Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/05
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2025 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive May 2017
Error in spelling. "equipment" not "equipement". The category should be renamed. Zaccarias (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Typo fixed: Category:Military equipment of the Canadian Forces - Themightyquill (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo User:Pitpisit (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 07:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo Pitpisit (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 07:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo User:Pitpisit (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: emoty cat. --JuTa 07:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo User:Pitpisit (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: emoty cat. --JuTa 07:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo User:Pitpisit (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no cat. User:Pitpisit (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no cat. User:Pitpisit (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Interswiss is not a real airline. The files were already deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interswiss747.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interswiss767.jpg. Novarupta (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Iran. The statue is a recent work (2007 by Zhinet Shahbazian according to File:Archbishop Khachatour Kesaratsi (Isfahan, Iran) 003.jpg) 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Withdrawn. --Achim (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
no cat or photo Pitpisit (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Please delete category. There is already one called Videos of World War I. Thanks Catfishmo (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominated by creator. Deleted. @Catfishmo: If you make a mistake like this, just place {{Badname|<goodname>}} (e.g. {{Bad name|Videos of World War I}}) on the bad category to nominate it for deletion. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!! Another question--Regarding the discussion about the World War 1 Colour Photos category: How long is an issue open for discussion, and who makes the final decision? I started this whole adventure because I wanted to do a blog post about color photos of WW1. But now I don't want to do the post and reference that category if it is going to be changed or deleted. What do you suggest? Also, now that there are so many photos in that category, I think it needs subcategories (Color artillery, color vehicles, color uniforms, etc) I don't mind getting it all organized, but again, don't want to start until the category name is ironed out and I am assured the category won't be eliminated. Thanks!--Catfishmo (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Empty, possible vandalism—no evident purpose anyway, and edit summary at creation suggests unconstructive intent. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted as vandalism. Daphne Lantier 00:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this a duplicate of Category:Bridges in the Republic of Macedonia? I was going to add cats to this one, or else merge it, but I wasn't sure which Macedonia (country, region, etc.) this one was for. Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake. The cat is twice. Category:Bridges in Macedonia can be delete or change to a redirect. I meant the country. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I've tagged it with {{Bad name}}, so it will probably be deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no cat. User:Pitpisit (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
delete, replaced by Rotebühlstraße (Stuttgart) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Flagged with {{Category renamed}}, so it will probably be deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Jcb. Daphne Lantier 01:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Same as Category:Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque, but implausibly misspelled. 4 files were already merged into the other category. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. Redirect not useful I think. --Achim (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Recommend deletion. The term "downtown" isn't really used in San Juan, and intuitively could refer to either Old San Juan or to Hato Rey. Previous contents of this category have been distributed to either Category:Old San Juan or Category:Hato Rey. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Alternately, it could be kept with both Category:Old San Juan and Category:Hato Rey as subcategories. That would keep Puerto Rico in the Category:Downtowns in the United States category tree. If the decision is to delete, Category:Downtowns in Puerto Rico should also be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't object to that approach to keeping the category, but it could be mildly awkward: Old San Juan and Hato Rey aren't two parts of the same downtown district; they're two separate, non-contiguous areas. Old San Juan is the historic center with most of the big governmental functions. Hato Rey has more of the high-rise/financial district. (In between is Santurce, a large residential/hospitality/low-intensity business area.)— Ipoellet (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Delete both "Downtowns". I lived in Puerto Rico for 20 years and the term "downtown" was never and has never been used. The other categories listed here in regard to San Juan just about cover what ever is needes to be covered. Marine 69-71 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Marine 69-71 and Ipoellet: I recognize that people from San Juan might never use the term, but outsiders might reasonably what to know what areas of the city might be considered its downtown. What about a move to Category:Downtowns in San Juan, Puerto Rico so that there's no expectation that either of these neighbourhoods is considered the downtown, or that they are congiguous areas? - Themightyquill (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I look at the other categories in the hierarchy under Category:Downtowns, these "downtown" categories seem to use "downtown" as a generic term in a lot of places where that specific word wouldn't be used. In fact, as far as I know, the word isn't used much at all outside the United States and Canada. The "downtown" categories seem to be embracing what might be more internationally termed "city centres" or "central business districts". So, on the one hand, I am starting to question the use of that word at all in the entire category hierarchy. But on the other hand, given that it is being used in a generic sense, it could apply in Puerto Rico to Old San Juan, Hato Rey, and to the pueblo in most (or all?) of the other municipalities. But why do we need Category:Downtown San Juan, Puerto Rico or Category:Downtowns in San Juan, Puerto Rico as an intermediate hierarchical level? We could just put Category:Old San Juan and Category:Hato Rey directly into Category:Downtowns in Puerto Rico. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, that latter suggestion works as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done that on the assumption that deletion of Category:Downtown San Juan, Puerto Rico will follow. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Category deleted and subcategories moved to Category:Downtowns in Puerto Rico. Thanks, Ipoellet. Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Category should be named "Photographs taken by Robert Yarnall Richie" or similar. Shouldn't this category be a hidden category too? Zaccarias (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Should be named Category:Photographs by Robert Yarnall Richie. Should be categorized under Category:Photographs by photographer and not under the people categories it's now in. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done. This category remains also because there is a photograph of himself too. This discussion can be closed. --Zaccarias (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. Richie's work moved to "photographs by" subcat as per User:Zaccarias. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hungary did not participate in WLM 2014 - category was created by error. Emptied it. Effeietsanders (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Hystrix 25 May 2015. --Achim (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Turkey Gaziantep 27020 95.12.45.244 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
no category Pitpisit (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 02:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
no cat/photo Pitpisit (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank --Pitpisit (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
ششششششششششششششش 2.180.228.126 06:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do, request by an IP from Iran. --Achim (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This category shall be deleted. It is empty and it is a duplicate of Category:Hôtel de Belzunce (Bayonne) that already existed when this category was created. Telford (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- These should definitely be merged. The general standard format is that parentheses are used to disambiguate by type (e.g. Category:Birdman (rapper) vs Category:Birdman (film)), and comma used to differentiate by location. (e.g. Category:<street/object/place>, <location>) so I would tend to argue for a merge in the other direction, but it doesn't matter too much. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hôtel de Belzunce, Bayonne. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This category should be deleted because the "first 100 days" of a US President is an arbitrary time period and isn't meaningful for Commons. The files here should go into the "Donald Trump in <month year>" categories. Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's a category with the ten best official photos of the first 100 days. The White House elected the ten best photos. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then, if we keep the category, it should have a more specific name. With the current name, it could contain anything from the first 100 days. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The page in question describes these photos as "just a few highlights from President Trump's First 100 Days" not "the ten best official photos from the first 100 days." People who care can vote for their favourite. That doesn't seem notable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'd advocate Delete and upmerge the content. "Donald Trump's first 100 Days" is fine for a Wikipedia article, but is too vague and arbitrary to categorise images. Sionk (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
NGC 4261-elliptical -the structure reveals Vortex mode process-dual mode vortexDMVT process -heart distributes Flow-field Energy under magnetic fields-included in my paper sent to iEEE Space plasmas-1996 by V nanduri Upanyaya (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Upanyaya: I'm not sure what you want done with this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing as keep. Possibly an accidental nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Wwe on network 209.59.90.254 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Spam or accidental nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Wwe on network 209.59.90.254 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Spam or accidental nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Wwe on network 209.59.90.226 14:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Spam or accidental nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The only file contained in here was File:Presidential residence shangrila.JPG a part of the Lake Resort. Someone obviously didn't understand the title. Takeaway (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- No need for a redirect. Please delete. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Name of location does not exist. It was only created for this one, incorrectly named, file -> File:Upper shangrilla.jpg Takeaway (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- redirect unnecessary, please delete.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. There is no Meier glacier in Pakistan. There is however an incorrectly named file picturing Miar glacier. The creator of the category is notorious for creating new categories from incorrect file names. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry. Please name correctly. I'm trying to be more accurate in naming. Please forgive. Thank you. Kalbbes (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Miar Glacier. @Rupert Pupkin: Please remember to assume good faith. Critiquing users with terms like "notorious" is not helpful unless you know the user is intentionally causing problems. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
empty no cat. Pitpisit (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It displays Template:Empty category to administrators, which is basically: Don’t delete me, I’m part of the system. Do you want to remove that category from the system of unidentified logos? For which reason? -- 32X (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As might be expected, the category is no longer empty. Anything with the "empty category" template would need a strong reason for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Neural therapy. Leyo 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, das Duplikat kann gern gelöscht werden! Please delete the Duplicate!--Couraco (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done --Leyo 21:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I moved the category to a more correct name (Coat of arms of the Paris Prévôt des marchands) and I think this redirect should disappear (it's empty and misnamed) Seudo (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Seudo: Then why not tag with {{Category renamed}}? This doesn't seem to need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do that. I read Commons:Categories for discussion before, but probably not well enough. Seudo (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. @Seudo: Move/rename and delete categories like that if the change is obvious. If you think it might be controversial, please nominate for CFD before moving the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
