Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/09
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive September 2017
"CTA" can mean a number of different things other than "Container Terminal Altenwerder", including Chicago Transit Authority. Jc86035 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I changed it from a category redirect to disambiguation. --GeorgHH • talk 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
ne veut rien dire le GODF n'a donné aucune autorisation. Création farfelue KAPour les intimes 20:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty category deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
sex VIDEOS 119.160.66.223 17:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
No reason given for discussion. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
necrofelia 73.240.79.31 03:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing as vandalism. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I moved content to User:Suckmyasswiki. There is no need for this. It's Kong of Lazers 你好 01:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- A nonsense posted by some moron. Nothing to discuss. @Kong of Lasers: You shouldn't have moved it, you just should have nominated the category for speedy deletion. --jdx Re: 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as per above. --jdx Re: 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
capitalize "s"-Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English, per Scouting WPMOS Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved by Mediatus as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"e"quipment should not be capitalized Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved as per nomination by Mediatus. Please close discussions if you take action, or at least comment that action has been taken. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems this is a duplicate of an older category, Category:George Sand. Eunostos (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Micrographia, or, Some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses
[edit]appears to have Category:Micrographia as a duplicate; explain distinction between them, or join them Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not a duplicate, but the 1665 book. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
But both categories are below Category:1665 books. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then it should be redirected. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Joined the shorter category into the longet one. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Belgium does not participate this year. Effeietsanders (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
NG does not participate this year Effeietsanders (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
LB does not participate this year Effeietsanders (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Suriname does not participate this year Effeietsanders (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Not required, not linked to any file Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe my eyes are failing, but I can't see the difference between this category and the one it redirects to, Category:Wikimedia India 2030 Movement Strategy Salon Vijayawada (August 2017). What's going on? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- A missing "e". --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aha! My eyes are failing! Thanks.
- A missing "e". --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Wikimedia India 2030 Movement Strategy Salon Vijayawada (August 2017). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a duplicate category for Category:Animals as Leaders. Please merge. Λeternus (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Category redirected and contents moved. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Its name is unhelpful, although that could be fixed; however, pretty much all of it consists of copyrighted artworks which were part of Liverpool Biennial of 2010 and, not being permanent, do not benefit from Freedom of Panorama. This nomination therefore includes all images in the category which cannot be saved by, e.g. cropping out copyrighted works. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep An argument to delete some images here for copyright reasons is not an argument to delete the cat. A maintenance cat like those ought to be emptied (by reallocation or deletion as needed) before the cat becomes superfluous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree. There's a better way of dealing with this, and I will withdraw and close this nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Is her name "Rashi" or Raashi"? I opened a new cat -probably- by mistake. E4024 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please see: Category:Raashi Khanna. --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Clarification: I mean I did not see the existing cat before I opened the new one. I saw the name with 2 "a" letters and thought I was opening a cat for an actress who was not categorized before. --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Better to move the file from Category:Rashi Khanna to Category:Raashi Khanna and delete Category:Rashi Khanna, since the actual name is Raashi Khanna --Alfasst (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I emptied the Category:Rashi Khanna, and took the pictures to the new cat. As you were the creator of the Category:Rashi Khanna, this discussion is over by consensus between the two cat initiators. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done. --E4024 (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I created this category by mistake, please delete it, if possible. Balkanique (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please delete, due to confusion. Sorry and thank you Biberbaer (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as nomination by creator. @Biberbaer: In the future, with simple fixes of your own mistakes, you can use {{Badname}} on the incorrectly named category, since no discussion is needed. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank You -- Biberbaer (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. No longer needed, and I created this category. Another Believer (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted empty category as nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Category created with typographical error. Please accept my apology & delete it! Motacilla (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:St Saviour's Church, Ravensthorpe. @Motacilla: Next time, for simple typos, please add {{Bad name}} to the incorrectly spelled category (e.g. {{Bad name|St Saviour's Church, Ravensthorpe}}) to delete it without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
suppression Newnewlaw (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) : redirected to Category:J. Gerlier.
