disagrees is free to start a new one with a clear solution in the future. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Rename Category:Icons of Jesus Christ. Zoupan (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Icons expressing the "christ" attribute of Jesus can be a specific sort of icons representing the person of Jesus. i.e. "Christ icons" may be a subcategory of "Icons of Jesus Christ". E.g. a stylized letter "X" is a icon of Christ while a crucifix is symbol of Jesus but not specifically as Christ. Moreover, the Jewish title "christ" (Greek translation of Messiah) existed before Jesus a can have some symbols which was originally not related to Jesus. --ŠJů (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Symbols have their own categories. Subject is Jesus Christ.--Zoupan (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Are you suggesting that we should leave Category:Christ icons but create a separate sub-category Category:Icons of Jesus Christ for all the content currently in this category? Your arguments may be technically correct, but I'm not sure the result would be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Support for Category:Icons of Jesus Christ which fits well into the parent Category:Icons (art) by subject--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Support Category:Icons of Jesus Christ
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Rename to Category:Icons of Jesus Christ | |||
| Actions | Renamed and redirected the category to Category:Icons of Jesus Christ | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Most of the Alberta MD cats were created a few years ago with ‘sortable’ names lacking the formal prefix, like this one’s parent, a practice I have emulated myself. This more recent one has the full formal name. It happens to be empty because all its content belonged in the more specific Fort Macleod, but rather than speedy it I thought it might be worth discussing if the longer name is actually better, considering that sort-keys are easy. I have no particular preference, but would volunteer to standardize the rest according to any consensus reached here. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: I can understand your concern. The automatic sortability of Category:Willow Creek No. 26 is certainly convenient, but it's not immediately apparent to people what that category is for, unless they happen to be familiar with the municipal districts and counties of Alberta. Longer names would be clearer, but quite longer. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Odysseus1479: user:Themightyquill made the correct point. I see that enwiki already follows this "longer names would be clearer, but quite longer"-principle. Compare eg enwiki en:Municipal District of Willow Creek No. 26 vs Commons Category:Willow Creek No. 26--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Category deleted | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Category deleted as redundant to Category:Willow Creek No. 26 since that seems to be how similar categories are named and it's important to follow the Universality Principle. If anyone disagrees they are free to start another CfD further up the category tree. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Should be renamed to "minus signs" Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Safe to assume this applies equally to Category:+ ? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know. I agree that a rename would be good, but to me, minus and plus signs would include those used in math, and that doesn't seem to be the purpose of this category. Is there an official/technical term for when these signs are used as part of a symbol this way? How about "Minus signs used in symbols" or something similar? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Valid point, though most of the images don't exactly feature - either. They just include various Category:No entrance signs with a thick horizontal line in a circle. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete--47.151.26.64 02:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete category:- – U+002D is an inherently ambiguous character. Mixing stuff about arithmetic and orthography in one category isn’t a good idea. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's supposedly ambiguous, but so are straight horizontal lines. Where do you propose to put graphics of this symbol when it's not clear whether it's supposed to be a hyphen, minus, en-dash, or a symbol made by someone who doesn't care about the difference between any of those? --Closeapple (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- If an image is that ambiguous about symbols depicted, then the category should not suggest that it is something definite. I won’t object against Hyphen-minus for images intentionally depicting U+002D, such as the image at the left. Not so for images where «-» is ignorantly used as a substitute for «−» or anything else, and is subject to editing out in any time by typography nazis like myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: Misplaced "-" is now online. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Pigsonthewing, Themightyquill, Incnis Mrsi, and Closeapple: Although enwiki en:- is redirected to "hyphen-minus" (Commons equivalent Category:Hyphen-minuses), what about if we transform the nominated category into disambiguation page?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about not, Category:Hyphen-minuses is obtuse as all get out and Commons categories don't need to follow enwiki exactly anyway. Nor should it in a lot of cases. This being one of the cases where it clearly shouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, any consensus on this? Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Both categories for + and - have been redirected to "Plus signs" and "Minus signs" respectively. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Exists solely to contain the intersection category Category:Taken with Canon EOS 1100D and Helios-44M-4, also under discussion. grendel|khan 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete useless intersection category. --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There's a similar CfD from around the same time as this one involving more categories that I recently closed as "no consensus." So I'm going to close this as a consensus to delete, but with no action due to the low turnout and there being a different outcome in a similar DR. These types of categories should really be grouped together in a similar CfD at the next highest level or in a proposal to deal with them all in one go instead of having 15 discussions related to the same topic that all have different outcomes. As there's no point in deleting a single category like this one if hundreds of others are going to exist in the meantime. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is solely a renaming discussion. Unlike in all other US states, all Virginia cities are outside counties; that's why this is a special case, why we can't have just "by county".