My reason got lost in the process: I just created Category:Hary Parbat (with capital P) and redirected Hari parbat there. But I'm just wondering if this mispelled category is needed at all. Any suggestions? --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
No redirect needed for different capitalizations. Various autocategorization gadgets account for that. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Category emptied. There is no danyore river, images showed Gilgit river between the cities of gilgit and danyor(e). Please delete Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rupert Pupkin: It's not empty now. When it is, you can tag with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I only removed the cat from the files... I tried empty page. Leads to speedy deletion. Does that apply to categories? --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the empty page template, which applies speedy delete, works for different kinds of pages, including categories. It can be used in many cases instead of using CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, could have avoided some cfds if I had known before... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. @Rupert Pupkin: With obvious cases like this, definitely feel free to empty out categories and use that template in the future, but please use the CFD if the deletion might be controversial. -
Please delete, category was named after an incorrectly named file. There is no such glacier near Khunjerab Pass, and Hunza river doesn't even come from Khunjerab pass. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Move the image to the narrowest category that is accurate, and correct the description. You can use {{Fact disputed}} if you want to point out why the existing description/title is inaccurate without being able to improve it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the template, maybe I can use it somewhere else... The category can still be deleted. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Rupert Pupkin: This file seems like the perfect place to use it. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the template, maybe I can use it somewhere else... The category can still be deleted. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
no cat and photo. User:Pitpisit (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Contains Category:Jose Cojuangco House. Subject seems highly notable. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
no cat and photo. Pitpisit (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Contains Category:Alexis G. Santos National High School. Alexis seems to be the son of en:Alejo Santos but may not be notable otherwise. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Alexis G. Santos is one of the 8 children of Alejo Santos and the School was named after his son who became a Martyr according to tradition of history as stated verbally when I went to the school from the teachers and the elders but no written history about him; his martyrdom caused his name to be engraved in this landmark school of Liciada, Bustos; hence, I respectfully submit the above facts about this son of Gen. Santos; I went to the Principal's office and even asked the teachers about the history and photo of this child of General Santos but they failed to produce since it was long time ago; sincerely -Judgefloro 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (talk)
- If wikipedia has no article aobut Alexis G. Santos, and there is no written history of him, and we have no photos of him, and the school named after him has no photos of him, I find it doubtful that we will ever had additional content for this category, aside from one category for the school named after him. I'd suggest deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Bulacan Military Area Monument in Bustos, Bulacan Category:Alejo Santos Memorial Shrine and Museum (Bulacan Military Area, Bustos, Bulacan) In this Museum, which is most of the time closed, since the owner claims privacy, the owner is allegedly one of the living sons of General Alejo Santos, perforce, this museum has, in my wild guess a photo of the Alejo Santos Family which includes Alexis, and maybe the latter's martyrdom account; this comming June, is opening of classes and if I have time I will try to interview the Principal of the School about Alexis story and photos if any; hence, I have no objection to the deletion, sincerely yours, -Judgefloro 18:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
| Authority control |
Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Szczebrzeszynski: Can you explain your concerns about this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing as accidental nomination? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Recommend category for deleltion. All art images are captured in Category:Artwork of the Auxiliary Territorial Service at the Imperial War Museum as the only present images are from the Imperial War Museum. Memorial images are captured in Category:Auxiliary Territorial Service memorial so this category serves no purpose at present. Labattblueboy (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Parent of both Category:Artwork of the Auxiliary Territorial Service at the Imperial War Museum & Category:Auxiliary Territorial Service memorial. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Andy Mabett's suggestion seems logical to me. They are both art. It might be different if the memorial was just a column or something, but it's clearly an artistic representation of the ATS. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
No further discussion in a month. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Katarzyna_Mo%C5%9B Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like it have to be renamed to Kasia Moś - the name under which she is widely known. Так виглядає, що треба перейменувати на Kasia Moś, тобто на те ім`я, під яким вона широко відома. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I guess this discussion should be closed. Kasia is the name she goes by and the name of singer's main article on Wikipedia. I've already moved all photos to 'Kasia Mos' category and requested 'Katarzyna Mos' to be merged with 'Kasia Mos'. ArturSik (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Katarzyna Moś moved to Category:Kasia Moś and deleted by Hedwig in Washington. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Propose moving it and all subcats to "Seaside shelters"; cats for things are named in the plural, and "Shelter" should not be capitalised as it is not a proper noun. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Kolforn (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that Category:Seaside shelters by country wasn't particularly needed so long as there's only one country involved. But I've fixed the category and its sub-categories for style nonetheless, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. I created it unintetionally as aduplicate of Concordia (Pakistan). (which I was unable to find at first...) Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Can we just create a redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. That's possible... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- did so and removed the cat for discussion template. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Concordia (Baltoro) redirected to Category:Concordia (Pakistan). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Should be 'Fleurons', plural, which is currently a redirect to the singualr form. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know why I didn't do that, go ahead and move it. Cheers, cygnis insignis 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fleurons. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note the description of the category: "Thermal power plants, in the sense of Commons, are power plants that draw their source of power from thermal energy that was ALREADY of a different temperature before being used in the plant. This category should NOT contain plants fired by coal, rubbish etc..." This is completely at odds with its contents, which are generally fossil fuel power stations. Also see the by country subscategories, e.g., Germany. I think geothermal plants are the only type that would fit the description (there may be some designs for generating power from different sea levels, and maybe other things, but I don't think they are widely used.) Since most types of power plants do generate electricity from heat, and we also have Category:Fossil fuel-fired power plants, I suggest deleting this category. --ghouston (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree the current contents don't match the current commons category description. There is, however, a wikipedia article with a rather different definition: "A thermal power station is a power plant in which heat energy is converted to electric power." So either we delete, or we just change the description. We do have Category:Thermal energy, so in some ways, the latter option might make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's also an option. Plants that convert heat differences to electricity would include fossil fuel-fired plants (as a subcategory), as well as geothermal, nuclear, biomass and some types of solar plants (as en:Thermal power station says), so would cover the majority of Category:Power plants by type. --ghouston (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's strange that en:Category:Fossil fuel power stations is linked to fr:Catégorie:Centrale thermique (which doesn't include nuclear or geothermal), considering that fr:Centrale_thermique also seems to have an all-inclusive definition and is linked to en:Thermal power station. --ghouston (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's also an option. Plants that convert heat differences to electricity would include fossil fuel-fired plants (as a subcategory), as well as geothermal, nuclear, biomass and some types of solar plants (as en:Thermal power station says), so would cover the majority of Category:Power plants by type. --ghouston (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll update it with a description that matches the Wikipedia article. --ghouston (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Категорія була дублем вже існуючої категорії пам'ятки ВЛЗ (Category:Piskovykova Skelia), яка мала більше фото та прив'язку до сторінки ВЛЗ. Отже, фото з цієї категорії було перенесено до вищезгаданої, а ця категорія має бути видалена. WDKeeper (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @WDKeeper: а навіщо знищувати? Помилки в назві відсутні, навіть назва населеного пункту вказана — комусь може для пошуку згодитися.
Пропоную перенести весь потрібний вміст і поставити там {{Category redirect|Piskovykova Skelia}}. --Djadjko (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)- @Djadjko: Прошу пробачення, що так сталося. Лише після того, як я об'єднав категорії і запропонував на вилучення ту, що стала пустою, я натрапив на опис принципів влаштування категорій, і побачивши там напис, що категорії це не дерево, це графи - зрозумів що накоїв. Більше так не робитиму. На жаль, знайти сторінку з хелпом по категоріям було таки дуже непросто, спочатку я її шукав, щоб розібратись з принципами як там все працює, і з хвилин 20 шукав, і нічого не знайшовши вирішив все робити методами реінжинірінгу. І лише потім випадково знайшов потрібну сторінку. Часом, в Вікіпроектах сторінки та лінки між ними починають нагадувати якісь лабіринти гіперпростору, де неможливо знайти потрібну інформацію, яку наче усього кілька годин тому читав. Звісно це не може бути абсолютним виправданням. Тож прошу пробачення. --WDKeeper (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @WDKeeper: ясно. Про документацію згоден повністю — при знаходженні корисної сторінки її треба одразу в закладки. Не переймайтеся, працюйте далі, натхнення вам! --Djadjko (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Djadjko: Прошу пробачення, що так сталося. Лише після того, як я об'єднав категорії і запропонував на вилучення ту, що стала пустою, я натрапив на опис принципів влаштування категорій, і побачивши там напис, що категорії це не дерево, це графи - зрозумів що накоїв. Більше так не робитиму. На жаль, знайти сторінку з хелпом по категоріям було таки дуже непросто, спочатку я її шукав, щоб розібратись з принципами як там все працює, і з хвилин 20 шукав, і нічого не знайшовши вирішив все робити методами реінжинірінгу. І лише потім випадково знайшов потрібну сторінку. Часом, в Вікіпроектах сторінки та лінки між ними починають нагадувати якісь лабіринти гіперпростору, де неможливо знайти потрібну інформацію, яку наче усього кілька годин тому читав. Звісно це не може бути абсолютним виправданням. Тож прошу пробачення. --WDKeeper (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Перенаправляю на Category:Piskovykova Skelia (дані туди вже перенесено). --Djadjko (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominate for deletion. There was already a category called "Category:World War I military training" so I moved the photos from here to there. Catfishmo (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would make sense to keep a redirect, no? I don't care which way it goes. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:World War I military training. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Request to delete category: "Military communications equipment in World War I" (There is already a category called Category:Communications equipment in World War I Catfishmo (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the nominator created both categories. There is a Category:Military communications equipment so maybe keeping "military" in the title would make sense for consistency. It's not going to cover non-military communications equipment used between 1914 and 1918, right? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Military communications equipment in World War I. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Категорія дублювала іншу (Category:Vyhody Arkozovyh piskovykiv), яка містила більше файлів. Файли з неї було перенесено до вищевказаної категорії. Тепер категорія пуста і повинна бути видалена. WDKeeper (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- А тут назва категорії незв'язна, можна й видалити... --Djadjko (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Виставляю на видалення (краще вже хай буде оригінальне Category:Vyhody Arkozovyh piskovykiv, ніж поганий переклад). --Djadjko (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