Deleted. Nominated by creator and category is very new. @Newnewlaw: In the future, if you make a typo like this, you can just use {{Bad name}} on the misspelled category to delete it without discussion, (e.g. {{bad name|J. Gerlier}} on Category:J.Gerlier). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The following categories are arbitrary selections with no maintenance value whatsoever and therefore imo should be deleted:
- Category:Page titles with right-facing swastikas
- Category:Page titles with left-facing swastikas
- Category:Images with swastikas in name, but not in content
- Category:Images with swastikas in both name and content
- Category:File names with right-facing swastikas
- Category:File names with left-facing swastikas
- Category:File names with swastikas
- Category:Category names with right-facing swastikas
- Category:Category names with left-facing swastikas
- Category:Category names with swastikas
- Category:Page titles with swastikas
- Category:Gallery names starting with ß
- Category:File names starting with ß
- Category:Category names starting with ß
- Category:Page titles starting with ß
FDMS 4 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Info: The categories were created by an apparent LTA, see Special:PermaLink/258907085#obscure category name trolling. FDMS 4 20:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 16:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Category created by self-promoter. All files are up for deletion. This should be deleted as well. Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Support BTW do they have -or how do they have- articles in some WPs? --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- They created two articles in Hindi wiki, one was nominated by me (will be deleted by another admin) and another deleted by me. In Dutch wiki, one member said that there is no speedy delete option for biography, so they declined request.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, capitalization should be fixed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. BTW there is another cat regarding this person: Category:Sockpuppets of Vhacker Vicky kadian. --E4024 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by wdwd. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I have strong doubts about the encyclopedic value of this category, as per se there is no such thing as "fascist architecture". During the Italian fascism, in fact (as even Wikipedia explains) there were various styles, such as the rationalist, futurist and the monumentalist schools. This category brings together whatever was built during the 20s-30s in Italy and in its colonies, considering it all "fascist architecture" just because they were built under the same authoritarian regime. The Italian Wikipedia, in fact, has not an article called "Fascist architecture" but rather a section called "architecture during the fascist period" under the article "Italian architecture in the 20th century". I suggest its deprecation or even deletion, including its subcategories. Desyman (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, I intended to discuss the category Category:Fascist architecture, including its subcategories such as this one. Grateful if an admin could correct my mistake. in the meantime, please discuss here. Sorry again.--Desyman (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Accidental nomination. Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Empty, proper category is here : Category:Church of Saint John the Baptist (Kremnické Bane) Pikador (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pikador: There is nothing to discuss:-), this category should be redirected to the correct category, the question is why was the second category created and why the user User:Ľuboš Repta didnt make this redirect, when he was not satisfied with the pervious name.--LacoR (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing, cat has been redirected. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted, please (Duplicate of Category:Alamannengräber Feuerbach) NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Nominated by creator and category is very new. @NearEMPTiness: In the future, if you make a typo like this, you can just use {{Bad name}} on the misspelled category to delete it without discussion, (e.g. {{bad name|Alamannengräber Feuerbach}} on Category:Gräberfeld von Stuttgart-Feuerbach). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
the name is misleading (images about the Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn tend to end here), I propose to use Category:Schönbrunn (cadastral community) instead, which is less error prone Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Funke: as a specialist for Vienna administration. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please go ahead, change it. I can guarantee that User:Eknuf who created the category has no other possibility than to agree with me. --Funke (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
all relevant people are in favour to rename the cat. -> renamed --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Incorrect date ? Themightyquill (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. I've merged categories --Butko (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Incorrect date by category creator. Thanks Butko. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be deleted. Title is equal to "Voice actors from the United States" Hiddenhauser (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- This kind of thing can be handled with the {{Bad name}} template. I have tagged it with the template. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Empty, not expecting new free media for 2001 "soon" (before 2096). --2.247.247.18 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
delete per nomination of creator SecretName101 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
changed name Lionster (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Category löschen, durch richtige Schreibweise Xylektypom ersetzt Gerd Leibrock (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name. --Achim (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
TRUMP , WORLD WAR , DELUSIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RISK 186.32.7.254 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Fake news? Closing nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by Category:BSicon/railway/set yellow Rowan03 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Rowan03:
Delete. In future, just CSD the empty or redirected categories with {{SD|C1}}. Jc86035 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