The use of "County-level jurisdiction" is unusual and may be confusing; the note at the top explains the situation well, but I think the situation would be clearer if we used "by county and city", or "by county or city". The only other US state with numerous non-county areas is Alaska, and its only subcategory (as far as I can tell) that explicitly covers both boroughs and census areas is Category:Locator maps of boroughs and census areas of Alaska, not "Locator maps of borough-level jurisdictions" or [since census areas aren't jurisdictions] "borough-level areas" or anything else. Aside from complicated terms such as the current title or "by county and county-equivalent", I can't think of alternate names that would suffice; there's no term in common use that would include both counties and cities while excluding all other jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- How about something like "by first-level subdivision" or "by first-level administrative subdivision"? I got the idea from Category:Categories by first-level administrative country subdivision. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- But first level of what? If we get rid of the current title, we need to replace it with something that's more recognizable; "county-level jurisdiction" conveys some common information (it's related to counties), and although someone unfamiliar with the state must read the notice at the top to see what non-county areas are included, they at least get a sense of its scope from the title. "First-level administrative subdivision" could mean plenty of other things that either Virginians or non-Virginians (or both) would find confusing, ranging from boroughs in a few cities to counties (and non-Virginians would wonder why we don't just say "counties") to municipalities, and people might encounter it and just see bureaucratese. Take out "administrative", and the situation is even less clear; someone could imagine that we were making a first-level subdivision between primary and secondary routes, for example. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- First-level subdivision of Virginia, the entity mentioned in the title. I guess I abbreviated my suggested category names too much: I meant "Roads in Virginia by first-level subdivision" or "Roads in Virginia by first-level administrative subdivision". Maybe "Roads in Virginia by first-level state subdivision" or "Roads in Virginia by first-level state administrative subdivision". I'm not sure that's the best option, but it's an option. Maybe just changing the existing name to "by county-level subdivision" would work. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- You and I know what that means, but will the average user? I strongly doubt it; the term isn't at all in common use. "County-level subdivision" still has the current problem, because most non-Virginians won't understand the appearance of the cities, and it also risks people misinterpreting it as containing subdivisions of county-level entities, comparable to townships in some states. Why not use "by county and city", since it's simple to understand and a good deal shorter than the current name or the names you proposed? Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Concur with Nyttend's latest suggestion. Famartin (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Actually... thinking about this more... maybe it would be best to have a category"Roads in Virginia by location" with subcategories "Roads in Virginia by city", "Roads in Virginia by county", "Roads in Virginia by town" (There's at least one of the latter already). This would make it least confusing. Famartin (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Since a town category exists, why not? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If an abundant number of images in towns are available, I'm okay with it. More appropriately, I'm willing to split some that are in this category into Category:Roads in Virginia by city, since there are so many independent cities in the state. ----DanTD (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since a town category exists, why not? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You and I know what that means, but will the average user? I strongly doubt it; the term isn't at all in common use. "County-level subdivision" still has the current problem, because most non-Virginians won't understand the appearance of the cities, and it also risks people misinterpreting it as containing subdivisions of county-level entities, comparable to townships in some states. Why not use "by county and city", since it's simple to understand and a good deal shorter than the current name or the names you proposed? Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- First-level subdivision of Virginia, the entity mentioned in the title. I guess I abbreviated my suggested category names too much: I meant "Roads in Virginia by first-level subdivision" or "Roads in Virginia by first-level administrative subdivision". Maybe "Roads in Virginia by first-level state subdivision" or "Roads in Virginia by first-level state administrative subdivision". I'm not sure that's the best option, but it's an option. Maybe just changing the existing name to "by county-level subdivision" would work. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | The category has already been redirected to Category:Roads in Virginia by county making this CfD moot. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
The Category:Burial grounds in Austria shows a redundancy. It has the subcategory Category:Cemeteries in Austria by state, which containsCategory:Cemeteries in Vorarlberg, which is the only entry of this category. The same problem exists with Category:Cemeteries in Vienna. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. Because there are no images of burial grounds in Vorarlberg aside from cemeteries, we should delete Category:Burial grounds in Vorarlberg? Same with Category:Burial grounds in Vienna? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Liberaler Humanist: I agree that redundant category layers. Solution per user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the categories as redundant | |||
| Actions | The categories have deleted as redundant per consensus. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is a duplicate category. We already have a category for this building, see here: Category:Hotel Iveria According to that, category should be delete Halavar (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nowadays this is not Hotel Iveria maybe we will make "Category:Hotel Iveria" as sub-category of Category:Radisson Blu Hotel, Tbilisi?--g. balaxaZe★ 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. This is the same building. Changing the name or renovation is not a reason to have 2 categories. Both ones display and show us the same building. We don't need duplicates. --Halavar (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can we rename to address, Category:1 Rose Revolution Square ? Or possibly Category:Radisson Blu Iveria Hotel, Tbilisi as per english wikipedia's name, Radisson Blu Iveria Hotel, Tbilisi ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Halavar and Giorgi Balakhadze: Would that work? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason for that. --Halavar (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Radisson Blu Iveria Hotel, Tbilisi seems good to me. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason for that. --Halavar (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. This is the same building. Changing the name or renovation is not a reason to have 2 categories. Both ones display and show us the same building. We don't need duplicates. --Halavar (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. At the moment the category in question is empty and the files are moved to Category:Hotel Iveria. Can we do a redirect, and after that the discussion can be closed? @Giorgi Balakhadze, Halavar, and Themightyquill: --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Ok, I agree. --Halavar (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Redirect to Category:Hotel Iveria. | |||