suggest moving to just Category:Big Bird - unlikely that any other famous big bird is going to be known as "Big Bird" Closeapple (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but it might get generic pictures of big birds. Given other cases where we get bad categorization like that, I think this should remain qualified. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Auntof6 while having the Wikipedia article at Big Bird is probably OK, it could easily get images of large birds, this is an example of where more precision is needed on Commons than Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale and Auntof6: Would Category:Big Bird (Sesame Street) work? Otherwise, at the least, "Muppet" should be capitalized — it's a proper noun. --Closeapple (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I guess that would work, but I think the Muppet qualifier is better. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find any naming conventions but I would note that w:Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters has the topics disambiguated with "(Sesame Street)" like w:Rosita (Sesame Street). Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I guess that would work, but I think the Muppet qualifier is better. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Big Bird (Sesame Street). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems that many of these flags are tagged with {{Terrorist symbolism/en}}. I should think that would be enough, though I have nominated that template for discussion as well. The parent categories for this category make little sense. Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't know. I noticed Germany banned Kurdish symbols including the PKK in March due to the diplomatic spat between Turkey and Germany. Supreme Dragon (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how that justifies a category for these images. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'd argue to simply delete this category - who defines "Terrorist"? It's a subjective term! Sionk (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sionk: You may have thoughts on this CFD as well: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Terrorists. Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete per above. Btw it doesn't keep symbolism but symbols. --Achim (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sionk: You may have thoughts on this CFD as well: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Terrorists. Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Categories by faith
[edit]I'm proposing that categories of churches by faith be renamed to categories by denomination. The standard naming seems to be to use "by denomination" to distinguish between different subsets of Christianity. That can be seen at Category:Categories by denomination (flat list). Since churches are by definition Christian, they should follow that standard, but for some reason the ones in the United States use "by faith" instead. Here is a list of the categories including in this request (click on the heading to see them):
- Category:Churches in Alabama by faith
- Category:Churches in Alaska by faith
- Category:Churches in Arizona by faith
- Category:Churches in Arkansas by faith
- Category:Churches in Baltimore by faith
- Category:Churches in Boston by faith
- Category:Churches in California by faith
- Category:Churches in Colorado by faith
- Category:Churches in Connecticut by faith
- Category:Churches in Delaware by faith
- Category:Churches in Florida by faith
- Category:Churches in Georgia (U.S. state) by faith
- Category:Churches in Guam by faith
- Category:Churches in Hawaii by faith
- Category:Churches in Idaho by faith
- Category:Churches in Illinois by faith
- Category:Churches in Indiana by faith
- Category:Churches in Iowa by faith
- Category:Churches in Kansas by faith
- Category:Churches in Kentucky by faith
- Category:Churches in Louisiana by faith
- Category:Churches in Maine by faith
- Category:Churches in Maryland by faith
- Category:Churches in Masovian Voivodeship by faith
- Category:Churches in Massachusetts by faith
- Category:Churches in Michigan by faith
- Category:Churches in Minnesota by faith
- Category:Churches in Mississippi by faith
- Category:Churches in Missouri by faith
- Category:Churches in Montana by faith
- Category:Churches in Nebraska by faith
- Category:Churches in Nevada by faith
- Category:Churches in New Hampshire by faith
- Category:Churches in New Jersey by faith
- Category:Churches in New Mexico by faith
- Category:Churches in New Orleans by faith
- Category:Churches in New York City by faith
- Category:Churches in New York by faith
- Category:Churches in North Carolina by faith
- Category:Churches in North Dakota by faith
- Category:Churches in Ohio by faith
- Category:Churches in Oklahoma by faith
- Category:Churches in Oregon by faith
- Category:Churches in Pennsylvania by faith
- Category:Churches in Puerto Rico by faith
- Category:Churches in Rhode Island by faith
- Category:Churches in Seattle by faith
- Category:Churches in South Carolina by faith
- Category:Churches in South Dakota by faith
- Category:Churches in Tennessee by faith
- Category:Churches in Texas by faith
- Category:Churches in Utah by faith
- Category:Churches in Vermont by faith
- Category:Churches in Virginia by faith
- Category:Churches in Washington (state) by faith
- Category:Churches in Washington, D.C. by faith
- Category:Churches in West Virginia by faith
- Category:Churches in Wisconsin by faith
- Category:Churches in Wyoming by faith
- Category:Churches in the United States Virgin Islands by faith
If this CFD passes, I would be willing to do or help with the work of moving these to the new names. It would require not only a move, but updating the parameter in the {{Metacat}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Support with the understanding that, in cases where non-Christian buildings are present, that a sub-category of Category:Religious buildings by location should also exist. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Please clarify. As far as I know, the word church is only used for Christian buildings, so these categories should contain only Christian buildings. Is that not so? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. I'm just saying that, if any non-Christian religious buildings have been erroneously placed placed in these "church" categories, they should be moved up a level to "Religious buildings". If a synagogue doesn't belong in "Churches by faith" it definitely doesn't belong in "Churches by denomination". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I agree that anything erroneously categorized in these should be recategorized, just like anything else that's miscategorized. However, I think that could be taken care of at any time and doesn't need to be tied to this request. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. I'm just saying that, if any non-Christian religious buildings have been erroneously placed placed in these "church" categories, they should be moved up a level to "Religious buildings". If a synagogue doesn't belong in "Churches by faith" it definitely doesn't belong in "Churches by denomination". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Please clarify. As far as I know, the word church is only used for Christian buildings, so these categories should contain only Christian buildings. Is that not so? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- No objections, Auntof6. Go right ahead. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've started the work. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, the work is done. I found a few more than I also changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've started the work. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Categories moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I sympathise, but this lacks the neutral PoV to which we aspire. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, the word "spiteful" indicates an intention in the construction which is not necessarily present. The alternative "A-Frame" need not be obstructive at all, so should probably not be used here. we might say "restrictive", but that is open to personal interpretation. Open to reasonable suggestions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If it's a cycle barrier, it's inherently obstructive, no? Wouldn't Category:A-Frame cycle barrier work? Or if we want something broader, Category:Cycle barriers or Category:Gates with cycle barriers ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The name is confusing. These are barriers to vehicular traffic but are intended to allow passage of pedestrians and cyclists. The spiteful element seems to be that not all of the latter are able to pass due to the differing types of cycle. However, I don't think we can impute any bad intention on the part of the installers, and the term appears to be used by some cyclists- it's not a term in general use in the cycling community. Category:A-Frame cycle barrier would only work for those of that shape, as a subcat of Category:Cycle barriers, rather than Category:Barriers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Further to this, since I have uploaded a couple of images of cycle barriers, I have created Category:Cycle barriers, which I was surprised to find didn't exist. I have for the time being made this category a subset of that, and if this one is deleted, images may be upcatted to that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If it's a cycle barrier, it's inherently obstructive, no? Wouldn't Category:A-Frame cycle barrier work? Or if we want something broader, Category:Cycle barriers or Category:Gates with cycle barriers ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do we need to sub-categorize by shape? I think Rodhullandemu's Category:Cycle barriers is probably sufficient. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Cycle barriers. Sorting into sub-categories can be done later, if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Temporary category used by one user for transient maintenance tasks. The category doesn't have to exist to be used for these tasks because Hotcat can be used with categories that are not defined. Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, Hotcat cannot be used on non-existing categories. It was created on purpise to remain empty, and exclusively for maintenance purpose, and its content can remain empty: it will have some pages in them only very temporarily It helps fixing things that MediaWiki still has some quirks on, notably on categories where there are missing memvbers or non counted members, without needing the use of custom bots, and HotCat is very stable. Basically I used it to make **safe** edits in some pages that did not alter them and that were easily reversible (also with HotCat) without breaking any page: adding/removing categories just alters the bottom of pages, where the trailing newlines left by category removal are automatically discarded by MediaWiki. So it can work for plaing there any kind of page, from any namespace, and then revert it immediately without any damage.
- There are other maintenance categories that should also remain empty (like this one) but that are not so easy to manage. But still they are not meant to be deleted and should be correctly indexed as belonging to maintenance (and easilily found) instead of populating some randomly chosen category and leaving it forgotten (also with red links visible in the categories bar at bottom of page: this won't happen with this Temp category, there will be no red links left, and it is also tagged to be hidden to most users that don't enable the display of hidden categroies in their preferences).
- OTher users have proposed using other tools or methods, but these methods are much more problematic, and incredibly slow, and not so safe to use as tey may break existing pages, or will forget many pages.
- Now you can look at the non-empty categories: instead of thousands of categories left there since very long (with a constantly growing number even if bots were supposed to tun to fix them), it now just has a dozen of categories that are really non-empty and it's easier to see the new ones that can be easily depopulated, we don't need to visit a very long list: use HotCat to "copy" them in Temp, then go immediately to Temp and delete all these "copies". Some seconds later, you see the actual refreshed status, and categories that were already clean are no longer there, and their member counters are exact (this does not work with simple "null edits", i.e. editing and saving without change: Mediawiki does not trigger the full refresh of countersif there's no edit at all, it eventually just refreshes the page immediately, using the current counter values...)
- These quirks have been in Mediawiki since long and even if various corrections have been done, there are still quirks because this depends on "background jobs" that are sometimes cancelled, or did not complete before they ever ran completely (most probably bugs in the background tasks themselves that stop unexpectedly but will be never to retried to avoid automated loops that could kill the server: once a background job starts, the first thing it does is to delete it from the job queue; if the job fails or it is interrupted in the middle, it will neot be lauched again ,ad this is what causes some pages to stay with incoreherent status, but unfortunately the full refresh will not occur with null edits as there are shortcuts in MEdiaWiki to avoid various checks).
- What is the cost on the server of this simple small category that is almost always empty? Inexistant. And it is properly tagged and does not pollute any other categories, ivsible only in the general category for cleanup tasks. verdy_p (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- 1) I use Hotcat on non-existent categories all the time, for both source and destination categories.