category not needed at this moment (at least) Robby (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Robby: I'm not sure I understand. There are a number of photos in Category:Hurricanes in Bermuda that could be moved here. Category:Effects of Hurricane Igor in Bermuda, however, could be moved to Category:Hurricane Igor in Bermuda since it seems to show images of the hurricane, not after-images. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Indeed your suggestions are quite logic I suggest to follow your suggestions. Indeed I just suggested to delete the category as I thought there were no files available to be put there (sorry for not having checked this before). Robby (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've realised the sugegsted changesRobby (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Indeed your suggestions are quite logic I suggest to follow your suggestions. Indeed I just suggested to delete the category as I thought there were no files available to be put there (sorry for not having checked this before). Robby (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Great. I'm glad that worked out. Thanks for your help, Robby. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is hardly any mention of the full name on the company's official website, therefore I suggest renaming this category to the more common and much more convenient to use CTS. FDMS 4 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, but with a redirect from Compagnie des transports strasbourgeois. --Edelseider (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Of course there will be a redirect. FDMS 4 13:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved. FDMS 4 16:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Because it is incorrectly named BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand the problem ? Prométhée (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Prométhée: BeckenhamBear has mentioned on the category's talk page that "This category should be 'Engravings after Louis Rousselet', not 'Engravings by' he was a photographer not an engraver. There is no evidence that he engraved anything. Nearly all the engravings identify their engraver by name." That does seem to make sense to me. Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Prométhée: Themightyquill The category named as "Engravings by Louis Rousselet" is misleading, it should be named "Engravings after Louis Rousselet" or something similar. I have researched it extensively. I can confirm he was not an Engraver, though he could draw. If you look in this category you will see that all the engravings are signed by different Engravers, and none of them are Roussellet. See the (Louis Rousselet) EN Wikipedia article. Louis was a traveller, travel-writer, and photographer. He took photographs and made sketches on his travels. Engravers were commissioned to illustrate his writings. Many of the engravings for Le Monde were done by Emile Therond. There are around 60+ engravings on Wikimedia, where Therond's name is mentioned; though maybe only half that number had any artistic input by him. Rousselet provided Therond with sketches, for Therond and others to make engravings from, for publication in Le Monde. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Prométhée: Themightyquill There is a precedent here. Example Category:Works after Joseph Wright of Derby. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- And more importantly, Category:Engravings after other works by original artist. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation, so I agree to rename the category : "by" => "after". Prométhée (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Engravings after Louis Rousselet and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The only content of this category is a video that happens to show the back of a sign -- presumably a road sign, but it's impossible to tell. I don't think being unable to see the front of a sign makes it important enough to have an "unidentified" category. As for other things that might someday be in this category, those and the one currently there could just go in Category:Road signs in Paris, which already has individual files. Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This makes no sense as a category. If someone went to the trouble of identifying what sign it is - say a no parking sign - it still wouldn't be worth putting the image in Category:No parking signs. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
flor de piel 200.89.85.41 03:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry? --E4024 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- nonsense nomination. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This category and the gallery should be renamed, because category names consisting of only an integer are reserved for years. Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Category:2512 (magazine) like the wikipedia articles? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Works for me. I was preoccupied at the time I created this discussion, so I didn't even notice that there was something on Wikipedia. If I had, I probably would have gone ahead and moved this. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone made the move: I flagged this cat as renamed and moved the CfD template back here. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Closing - old cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This category has been split into two. Thus it is unnecessary. Afifa Afrin (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've flagged as empty, so it should be deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
merge with Category:Allgemeines Lexicon der Künste und Wissenschafften (1721), as already suggested in description - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jochen Burghardt: That works for me. Do I understand correctly that you prefer the version with the date? Is it called Lexicon 1 or part of a series? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I didn't think about which name to prefer. Now that you ask for it, I didn't find an Arabic "1" (or a Roman "I", or a German "erste[s]", meaning "first" in English) on the title pages File:Allgemeines Lexicon der Künste und Wissenschaften (1721) - Titelblatt.jpg and File:Hübner 1717 Jablonski 1721 IMG 3897.JPG. The caption at de:Allgemeines Lexikon der Künste und Wissenschaften says that the title page of the first edition is shown; this could explain the "1" in the category name. The wikisource page wikisource:de:Allgemeines Lexicon der Künste und Wissenschafften mentions three editions ("Auflage"), appeared in 1721, 1748, 1767, with the 3rd consisting of two volumes ("Band").
Considering that, I'd now prefer to have just one Category:Johann Theodor Jablonski: Allgemeines Lexikon der Künste und Wissenschaften, without year or edition/volume count, using the editor's and the book's proper names from the de.wikipedia articles. I guess the editor's name needs to be included, since the book's name is rather general ("Allgemeines Lexicon" means "general dictionary/encyclopedia", and "der Künste und Wissenschaften" means "of arts and sciences"). I don't think we should already split by year, since there are only a few images in all concerned categories altogether.