| Actions | The category has been redirected to Category:Hotel Iveria. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Redundant with Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos. Merge one way or the other. Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- no, not the same. St. John often (in main cat Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos) is just sitting on the ground of the island (and writes, for example). And sometimes he has the vision in the sky (rare). For such images - Category:Vision of Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos . ----Shakko (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Shakko. Any reason not to merge the other way, into Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos? Do we really need a separate category for images of him experiencing a vision? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- yes, we need. We have separate categories for various types of iconography, it's normal. Also please note that this cat is also subcat of Category:Visions of christian saints, and we can't put there whole Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos. --Shakko (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why not? Category: Peter of Alexandria is in Category:Visions of christian saints (which, incidentally, should be capitalized properly). I'm not suggesting putting the entire Category:Saint John the Evangelist in the same category, but on Patmos, his notable actions were a) having a vision and b) recording the vision, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Peter of Alexandria" is not right categorized, not good example. We have separate categories for different types of iconography, for paintings by detail, it is normal for Commons. This is the category for images were John see something strange in the sky. Main category is for images when he doesn't see, with clear sky. Different types of iconography with different names of paintings. No need to merge it. Shakko (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Shakko. Any reason not to merge the other way, into Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos? Do we really need a separate category for images of him experiencing a vision? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I might add that Category:Claudia Procula seems to be similarly categorized. Category:Visions of christian saints also contains Category:Apocalypse (i.e. Saint John the Evangelist's vision on Patmos), which is a parent category for Category:Vision of Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos, so we have a bit of a problem with COM:OVERCAT as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- renamed to Category:Visions of Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos, the files moved to category:Paintings of Vision of Saint John the Evangelist (Woman of the Apocalypse), category:Vision of the Seven Candlesticks, category:Paintings of Saint John the Evangelist at Patmos and other. Please close the nomination --Shakko (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. It seems we can close it, thanks to User:Shakko. Without knowing the topic in detail, the solution seems to be acceptable. Any objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | Admittedly I didn't read most of the discussion because it's TLDR, but the category has already been redirect to Category:Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos anyway, which seems like the right outcome. So I'm closing this as stale and/or already resolved. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Apparently German stamps review - high priority is populated by manually selected files in German stamps review. However, this procedure violates COM:OVERCAT. It could be fixed by moving the (at the moment five) remaining files to Possibly unfree images (at the moment 62), and deleting this then empty category. Alternatively this category could be a sub-category of Possibly unfree images instead of German stamps review.
Background: I wondered how Lion Feuchtwanger-stamp.jpg made it to high priority, because I considered to use a similar effect for DBP 1958 284 Rudolf Diesel.jpg inspired by a reuse of this file as PD. –2A03:2267:0:0:5443:FFC2:23F9:CD9A 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Re your second question; Did you not notice that the image here, claimed to be PD is a 2017 copy of File:DBP 1958 284 Rudolf Diesel.jpg that was uploaded here by the same NobbiP in 2008 as attributed in both places?
Re; the main question I think it should have taken less time to deplete this category due to the difficult nature of this matter. Ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ad 1, sure, I'm quite willing to fix the category in five files, followed by a "speedy" for the category; or flip the parent-category, if that's what folks here prefer. Ad 2, yes, that's how I stumbled over this apparently dead project. Whatever it is, it's not a simple TOO case. Of course I silently hope that somebody addresses the real issue, the maybe-PD state of the stamp. –2A03:2267:0:0:247A:1D8F:608F:310C 18:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Not discussion about category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:German stamps review - high priority or Commons talk:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review (may be a dead WikiProject), or at concrete, problematic files. Currently, the nominated category has 4 files and all of them are provided with template {{PD-German stamps}}. I think we can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the category | |||
| Actions | The category was deleted due to being empty and totally pointless | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Suggest this category be renamed George Selwyn (bishop). The current name is from the Wikipedia article, which identifies Selwn as Bishop of Lichfield but also as Bishop of New Zealand. The Wikimedia category includes images indicating both his positions. So a more general title would be appropriate, encompassing both his roles. Drbones1950 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support, unless anyone can find another notable bishop named George Selwyn. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, that might be the reason the name was chosen.. because en:George Selwyn (bishop of Tinnevelly) exists. That said, we don't currently have any photos of that bishop... - Themightyquill (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Opposed I can't see the point of renaming this category when there is another bishop of this name. Schwede66 23:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Drbones1950, Themightyquill, and Schwede66: logical category name is the suggested Category:George Selwyn (bishop). If we will have files from other same name bishops, the situation will be re-evaluated. In addition, we still miss the DAB Category:George Selwyn, see en:George Selwyn--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | No action was taken because there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change things and the last comment was in 2021. So the CfD is clearly DOA. Anyone who disagrees with the outcome is free to start a new CfD with a clearer solution. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/03 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/04 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/05 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/06 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/07 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/08 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/09 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/10 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/11 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/12