- 2) Other maintenance categories that are often empty are each for a single, specific issue, often assigned by maintenance templates. This category is not like that and there's no need to have it permanently defined. You are capable of doing the tasks you've been using it for some other way. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Some other way"? Not automatically without breaking pages, or without leaving pages in random non existing categories that will be then difficult to locate. Adding a category to a page is always safe provided you do not pollute another category with them, and maintain an accesible link, easy to remember, so that you won't forget it. and we don't need to create any additional page with list of links (that are also difficult to use for such maintenance, because you'll need to visit each link: this takes a considerable time, and uses much more server resources (and it is also much more errorprone). Someone suggested using AWB but it is much less stable thant HotCat, and is known for the many quirks it creates (it is also more complex and does not avoid frequent errors, such as mistyping a regexp for search/replace patterns, creating havoc which is more difficult to correct and much more time intensive). You've not suggested any safer and faster method which does not require much more user time, and much more server resources and I maintain that this category has a near-zero cost and pollutes absolutely nothing. verdy_p (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: How would you feel about a hidden user category called Category:Verdy p temp for Verdy p to use? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- A user category would be fine. I'd still object to the way he/she has been using this category, but that would be a separate issue unrelated to this CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Once again a bad solution that just pollutes pages edited and adds unnecessary stress on servers. You did not read my arguments about why a single category, not polluting others (jsut as "Most wanted categories") and not creating any red link even if it is forgotten in the middle, is better. That catregoery is not mean to be used only by me. And has a near ZERO impact (woiuld not be the case where many users or bots multiple their own temporary categories and fogetr them in the middle. It's just simple to clean it there at a known place. verdy_p (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- A user category would be fine. I'd still object to the way he/she has been using this category, but that would be a separate issue unrelated to this CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I've missed something, Verdy p but isn't this is a brand new category, created by you, and so far, used by no one else? You may imagine that others would also like to use it, but until we find other users creating similar categories, there seems no reason to assume they would - after all, commons users have gotten along without such a category for years and years. So I'd say converting it to a user category is your best option for the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- You're wrong, this category has existed several times and were created for similar reasons (but not properly explained, not hidden like it is, so it was deleted). This is a recurrent need. Converting it to a "user category" will just pollute Comons with new uncategorized and unmaintained categories (there are many of them...). "Temp" folders are recurrent needs for many applications, every software has its "Temp", this is standard, so expect it will be recreated, this will never end. verdy_p (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: Unless I've misunderstood the deletion logs, you are right that it has existed before, but it was last deleted in 2012. So it hasn't existed in 5 years. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A work temporary directory had to be empty. And by the way empty categories are not allowed. How can we be sure that a shared public directory will be always empty? And what happens if a user fill it while another one user is using
hotcatCat-a-lot and selects all files. Last but not least what mess will us achive if someone uses mass remame on this directory while another user is filling it withhotcatCat-a-lot? Temporary directory can be only user based like Themightyquill sayd. For istance category:temp for user:pierpao--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I assume, you are talking about Cat-a-lot, not HotCat. HotCat works for single files, no need to group them into a temp category. And for cat-a-lot working with non-existing categories works like a charm (already did it for 2300 files). And I never had problems with broken tasks with Cat-a-lot. And, a central temp category used by many will sooner or later cause conflicts. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No strong reason for keeping. Moved to hidden category Category:Verdy p temp. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This should be merged with Category:Europa_building, because the two are about the same building. It's a nontrivial merge, I can't do it myself. – b_jonas 19:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently only parts of the former Residence palace were integrated into the new Europa building, which in turn also consists one or more buildings that were never part of the Residence palace. The overlap might be solved by the creation a subcategory of both categories for the Europa building part ("Bloc A" afaics) that was part of the Residence palace and is now part of the Europa building (the latter's main category being correctly named Europa building (Brussels), btw). Furthermore, I'd suggest using {{See also cat}} to provide a horizontal link between the two main categories. FDMS 4 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's only an overlap, neither building is a subset of the other? That's weird. – b_jonas 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- After investigating this a bit better, the Europa building combines the edifice of the former "bloc A" of the Residence Palace with the new construction. It obviously now goes by its new name and hence its new Category:Europa_building is appropriate. However, blocs C and B of the Residence Palace remain and will still be known under their previous name, so we should keep this category, "residence palace". As their might be photos circulating of bloc A, as well as D and E (demolished in the mid 80's to make way for another EU building (the Justus Lipsius building), we should carefully manage the names and descriptions of historical images of the Residence Palace.EU explained (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's only an overlap, neither building is a subset of the other? That's weird. – b_jonas 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added detailed category descriptions copied from above as well as {{See also cat}} templates. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Empty category: only file was File:Old Shawneetown, Illinois (14414254532).jpg, which is now in Category:Shawneetown Bank State Historic Site, and there's not that much of Old Shawneetown to be making a distinction anyway. Closeapple (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
All of these images are not the British journalist. The category needs to be entirely depopulated and deleted, as it will then be empty. Fences and windows (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, new suggestion. After finding this post, the person pictured is the Canadian TV presenter. The category can instead be renamed to match the correct Wikipedia article: Tony Parsons (presenter). Fences and windows (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Use your best judgement, either approach works. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Roseohioresident, the rename is best. How does that happen? Fences and windows (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Use your best judgement, either approach works. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tony Parsons (presenter). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Would seem to duplicate Concessions in China; “foreign“ seems an unnecessary disambiguation —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I looked for cat "Foreign concessions in China' and didn't find it. So I created that category (or is it a "sub-category" that I created?). How was I to know that there already existed a cat "Concession in China"?
- I don't even know if with "Foreign Concessions in China" I created a "category" or a ...... "sub-category"!!! The whole category/sub-category thing on Commons is a mysterious mess AFAIC. After years, I am still unable to know if a suitable category (or sub-category?) already exists or if I should create one.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Lubiesque: I can sympathesize that it isn't always easy to find a category, especially if you aren't looking for exactly the word or phrase chosen before you. One thing to keep in mind is that these categories are meant to act as a tree or network for browsing. Each category should have parents connecting it to the rest of the network. When you created Category:Foreign Concessions in China, you didn't add any parent categories. Category:Concessions in China, by contrast, is in Category:History of China, Category:Colonial Asia, Category:Qing Dynasty, Category:International relations of China, and Category:Subdivisions of China. Looking in those likely parent categories is a good way to find what you are looking for. I might add that, you've recently done the same thing when creating Category:Governor generals of Madagascar, Category:Governor generals of French West Africa and Category:Sheikh Said (Yemen). If you don't place a category in another category, it's even harder for others to find it. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Concessions in China. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. There is no expression "hunza mountains" - thus no soccer in hunza mountains. besides the cat is not in use. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this deletion. Kalbbes (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Empty. Please delete. There is no expression "Hunza mountains". Of course there are mountains around hunza valley, but the mountain ranges around are well known. So any file of a mountain in hunza can be categorized in the respective mountain range category. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this deletion. Kalbbes (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The second Shabu should be de-capitalized in this and subcategories. This is not a proper noun but food name like beef hamburger or hot stew, etc. Whether to add a hyphen per the Wikipedia article (w:shabu-shabu) or not I leave up to others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, except for Category:Sakurakawa Shabu Shabu and its subcat, because that is the name of a restaurant. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Shabu-shabu and deleted, along with sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is category with wrong name of monument. It should be deleted. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Empty category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Suit inside All 2607:FB90:6090:7F79:E308:8492:F436:1808 03:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep The rationale makes no sense, and it's a perfectly valid category containing three files related to this township. Deleting just this one would [[:File:]]be pointless anyway, as there are twenty-four other categories for townships in Licking County, and many of them, like this one, have two maps and a photo as their contents. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)- Keep: Looks like the nomination was some newbie test/misfire: I can't see a reason to delete. I just put another photo and Category:Hebron, Ohio into this category. Even if one discounted the maps as a mere 2 maps that every township has on Commons, the category still has 2 other photos and a subcategory now. (And if Buckeye Lake, Ohio hadn't detached from Union Township in 2013, most of Category:Buckeye Lake, Ohio would also be in this category.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No reason for discussion given. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete - empty cat. and there is Category:Red carpets in Germany in use. DGtal (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Flagged with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will delete. @DGtal: For future reference, cases like this can be handled this way without needing discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Auntof6. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by municipality --Gomera-b (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are urban and rural municipalities in Bavaria, including cities and/or villages; consequently not each one of the municipalities corresponds to a city. In the beginning of Category:Municipalities in Bavaria is explained: „Every rural district is subdivided into municipalities, while every urban district is a municipality in its own right...“ This deletion request obviously is useless. --Elkost (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Genau Kollege, Du hast das Problem erfasst: Wer den deutschen Erläuterungstext zu Category:Municipalities in Bavaria versteht, erkennt, dass in Bayern auch Städte, sogar Großstädte, Gemeinden sind: Damit ist klar, dass eine konstruierte Unterteilung von "Wasserkörpern in der Gemeinde xy" und "Wasserkörper in der Stadt xy" volkommen sinnfrei ist. --Gomera-b (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gomera-b, damit fiele aber die Kategorisierung in Category:Bodies of water in Germany by city hinten runter. Eine Alternative wäre, Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by city als Unterkategorie von Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by municipality zu führen. Mir isses aber ehrlich gesagt wurscht. --Achim (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Genau Kollege, Du hast das Problem erfasst: Wer den deutschen Erläuterungstext zu Category:Municipalities in Bavaria versteht, erkennt, dass in Bayern auch Städte, sogar Großstädte, Gemeinden sind: Damit ist klar, dass eine konstruierte Unterteilung von "Wasserkörpern in der Gemeinde xy" und "Wasserkörper in der Stadt xy" volkommen sinnfrei ist. --Gomera-b (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Since, as I understand it, all cities are municipalities, Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by city should be a subcat of Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by municipality, rather than a parallel cat as it is now. In fact, Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria has four related subcats:
- Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by city
- Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by district
- Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by government district
- Category:Bodies of water in Bavaria by municipality
Since, again as I understand it, every place in Bavaria is in a municipality, perhaps we need only one of the four? Having four means that inevitably some bodies will be in only one, not in all of those which it should be in, so that actually finding images will require looking at all four. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
пустая категория Леонид Макаров (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by A.Savin - Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. There is no Passu Base Camp. There was one image with the misleading name file:Passu Base Camp.jpg, but the description clearly states, that the image was taken near Khunjerab Pass, which is still quite far away from the village of Passu. (Both places mentioned are on the Karakoram Highway in northern Pakistan.) Rupert Pupkin (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please delete per nom. The creator of the category has the tendecy to create incorrect categories for incorrectly named files. - Takeaway (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. I'll delete it unless anyone objects. @Rupert Pupkin: If you can suggest a better name for the image, I'd be happy to rename it too. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I found out that the unnamed mountains (around 6000m or less) belong to the North Ghujerab Mountains of the Karakorams and the picture was taken some kilometers west of Khunjerab Pass looking south. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This Category seems to be used for files that com from http://muzyczny.pl. However, its only parent category Category:Musical instruments of Poland suggests that it contains media of musical instruments that were manufactured (or at least invented/developed) in Poland. This is not the case, as it contains images of several international manufacturers/brands like Gibson, Fender, en:Sabian, en:Hohner, Orange, … as well as a bunch of objects that are no musical instruments.