I also found Category:Th. Jablonski: Allgemeines Lexicon: Artikel, ("Artikel" meaning "articles") which currently is poorly categorized. I'd suggest to merge it into Category:Johann Theodor Jablonski: Allgemeines Lexikon der Künste und Wissenschaften, too, since the most contents of Category:Th. Jablonski: Allgemeines Lexicon 1 are article scans also. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
---
No objections to my suggestion of 29 Sep 2017 - implementing it and closing the discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
should be joined into Category:Physicians; more generally, the use of 'history' in category names doesn't make sense as the notion changes over time, and doesn't distinguish anything, unless we could look into the future. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Physicians (by year) seems highly appropriate for many of the bio categories here (I've just moved some), but not for all of them. For example, see Category:Jan de Doot, Category:Caroline Eichler, and Category:Phineas Gage. Yes, technically photo taken and uploaded to commons is a photo of the past, but that doesn't mean Category:History of Germany is redundant to Category:Germany. That said, "People in the history of medicine" is rather awkward phrasing. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I probably created this category page because I found it red-linked. We shouldn't merge it with Cat:Physicans, because not everyone involved in the history of medicine was a physician. The category should include barbers, surgeons, nurses, patients, authors, anatomists, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, concerning the "history" notion: Of course there is some distinction between "history" and, say, "non-history" in common language. However, I see two problems with it: (1) it is very vague, no two people will agree at which point in time e.g. the history of Germany end and its present tense begins; (2) it is moving permanently over time, so even if we'd agree that media older than e.g. 10 years belong to history, we'd have to re-categorize e.g. pages from Category:Germany to Category:History of Germany every year (or more often). Therefore, I prefer Category:Germany by century, or/and decade etc., and similar for Physicians (Category:10th-century physicians etc. already exist below Category:Physicians). — @WhatamIdoing, concerning the broader group of people who contributed to medicine: I see your point, and the problem that the relations changed over time (some 400 years ago, a barber contributed to medicine, while today (s)he usually doesn't). Maybe Category:People in the history of medicine is more related to Category:Medical occupations, and should be merged with that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I see your point about history, and I prefer to keep everything sub-categorized by century too. Category:Medical occupations would work for some of these, but again, not for all. Do we created Category:Medical patients ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I made a try, and found we have in fact a Category:Patients. I don't quite understand who is included there, apparently far less people than those who have been a patient once or more in their live. It seems to be about a situation/role, not about a group of people. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jochen Burghardt: Thanks, I guess that could work. Do we just leave Category:Medical occupations and Category:Patients in Category:Medicine or do we need something equivalent to Category:People in the history of medicine as a parent? Category:People associated with medicine ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I'd prefer not to have too much intermediate categories. In this case, I'd like to do without a common supercategory just for Category:Medical occupations and Category:Patients. After all, we don't have much customer categories at all (see Category:Customers), and usually no common categories for occupations and customers, except for Category:Prostitutes and customers; e.g. we don't have a Category:People associated with hair cutting, or Category:Barbers and customers. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jochen Burghardt: You're right that we don't have many sub-categories for customers in Category:Customers -- Just 3: Category:Passengers, Category:Patients and Category:Prostitutes and customers. The last of these is directly grouped along with the service provider. Category:Passengers is in Category:People associated with vehicles. So I'd say Category:Patients is actually the odd one out. Though, admittedly, Category:Customers itself is not in Category:People associated with retail. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aside from grouping patients and professionals together, a category like Category:People associated with medicine would allow space for anyone who doesn't fit easily into those two groups. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with that. To sum up: we should rename Category:People in the history of medicine to Category:People associated with medicine. The latter would have both Category:Medical occupations and Category:Patients as subcategories. Category:Physicians etc. would remain below Category:Medical occupations. Did I overlook something? If not, should we wait somewhat, or should we close this discussion? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
---
No objection to my last summary of 27 Sep 2017 - implementing it, and closing the discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
usually contributors are supercategories of their works, not subcategories Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Our hierarchy doesn't work very well with these kinds of relationships, so I'm fairly neutral. The only equivalent category I can find (besides various "Contributors to X-language wikipedia" categories) is Category:Contributors to the Wünschelruthe. I'll tag it for discussion here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I took the "usually" from the existence of many categories "Books by XXX", "Paintings by XXX", etc. However, you are right, the hierarchy doesn't work well here. On second thought, triggered by your argument, if a relationship is one-to-many, or few-to-many, it makes sense to map the many-side to the subcategory, and the few-side to the supercategory, since usually fewer items exist on higher hierarchy levels than on lower ones.
As an example, the relationship "XXX is author of the book YYY" is usually one-to-many (or few-to-many): a book usually has one author (or a few), but one author often writes many books. Therefore, putting XXX's books in a subcategory "Books by XXX", one gets a structure that resembles a hierarchy tree.