Propose to re-name it to something like Category:Files from muzyczny.pl, remove it from Category:Musical instruments of Poland and put it into Category:Images from websites instead. Any objections? El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. We shouldn't mix categories indicating sources with categories indicating the content of images. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Files from muzyczny.pl. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Content moved to Category:Partial capos per the plural rule, don't see much use in keeping this as a redirect. El Grafo (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Makes sense. There are no important incoming links. Eman235 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This category (and all immediate subcats) is nonsensical, since DF is identical to its only municipality Brasília. MB-one (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weird. Someone went to a lot of effort to create a lot of useless categories. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: as per nom, including all sub-categories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Category should be removed, USA did not participate in WLM 2014 (did summer of monuments instead). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2014/Participating_countries Effeietsanders (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Category should be removed, USA did not participate in WLM 2014 (did summer of monuments instead). --Allforrous (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- As the creator of the category agreed, I emptied the category. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
DELETED.Taivo (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Category should be removed, USA did not participate in WLM 2014 (did summer of monuments instead). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2014/Participating_countries Effeietsanders (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Category should be removed, USA did not participate in WLM 2014 (did summer of monuments instead). --Allforrous (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then what should be done with the files in the subcat? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: They can be uncategorized from this tree. This shouldn't be their only category anyway. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
DELETED. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Images of Sweden by user. Achim (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Cat is now empty, so I have tagged it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This category shall be deleted. It is a duplicate of Category:Rue de la Salie that already existed when this category was created. It will be empty if Category:Hôtel de Belzunce, Bayonne (see discussion above) is deleted. Telford (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, because as the nominator says it is basically empty. I'd advocate deleting Category:Rue de la Salie too, for the same reason. Until there are images to add to the category they are a superfluous hindrance. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Now redirect to Category:Rue de la Salie. --Telford (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Governors of French West Africa ? Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Merged. Rhadamante (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:FuMG 64 Mannheim (radar) Newy created duplicate, no obvious purpose or members other than the current one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- FuMG64 is not the only version of the Mannheim radar, there was the FuMG 63 Mainz, the FuMG 75 Mannheim Riese and the FuMG 68 Ansbach. That is why I created this category as other Mannheim photos will eventually be uploaded by users, they must be regrouped into it. Pierre cb (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Merged. Almost 18 months later, and it's still the only subcat. Can be recreated without prejudice when images of additional models are available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
no cat and photo. Pitpisit (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Contains Category:Anna York Bondoc House (Macabebe, Pampanga). @Pitpisit: It's somewhat disingenous to remove a sub-category and then nominate for deletion on the basis that it's empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Anna York Bondoc is notable enough to have an English wikipedia article, but it's only a stub. I'm not sure if this is worth keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Anna York Bondoc and her family the Bondocs rule Pampanga for decades until now; there are photos of Anna in this House, but, I was in a hurry to take photos of the town and landmarks including the Pampanga River, and I must underscore that I always race against the sun which is very rare when there are thunderstorms; more often, I barely take time in interiors of landmark buildings like this, since I prefer to spend my time of best sun photos from 3 to 5 pm outside I love the orange sun my passion, hence, apology for not taking photos of Anna and other Bondocs closely, next time I will try to take very Old photos of these, so that Wikipedia stubs and Wikimedia commons may have one, sincerely -Judgefloro 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Deleted - can be recreated if other images besides a single associated building are uploaded. I've also nominated the enwiki article for deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
What are "melting fuses"? The category description is unintelligible and appears to limit this cat to a specific sub-group within electrical fuses (narrower than its members). The name is pure invention and makes no real sense ("melting" isn't unusual amongst fuses or specific to one group). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Melting" means acting principle: the wire inside fuse will be melted by overcurrent during certain time, that is why their common definition is "melting". But yes, probably there is no such deep specification in English language. Dmitry G (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A fuse by definition works on the principle of self-destruction, usually by melting of a sacrificial wire / ... (see en:Fuse (electrical)). A re-usable element is called a circuit breaker, we have a category for those, too. --rimshottalk 22:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted - no need for the separate category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Overcat, contains 1 subcat only. Achim (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Also, aren't circles round by definition? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Stone circles in Sweden by shape. There's a huge category tree here that all supports only one image in Category:Disas ting. Delete Category:Stone circles in Sweden by shape and its whole hierarchy. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeesh, I just deleted 16 categories that existed to support just two actual content categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Content moved to Category:Capos per the plural rule, don't see much use in keeping this as a redirect. El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the move. I found at least two links to Category:Capo on other wikimedia projects, and I didn't look very far. Maybe it's worth keeping the redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the move. As far as I know, there are not many external links to the category. A linkfix can easily be made. Whether singular or plural makes for me no difference. --Mjchael (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @El Grafo, Themightyquill, and Mjchael: Any objection to making this a disambiguation category? It could contain Category:Capo (surname), Category:Capos, and Category:Capes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- That works for me. I take it "capo" means cape in some language? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, there are a lot of places called "Capo <something>" that are capes -- the geographical kind, not the clothing kind, so it would actually need to be Category:Capes (geography). At least some of them are in Italy, so it's Italian, and maybe other languages, too. I've changed the category into a dab and will close the cfd. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- That works for me. I take it "capo" means cape in some language? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Close: changed to dab page. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
no cat and photo. Pitpisit (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Contains Category:ECJ Building (Intramuros). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- en:Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. seems notable enough, but we don't have any images of the man himself. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. has many photos and I took some of his photos and his monuments like the Camiling Church historical memorial of his Donation to this Church which replaced the burnt church, and his photo as Governor of Tarlac in the Capitol, sincerely -Judgefloro 15:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Not done: now populated. --ƏXPLICIT 12:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
None of the subcats here right now are really categories of Sweden. There would be very few cats that could fit here. An example of one that would might be Category:People of Sweden by country if that existed. Just because something is tied to Sweden (such as churches dedicated to a Swedish saint), that doesn't make it a "category of Sweden". Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. --Achim (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Monument erected in 1955. Vasos Falireas, its sculptor, died in 1979. Also, there's no FOP in Greece. As a result I think that this category and all its files should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- So long as the files exist, it makes sense to keep them in a single category. If you think the files should be deleted, please nominate them as such. You can nominate multiple files at once by enabling "VisualFileChange/Perform batch task" under gadgets in your user preferences. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Converted to a DR. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
German: Diese Kategorie sollte, nach dem englischen Wikipedia Artikel, in "Taman Peninsula" umbenannt werden. Es gibt wohl noch mindestens ein Taman im Indonesichen Raum. Einige der Bilder sind falsch zugeordnet.
English: This category should be renamed "Taman Peninsula", according to the English Wikipedia article. There is probably at least one Taman in the Indonesian room. Some of the images are mismatched.
Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment this needs disambiguation like Hiddenhauser proposed. The Indonesian images in this category are due to the Indonesian word taman, which means "garden" and should therefore be recategorised rather than getting their own category. And then there are a few other images from South Asia, whose categorisation here I cannot readily explain. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Category:Taman is re-organized into the disambiguation page. Same solution in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"rakaposhi back view" came from an image description that did not really show that mountain. Anyway, what could be Rupert Pupkin (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC) ...(to fast) what could be the back of a mountain. What is its front. who decides? Please deletet. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Delete. I can't see the image, but when I made the category last year I was completely new to the Commons and made many mistakes. Kalbbes (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- this one. Regarding the trees on the mountains in the foreground, the snowy ridges in the background can't be nearly 7000m high. But google earth didn't let my find out where it is. Asuming Sikanderabad is correct, but I still couldn't find it. So I put the file into category:Unidentified mountains in Pakistan --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Category deleted as "empty" by Túrelio. GeorgHH • talk 18:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reason got lost in the process again... I emptied this IMHO unneccessary category. It was rarerly used. Hamalayan mountains in Pakistan are usually categorized elsewhere --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- This makes it difficult for those in most of the world who are not as familiar as you are with mountains in that region. Most are unaware that any of the Himalaya mountains are in Pakistan, and not having a category means they will never know. The Commons category system seems to be only for those that are very familiar with the topic. Just my opinion. Since the category is empty now, finding out is harder. Kalbbes (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- But there was already a category. Look above, my last word "elsewhere". It's blue. Sorry for hiding it: The category is category:Himalaya in Pakistan.
- You don't need to know the shape of each mountain in the region. That's my personal hobby, but honestly, the extension of the Himalayas (Karakorams/Hindukush) over the different countries is not such a secret. Looking at Category:Himalayas and then checking out already existing subcategories could help :-).
- But it's difficult. Wiki loves earth brings up a lot of pictures with misleading file names and poor descriptions. And unsuitable categories like "Landscape" or "Nature". That's a lot of work to be done. But making up categories only from the given (mis)information isn't always the best idea. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Rupert Pupkin, thanks for the suggestion and your attempts to help me. I didn't know about that category. It is helpful. For categories to be useful, the user has to already know that there are Himalaya in Pakistan. I didn't originally know that. Hunting for categories is what is so exhausting about the Commons. A user has to hunt and hunt to find relevant categories, and if the user is not very familiar with the subject and is looking for information, it is nearly impossible. Pakistan is particularly obscure. There seems to be no overall scheme that is consistent and reliable, no one place where even the locations are clearly laid out. Maybe I am getting very very tired. I apologize for my lack of expertise and am trying to rectify mistakes I have made. I knew nothing about the geography of the country when I started out a year or so ago, and still have not figured out much. Again, thanks. Kalbbes (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, under Category:Mountain ranges of Pakistan, Category:Himalaya and Category:Himalaya in Pakistan are both under that category. I'm still not sure about the names of mountains in Pakistan. Kalbbes (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Rupert Pupkin, thanks for the suggestion and your attempts to help me. I didn't know about that category. It is helpful. For categories to be useful, the user has to already know that there are Himalaya in Pakistan. I didn't originally know that. Hunting for categories is what is so exhausting about the Commons. A user has to hunt and hunt to find relevant categories, and if the user is not very familiar with the subject and is looking for information, it is nearly impossible. Pakistan is particularly obscure. There seems to be no overall scheme that is consistent and reliable, no one place where even the locations are clearly laid out. Maybe I am getting very very tired. I apologize for my lack of expertise and am trying to rectify mistakes I have made. I knew nothing about the geography of the country when I started out a year or so ago, and still have not figured out much. Again, thanks. Kalbbes (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- hm, I'm puzzled. So "Himalaya in Pakistan" is double categorized into "Mountains ranges..." That should usually be avoided. But in this case I don't know.
- Names of mountains in Pakistan are special. They are called ... Peak or ... Sar or ... Chhish or ... Kangri or ...brum. And some have single words as names. And there is for example Spantik. That's the official name, it comes from Balti Language on the east side of the mountain. But most pictures that we get are from Hunza valley, where you can see its shining west wall in the evening light, and so the people in Hunza call it Golden Peak. Hunza people and Balti people speak different languages (when they don't speak english...).
- If you're looking for official names or heights, this list has it all: High Asia - All mountains and main peaks above 6650 m by Eberhard Jurgalski.
- (forgot to sign.)--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Rupert Pupkin, thanks for the information. I'm not expert enough to do much in the way of mountains in Pakistan, obviously. Sorry for any trouble I've caused you. Kalbbes (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. I forgot about this one after almost a year. During WLE 2018 Pakistan, this category was used again by an uploader. File showed Karakoram mountains (no Himalaya...). To avoid such inadequate use, I'll go on with SD-empty. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. In 2018 the category in question was deleted by user:Túrelio as "empty". Can we close this discussion, @Rupert Pupkin and Kalbbes: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Category deleted as "empty". GeorgHH • talk 18:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
This duplicates Category:Vernissage — both mean the same thing. The clarification (art exhibitions) is redundant, as the term "vernissage" is only used for describing art exhibitions. Very trivial (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- But Category:Vernissage is categorized only under painting, not under exhibitions. Is there anything about vernissages that's different from other art exhibitions? If not, then both Category:Vernissage and Category:Vernissages (art exhibitions) should be merged to Category:Art exhibitions. If there is something unique, then they should be merged with each other into either Category:Vernissage or Category:Vernissages (plural being preferred for category names). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Like a lot of categories on Commons, the distinctions are somewhat "murky". Definitions and use of words vary from country to country. The not very common word "vernissage" is used to describe a preview of an art exhibition[1] (not necessarily limited to paintings), often for special guests and sometimes a private viewing. Sometimes it is absorbed into the "opening" or launch of an exhibition. To show how confusing this is, Commons already has under Category:Art events two subcategories: Category:Art exhibitions and Category:Art openings, though some of the photos in the latter don't seem to show an actual opening... Vernissages could, if one accepts that there is a difference between an opening and a vernissage, be also put under the category of Art events. So, without giving a clear answer, I would say that the issue is not whether there is a difference between "Vernissage" and "Vernissages (art exhibition)" (which there isn't), but whether there is a any real difference between "Vernissages" and "Art openings", given that often the terms are used synonymously these days. In my opinion, they should be merged to "Art openings" as the more common and understood term, but this might upset some people. --Very trivial (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirects to Category:Vernissage (the oldest cat of those 3 and the one connected to the corresponding Wikidata Infobox) combined with some cat fixes should've solved the redundancy. --Jotzet (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like a lot of categories on Commons, the distinctions are somewhat "murky". Definitions and use of words vary from country to country. The not very common word "vernissage" is used to describe a preview of an art exhibition[1] (not necessarily limited to paintings), often for special guests and sometimes a private viewing. Sometimes it is absorbed into the "opening" or launch of an exhibition. To show how confusing this is, Commons already has under Category:Art events two subcategories: Category:Art exhibitions and Category:Art openings, though some of the photos in the latter don't seem to show an actual opening... Vernissages could, if one accepts that there is a difference between an opening and a vernissage, be also put under the category of Art events. So, without giving a clear answer, I would say that the issue is not whether there is a difference between "Vernissage" and "Vernissages (art exhibition)" (which there isn't), but whether there is a any real difference between "Vernissages" and "Art openings", given that often the terms are used synonymously these days. In my opinion, they should be merged to "Art openings" as the more common and understood term, but this might upset some people. --Very trivial (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Very trivial, Jotzet, and Auntof6: if we rename Category:Vernissage to Category:Vernissages, then we probably have found acceptable solution (parent categories are already settled)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that, Estopedist1. --Very trivial (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Vernissages per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Since "STEM" is a very vague term, and most content is now at Category:STEM fairs I nominate this category for deletion Giudicati (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. This is a common but arbitrary grouping of disciplines that don't need categorization together here. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, how about if we make it a redirect instead of deleting it, say redirecting Category:STEM to Category:Science education? It is a common acronym with a whole article at en:Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Thanks. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- While people didn't seem to be supportive of this idea below, I just wanted to note that I strongly oppose redirecting STEM to science education (as in general science). These are completely different things and in addition it neglects large "technology, engineering, and mathematics" parts of it. I think it should be moved to "Category:STEM education". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, how about if we make it a redirect instead of deleting it, say redirecting Category:STEM to Category:Science education? It is a common acronym with a whole article at en:Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Thanks. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. This is a common but arbitrary grouping of disciplines that don't need categorization together here. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a redirect makes sense. I recognize its a commonly used term, but not great for a categorization scheme. It's unlikely to contain any content, but just serve as a sub-category for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ruff tuff cream puff: It think STEM has no place in our category tree. STEM education could be redirected to Science education, but not STEM itself since it is a generic name for "Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics".--Tostman (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- It could be redirected to Category:Science and technology. --ghouston (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Giudicati, Themightyquill, Ruff tuff cream puff, Tostman, and Ghouston: our solution (Category:Stem = DAB, and Category:STEM = concrete concept) differs from enwiki en:Stem (with STEM; as a DAB), but may be acceptable. However, STEM is also Category:Scanning transmission electron microscopy. Can anyone here supports also enwiki variant?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I could maybe see this renamed Category:STEM promotion or something to that effect, for STEM fairs and advocacy? I'm not sure what the parent categories would be, aside from Category:Science and technology, Category:Science and technology, and Category:Mathematical education. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing the discussion with no obvious consensus. Some users have supported redirecting the category to other category, while one user has supported renaming the category to STEM education. I'm renaming the category to STEM education with no prejudice against renominating the category for redirection. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I emptied the category. Who decides which Mountains are Peaks and which aren't? The category listed some peaks, with "peak" as part of the name, and some with a distinct peak-like look, but more or less arbitrarily. So I doubt the reason of this cat. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then shouldn't this discussion be for Category:Peaks and all cats with the word "peaks" in the name? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. That's a big one. There is also Category:Peaks by country. Most of those countrie-categories are equally arbitrarilly filled... hm... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I imagine a reasonable way would be to only include things named "X peak" (or equivalent in another language), or not to make the distinction at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Or you look at the shape of a mountain. But who should decide how steep or sharp a mountain should be in order to be labelled a peak?
- Anyway. What should be the result of a category "Peaks in Country X"? Should it list all peaks, or should it just list some peaks in that country? (the latter would be the arbitrariness that I criticised before, but maybe others don't see that as a problem at all). --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I imagine a reasonable way would be to only include things named "X peak" (or equivalent in another language), or not to make the distinction at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I am sure that this question(s) will arise again: Just in brief:
- Category:Peaks #enwiki has no equivalent category
- Category:Summits #enwiki has equivalent en:Category:Summits
- Category:Mountains #enwiki has equivalent en:Category:Mountains
- Category:Hills #enwiki has equivalent en:Category:Hills
Strange, but maybe a good hint maybe enwiki en:Mountains, peaks and hills of Hong Kong --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Closed Peaks is indeed a very arbitrary term and the population of this category demonstrates the problem of such approach. I have redirected the category to Category:Mountains of Pakistan.
wikt:peak--(geography) The top, or one of the tops, of a hill, mountain or range, ending in a point.
Synonyms: summit, top
They reached the peak after 8 hours of climbing.
— billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion is already closed. I'm performing the formal closure to archive this discussion. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
There's two categories for the same institution - here and at Category:Bedgebury National Pinetum, which is the name used by the official website. I suggest merging both categories to "Category:Bedgebury National Pinetum" and deleting the "Bedgebury Pinetum" subpage, which doesn't seem necessary. Blythwood (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support "National" is also used at English wikipedia. I'd support a move, unless anyone has a strong reason not to use "national". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Bedgebury Pinetum. Bedgebury Pinetum and Westonbirt Arboretum (the two are related, this affects both equally) on the basis of COMMONNAME, rather than the fuller name with "National". They're both unique, neither needs to be disambiguated. Although the formal title does include National, WP practice is mostly to avoid such decorations, unless essential. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Andy Dingley: in general, we follow enwiki solutions (ie en:Bedgebury National Pinetum). I think this case is not exception. (I admit that en:Westonbirt Arboretum and its first sentence has some discrepancy). Anyway, objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Bedgebury National Pinetum has been a redirect for the past 4 years. I'm going to suggest we close unless anyone feels very strongly about this. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this with no action per the last comment and lack of consensus. Anyone is free to start a new CfD with a clear path forward if they disagree. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Smooth O and Verdy p would like to discuss a category renaming as we have now Category:People with pigs, Category:People with Sus scrofa and Category:People with Sus scrofa domesticus. It seems like some people didn't get yet purpose and advantage of using COM:CFD before moving around. Achim (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: I suggest to keep Category:People with pigs, for there are less than 200 images and it does no matter if the pigs are blue-eyed domestic ones with less than 100 hairs or green-eyed wild ones with more than 100 hairs on their back. --Achim (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion if we use Category:Animals by common named groups and it's subcategories only when it's impossible to link the file to a biological group (art, symbols...), then Category:People with Sus scrofa and Category:People with Sus scrofa domesticus should be appropriate names for those categories because animals clearly can be identified. In that case all images of people with pigs on paintings and similar should be moved to Category:People with pigs in art to keep consistency with other categories. Anyhow, my idea was just to reorganize categories and files related to pigs because it was a mess of categorization, but for me any solution of this issue is fine, so i agree with your proposal. --Smooth O (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Category:People with pigs - It is clear to readers, it avoids being over-specific. I have no idea what species Hieronymous Bosch was illustrating, but clearly they belong here. No objection to finely-grained sub categories for "people with Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs" or similar, if there is both a relevant identifiable breed and sufficient numbers (I presume there are fancy pig shows, like dog shows). In general though, "pigs" is much more appropriate for Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are right about a Hieronymous Bosch painting, Andy Dingley. Certainly, Smooth O is right that Category:People with pigs in art should exist, because for paintings and such, there is no way to tell the taxonomy. If there are other reasons to use Category:People with pigs, I'd like to hear them, otherwise I'd support dispersion of the images and deletion. - - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I support the creation of Category:People with pigs in art because it can be useful. --Achim (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are right about a Hieronymous Bosch painting, Andy Dingley. Certainly, Smooth O is right that Category:People with pigs in art should exist, because for paintings and such, there is no way to tell the taxonomy. If there are other reasons to use Category:People with pigs, I'd like to hear them, otherwise I'd support dispersion of the images and deletion. - - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'd support keeping Category:People with pigs, or at the very worst using it as a redirect. Otherwise someone else, who like 99.9% of the population (including me) who doesn't know what a Sus scrofa is (or its difference with "Sus scrofa domesticus") will soon recreate it. To categorise common animals by their Latin name alone is perverse. Sionk (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's a far bigger issue than the category here. The consensus at commons has been to categorize animals by their latin names. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that I've created Category:People with pigs in art but I don't otherwise see consensus here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's a far bigger issue than the category here. The consensus at commons has been to categorize animals by their latin names. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. It seems that this discussion can be closed. The nominated category is retained as a redirect to Category:People with Sus scrofa--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This CfD is clearly stale and the category has long been redirected since it was opened anyway. Making this moot. So I'm closing it with no action. As there isn't really anything to do in relation to it at this point. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
The exact purpose and content of this category is unclear. Different types of images are all thrown together and it's rapidly growing. It sure is a nice thing to have a well-sorted collection of different views, parts and aspects of truck vehicles. But categories should be well defined and understandable for all users.
In my opinion a category name "truck roofs" suggests that only pictures showing / focusing primarily on the roof of a truck should be in there. Right now only a few of the images listed in this category really belong in there. (Possible subcategories could be named after different roof types.)
Most of the other images are showing trucks in different views their roofs somehow visible. These images could be categorized as different types of Category:Views of trucks for example Category:Three-quarter views of trucks, other pictures are showing trucks in Category:Bird's-eye view or in Category:High-angle shot, for automobiles categories like Category:Bird's-eye views of automobiles or Category:High-angle shots of automobiles could be created and also such categories for trucks. For top views a subcategory for trucks Category:Top views of trucks could also be applied. In any case before sorting a lot of pictures a closer look at the category system should be taken.
For sure something has to be changed. Zaccarias (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this category should contain only images that focus on roofs, that is, where the main thing in the image is the roof. Otherwise, we'd have way too much in the category because most general views of trucks would show at least part of the roof. I definitely wouldn't include those subcategories that appear to be for specific models of trucks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- At least one of my images of trucks were given this category. I thought the only reason for it was the fact that the windows and doors were removed, and all you could see were the thin frames holding the roof up. Then I saw many of the other trucks with that category, and I didn't know what to think. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is no need for the image to focus on the roof, provided that the roof is sufficiently prominent to be seen, and displays some relevant aspect of truck roofs that meets COM:SCOPE. Few images will be specifically of such a roof, many will incidentally happen to show a feature that still relevant to some contexts. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "displays some relevant aspect of truck roofs that meets COM:SCOPE." Don't a majority of images of trucks clearly include the roof? Do we need a category that includes that many images of trucks? If a photo includes a truly important aspect of a truck roof, couldn't a crop be made, and the cropped image could be placed in Category:Truck roofs? I'm not disagreeing, but if we're not going to limit the category to images that focus/centre the roof, we should have a clear category description so that we don't end up with thousands of images of trucks with roofs. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- "displays some relevant aspect of <category> that meets COM:SCOPE." would be a workable reason for adding any of our categories. Some (e.g. geographical places) require definite membership of some location, but don't need to obviously show it. Others (such as truck roofs) might be incidental aspects of many photos (all trucks have a roof), but only a few will show that aspect to a useful extent. My truck photos don't usually show roofs - I'm taking them from my eye level. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "displays some relevant aspect of truck roofs that meets COM:SCOPE." Don't a majority of images of trucks clearly include the roof? Do we need a category that includes that many images of trucks? If a photo includes a truly important aspect of a truck roof, couldn't a crop be made, and the cropped image could be placed in Category:Truck roofs? I'm not disagreeing, but if we're not going to limit the category to images that focus/centre the roof, we should have a clear category description so that we don't end up with thousands of images of trucks with roofs. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you find that category definition acceptable, Zaccarias? Certainly, there are many photos in Category:Truck roofs that I would argue don't show a truck roof to a useful extent, and could therefore be removed. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Keep, but not qualifying files to be removed from the nominated category. Hints may be taken from the parent Category:Automobile roofs where most of the files clearly is suitable for the category--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this as "no consensus" since it seems to be dead on arrival and no one has commented on it in at least a few years. Anyone who disagrees is free to start a new CfD with a clear path forward though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
From COM:USERCAT: "Creating subcategories that combine topic/subject focus with a user-specific element (e.g. Category:Photos of London by User:Example) is generally discouraged; user galleries (e.g. User:Example/London) may be used instead." See Help:FastCCI for a workaround. This approach runs the risk of a combinatorial blowup, of potentially recreating the whole category tree for each user. grendel|khan 18:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:Quality images by user is fine, and Category:Quality images of nature is fine, but let's not combine the two. It's more likely that someone wants to browse all quality images of nature than someone wanting to see quality images of nature by a certain photographer. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- IMO categories are OK. They are easy to handle. Agree with Themightyquill. --XRay talk 04:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Am I right, that we should begin deleting with parent category, ie Category:Quality images by subject and by user? Any objections, @Grendelkhan, Themightyquill, and XRay: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- IMO categories ending "by user" are still OK. You may remove them from categories like Category:Quality images by subject and by user from Category:Quality images by subject, it is acceptable. But the categories itself shouldn't be deleted. They should be subcategories of at least Category:Quality images by user. --XRay 💬 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @XRay and Estopedist1: What if we make the "by user" categories hidden? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- IMO OK. A suitable template would be nice. --XRay 💬 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and XRay: these categories already are hidden. Actually for me this CFD is finished. Because there is no need to be very systematic with user (falls into hidden categories) categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- @XRay and Estopedist1: What if we make the "by user" categories hidden? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None (?) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | Closing as "finished" per the last comment. Although I'm not really sure what they are referring to, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change anything anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
The French administrative regions were redrawn as of the end of 2015. We don't need to be creating new categories for the former regions, such as this one and Category:Monuments à l’inventaire by former region. We should actually be working to eliminate most if not all of the categories for the former regions. It might make sense to keep some of the former region categories if there are historical or cultural regions or some such, but these two categories are strictly based on physical location and are not needed. Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- These regions are very new but their hiostory ios MUCH older, these subcategories were then fulkl of content that cannot be classified in the bew regions. There are lots of contents in Commons related tyo the former regions and not the very new ones (and clearing completely their history from Commons, as if they had never existed is a very bad idea; these new regions are also still contested politically and administratively).
- Anyway these are not about current administrative but really about a topic directly relected to history. These new reghions have almost no history for now! verdy_p (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- In summary, all the redirects or deletions of former regions should never have occured anywhere, independantly of their current adminsitrative status (which remains unstable given the frequent updates of territorial organisation, still unfinished in France). We have many categories related to historic topics in France for areas that even no longer part of France, but they are part of the history of France, and the story of other countries sometimes. Such eradication in Commons is just like if you were burning books of history: this is a real autodafe which should not be tolerated in Commons that wants to keep the history as it is (and precisely). verdy_p (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Calling this an autodafe is way overstating the case. I did say that there might be some reasons for keeping some cats for former regions, but these two cats are based solely on the physical location of the monuments, not anything cultural. The former name of the political location where they sit is not any more significant than the current one. We should not be keeping two category trees (one for current regions and one for former regions) with the same content. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no duplication when you look for the hierarchy of parents (so they are missing there and will not link anyway any content to their current most precise location, which is not eany way a region, but a city or more precise; these leaves many files orphaned and not properly subcategorized, the new regions are not wellknown from foreign visitors or in foreign archives that have documents about them and won't know correctly how to categorize them accurately: Occitanie for example will be unknown to them and will not help them locate the correct most precise categories. So you complain only about 16 intermediate pages that cost almost nothing and provide the correct classification and all links). As well, not all former regions (or former departments as well) are now in France (see the categories about Algeria or former departments now in Germany, the Netherlands or Italy, or in now independant territories and former colonies). I do not create any ambiguity. There are also documents for monuments by regions as a whole, which won't fit with the very new regions. verdy_p (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree that for at least several years there is good reason to maintain this breakdown. It will be quite a while before anyone much is familiar with the new regions and their names. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maintaining shouldn't mean creating new stuff. Are we supposed to maintain two different structures and categorize everything in both? We could accommodate people unfamiliar with the new regions with redirects. Don't get me wrong: I agree that there's value in maintaining some of the old categories, just as we have categories for former countries. I just think the content of those categories should be things that are specific to the old region. For example, things like government of the region (but probably not of its communes or subdivisions), history of the region before the restructuring, etc. Things like monuments historiques and geography aren't specific to the old regions: they exist in the new regions as well and aren't specifically tied to either. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- No but maintianing does not mean deleting stuff that were correctly and accurately ordered. And the parent categories need to reference them (as they were before the recent unnecessaryh change). There was then absolutely no creation of new stuff for these categories, new categories should have just been created for the new regions, inheriting all what was in the former regions they reference. This absolutely does not mean that files will be sorted in them when they are in fact geolocalized at a lower level in cities (or smaller units: quarters/suburbs, streets...) This does not add any complexity.
- And given the copyright restrictions we have in Commons, many files are dated from before the recent change, and MUST correctly reference the regions where they were. A category for an old battle that occured in a specific place, or for events/meetings that occured in or near an historic monument must still reference it. A battle map in WW2, or a book written in the 1960's and describing some historic monument in an explicit region (as it existed at that time), must still be found in that old region. The deletion of these former categories has left many files orphaned, spread everywhere in the hierarchy, and importer don't know where to put them because when they navigate subcategories they fall to a dead end and cannot select a more appropriate subcategory: it's difficult then to know where to put them, and in fine many files are categorized in multiple categories even theough a precise common subcategory exists for it.
- Note that locations of almost all monuments are in specific communes, or just a couple of them (possibly across region borders). They won't populate the category for former regions because they all have the proper subcategories that belongs to both the new region and the former region. I can give hoaver many examples where it is completely inaccurate to use the new region and only the old region, is relevant: historic monuments have a much wider use and references than just their current administrative status (which is extremely weak in fact, as most of them are not even owned by public collectivities, which cannot finance them completely; there's just some incentive from the state, such as some fiscal exemptions, but most charges to maintain them are private, and if a collectivty does not have enough money, helps to finance their maintenance may come from another collectivty not covering the area directly). But dut to the mixed use of these monuments, they are part of many ateogies that are indepent of their current administrative status and that refer to their history where they belonged to another geopolical entity.
- I would agree that for at least several years there is good reason to maintain this breakdown. It will be quite a while before anyone much is familiar with the new regions and their names. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Think again: what is the real cost of these 16 categories and that also provide helpful links to find where to categroize things properly? They will not require much maintenance as they mostly include only a few items for their departments, but what is impoartnt is not what they contain but their **parents** categories (their parent is not only the new region to which they belong). verdy_p (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Je trouve que faire coexister, par exemple, Aquitaine et Nouvelle-Aquitaine pour toutes les photos est une aberration. Soit on les range dans Aquitaine, sous-section de Nouvelle-Aquitaine, soit on les conserve uniquement dans Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Bien entendu, la Category:Maps of Aquitaine conserve toute sa place. Père Igor (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. I agree with Pere Igor. Co-existing categories new regions and former regions and maintening them are just drastic. Why not royal provinces of France as well, that have a longer history ? One should live with his epoch. This "mille-feuille administratif" should be simplified, by only keeping the new actual regions, that contain the departments. Jack ma (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Je trouve que faire coexister, par exemple, Aquitaine et Nouvelle-Aquitaine pour toutes les photos est une aberration. Soit on les range dans Aquitaine, sous-section de Nouvelle-Aquitaine, soit on les conserve uniquement dans Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Bien entendu, la Category:Maps of Aquitaine conserve toute sa place. Père Igor (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this as stale, along with TLDR, due to the lack of a clear consensus or recent activity. Anyone who disagrees is free to open a new CfD with the main points and a clear path forward though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
As far as I understand it, all geared tuners are called en:Machine heads and should go into Category:Machine heads. The term en:Tuning peg can be understood as a) non-geared tuner ("Friction pegs") or b) the general term for both geared and un-geared tuners.
- Should Category:Machine heads be a sub-category of Category:Tuning pegs or should they be at the same level in another parent category?
- Depending on how we answer that first question, Category:Guitar tuning pegs may become obsolete, as we don't have any media of non-geared guitar tuners.
- Since double-basses have machine heads as well, Category:Machine heads should probably removed from the guitar-specific categories (Category:Guitar machine heads could fill that role).
Opinions? El Grafo (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Guitar tuning pegs on Stradivarius guitar (1700) - In my viewpoint, Wikimedia Commons is not the place to strictly determine what should be called what ; instead, it is desired to be convenience to archive and found the media file, for the ordinarily people.
- As for the term "machine head", surely it may be the formal name of this element. However, in my eyes, the derived terms "closed type machine heads", etc (seen on subcategories) seem slightly unfamiliar, and non-ignorable quantity of people seem tend to call it "(guitar) tuning pegs" or similar names (tuning machine, tuner, etc. as written on w:en:Machine head").
- On the other hand, among the above nicknames, "tuning machine" and "tuner" seems slightly ambiguous with tuning meters or automatic machine head used on Gibson Robot Guitar, so I want to use the nickname "Guitar tuning pegs".
- For the 1st question, I have no opinion on it. The structure under the category:Guitar construction should be improved if needed.
- For the 2nd question, media of exact guitar tuning pegs are found under Category:Early guitars category, especially under Category:Stradivarius guitar.
- For the 3rd question, it seems good idea !
- -- Clusternote (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
_003.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Make Machine heads a sub category of tuning pegs. Make guitar tuning pegs a subcategory of tuning pegs and reserve it for older or simpler guitars, with ungeared pegs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Andy Dingley: be bold and execute your suggestions. Unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | The categories were organized. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | It seems the categories were reorganized at some point by @Andy Dingley: per the last comment, making the CfD moot. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Licensing is bogus for < 1923 and requires a lot more documentation for > 1923.
This category hosts CDU posters, ie derivative works from photographies, with a layout done for the CDU.
The images were given by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, associated to the CDU. So we *perhaps* could have *some* copyright transfer done correctly.
To be able to release these file on CC-BY-SA, we need the following:
- for the original photography
- get the permission from the photographer, OR,
- document there is a transfer of copyright from the graphist to the CDU, then from the CDU to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute.
- for the poster
- assert the poster layout isn't original enough, OR,
- get a permission from the graphist, OR,
- document there is a transfer of copyright from the graphist to the CDU, then from the CDU to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute.
Then, some of the files, especially pre-1923, could be in public domain, at least in US. We should document that instead or in addition to the CC-BY-SA DE license.
Previous DRs on this upload batch exist: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KAS-Arbeitsplätze-Bild-33364-2.jpg and File:KAS-Zukunft-Bild-11663-1.jpg, redeleted by Rama even after FoP issue was addressed by Belgian legislator.
So to move forward, I suggest the following plan:
- we review the public domain ones
- we contact the original uploaders so they can explain their rationale for the licensing
- we try to document the universal patrimonial rights permissions already given to CDU then KAS-ACDP (if any)
- we document the original photographer names, to be able to contact them and know their death date for future copyright expiration
- we contact the photographers to ask permissions
- we "temporarily" delete the remaining to be restored at a later stage (e.g. according the current law 70 years after the death of the original photographer)
Dereckson (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mathias Schindler (WMDE), JeLuF, Saibo, and KAS-ACDP: What do you think of this plan?
- Comment Well, we've uploaded/donated all that material to our best knowledge and belief - based on the fact that the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung serves as the CDU's official archive. In some rare cases of potential copyright issues we immediately opened DRs upon learning of problems. I'm afraid there's not much more we can do. We certainly can't present internal papers / contracts / permissions. I hope you'll understand that. It would be more than just a pity if our collection on Commons - that we're still hoping to significantly enlarge in the future - got deleted. This would in fact send out a devastating signal to a lot of GLAM projects in Germany. (Btw, the ping didn't work) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Discussions about concrete files are not the subject of categories-for-discussion (CFD). I guess we can close this out-of-scope CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Closed as stale and out of scope for the venue. Individual files can and probably should be nominated for deletion though. | |||
Subcats of Category:Motor racing by year
[edit]Moved from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves --Achim (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
CfD request by Corvus tristis:
| Rename Category:XXXX in motor racing to Category:XXXX in motorsport (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Corvus tristis) XXXX in motor racing;XXXX in motorsport;r; Motorsport is much more wider than just racing and also for consistency with category in English Wikipedia |
- The child and grandchild cats here seem specific to racing. Can't these exist as a subtree of motorsports? There's no reason the non-racing area can't be similarly categorized by year, with the racing cats as subcats. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure if that has necessity. As in English wiki we don't have a subcat for motor racing. cybervoron (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- We don't have to follow what English Wikipedia does. We might have enough images to make it helpful to have separate categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure if that has necessity. As in English wiki we don't have a subcat for motor racing. cybervoron (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Keep. Solution per user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Kept per the last comment and Auntof6's solution. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
It does not make sense, to create subcategories by country with only one museum; should at least be 5 museums cats in it other wise the structure takes more space than the cats and hides the museums cats Oursana (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you want a minimum of 5, this would also apply to almost all the sub-categories of Category:Religious paintings by museum. I'll tag them for discussion as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it makes no sense for countries with only one museum. Lambtron (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Keep fits well with Category:Religious paintings by museum by country of location. The latter category consists of several 1-2 members categories.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Merge to Category:Diesel model V-2. Or merge the other way, or rename both to some new name. But as it is, they're just duplicates.
Note that "V-2" is a model of Soviet V12 diesel tank engine, not a vee-twin engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, they're not 'just duplicates'. The original V-2 is the ancestor of a whole family of engines, which can broadly described as V12 diesel engines with the same bore and displacement. So Category:Diesel model V-2 covers the original V-2 engines and Category:V-2 type diesel engines the family of engines. --Markscheider (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Markscheider: Could yo make that clearer with a category description in Category:V-2 type diesel engines? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale dicussion. @Andy Dingley and Markscheider: it seems that Keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It seems like there is no consensus to change the category. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Judging by its subcategories, this has two purposes: statues by subject's country of origin and statues by statue's country of location. For example, Category:Statues of politicians of France and Category:Statues of politicians in France are both subcategories. Both are useful; a statue of George Washington in France, for example, belongs in the "in France" category but not in the "of France" category, and the same is true of a statue of Charles de Gaulle in the USA. Any opposition to splitting it into two categories, e.g. Category:Statues of politicians by country of origin and Category:Statues of politicians by country of location, respectively? I don't want to split it without some input from others. Of course, most politician statues will be in their home countries (all but the most prominent will be unknown to foreigners), so I wonder if maybe we'd best be served by getting rid of the "of" categories (i.e. just going by location of statue) and just adding a tree for expatriate statues, e.g. George Washington in Paris and Charles de Gaulle in New York. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think splitting makes sense. There are statues of Winston Churchill, for instance, in at least 5 countries outside the UK. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I might add that we do have both Category:Monuments and memorials to people by country and Category:Monuments and memorials to people by country of location so it wouldn't be entirely without precedent to split. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Statues of politicians by country of origin: Is it the politicians’ country of origin or the statues’ country of origin? -- 32X (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've been trying to think of a better way to phrase it, to clearly indicate that it's the politician's country of origin, not the statue's. Category:Statues of politicians by nationality? I'm not sure that's necessary though. A description and link at the top would make it clear enough. Although there's some ambiguitity in Category:Statues of politicians from France, I think it's fairly obvious that it refers to the French nationality of the politician, not the statue. The only alternative for sub-categories would be something like Category:Politicians from France in statue form which is way too awkward. Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Nyttend, Themightyquill, and 32X: Seems to be a tough CFD. I can propose two set of variants:
- Category:Statues to politicians by country of origin
- Category:Statues to politicians by country of location, or
- Category:Statues of politicians by country of origin
- Category:Statues of politicians by country of location
I guess both variants are not good, but maybe the hatnotes do the explanatory job? --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: What's the difference between those two sets of variants? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Closing as no action as a stale discussion. A new CfD can be created if needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)