I admit that in case of an encyclopedia there may be very many contributors, so it may make sense to do it the other way round, i.e. like it is currently at Category:Contributors to the plates of Diderot's Encyclopédie. (However, only 2 contributors are listed yet.)
So, having said all the above, I'd now be fine with keeping everything as it is, and maybe write an explanatory note to justify the deviation from the "Books by XXX" practice, along the above-sketched lines. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
---
No objections - implementing (note at Category:Contributors to the plates of Diderot's Encyclopédie) and closing. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Arina Sobolenko. I propose merging this category to abovementioned. Jarash (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jarash: Just to clarify, you redirect Category:Arina Sobolenko to Category:Aryna Sabalenka? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Arina Sobolenko redirect to Aryna Sobolenko would be better. Her name is spelled “Aryna Sabalenka” on WTA web page. “Arina Sobolenko” is just a transliteration from Russian spelling “Арина Соболенко”. —Jarash (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- You probably intended to write: "Arina Sobolenko redirect to Aryna
SobolenkoSabalenka would be better."--Kacir (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- You probably intended to write: "Arina Sobolenko redirect to Aryna
- Arina Sobolenko redirect to Aryna Sobolenko would be better. Her name is spelled “Aryna Sabalenka” on WTA web page. “Arina Sobolenko” is just a transliteration from Russian spelling “Арина Соболенко”. —Jarash (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you want to solve? She is a Belarusian (Арына Сабалéнка = correct "Aryna Sabalenka"), not Russian player (Arina Sobolenko). That's in compliance with her WTA / ITF / Fed Cup profiles (Aryna Sabalenka), BTW even with crosswiki names of article, of course except russian version.--Kacir (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirected from Category:Arina Sobolenko to Category:Aryna Sabalenka. --Jarash (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
RHONDA BYRNE 97.77.153.51 08:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, no valid reason for discussion. --jdx Re: 00:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Empty category, very much not in alignment with Commons category naming standards. Apocheir (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Any reason to have the name capitalized? Normally dish names are written in small letters. E4024 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the name only refers to a type of cram (Category:Eriocheir sinensis) not a dish at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is this cram a clam or a crab? --E4024 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I will empty the cat for deletion, and take the only item to Category:Crab dishes of China then. (The above was a joke to begin the new week with a smile, sorry.) --E4024 (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be deleted: Mexico had to withdraw. Effeietsanders (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Single-item category. A similar for other Turkish cities do not exist. (The same user has added a red link for Niğde also but for some reason has not completed the cat. It has a red link to "Category:Caravanseraies and bedestens in Tekirdağ Province"! The mentioned user should concentrate a little on the maintenance of their cats...) E4024 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- BTW there are many "kervansaray" and "bedesten" in Turkey and they could/should be categorized, if there are files to populate the cats; however, a kervansaray and a bedesten are totally different things and there is no reason (logic) in categorizing them "together"... --E4024 (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed they have been categorized under Category:Caravanserais in Turkey, User:Zcebeci. --E4024 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Zcebeci, I made the Category:Bedestens in Turkey and solutioned the problem. No need to come back from vacations. --E4024 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Done Deleted upon my nomination. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I cannot understand its existence together with the Category:Deviled eggs. Shall we take this as a "dishes" cat and add, for instance, "Category:Huevos a la peruana" as subcat? What? E4024 (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, I understood: It is about the form and function of the plate. --E4024 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- So do you still think action is needed? I think it's fine as it is. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Basically redundant with Category:Bicycle rental and it's subcategory Category:Community bicycle programs it just adds confusion while categorising. I'm either for deleting this category, redirecting it or making it a subcategory of Category:Bicycle rental. Steinfeld-feld (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I support making Category:Bike sharing a subcategory of Category:Bicycle rental; however, Category:Community bicycle programs should be merged into Category:Bike sharing, as many services are no longer community specific. Thoughts? (I was the creator of Category:Bike sharing) Daylen (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd think Daylen has a good point. I'm not sure "Bike sharing" is the clearest name, but I can't come up with a better one. Category:Bicycle-sharing systems? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Bicycle-sharing systems is great, as that seems to be the name of the subject on most versions of Wikipedia. Daylen (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- The concepts are indeed related. Community systems are automated monopolies, well suited to commuting, and cooperating with municipal authorities to set up street furniture. Newer shares are dockless, hence looser but also automated, and many are monopolies. Other rentals need not be automated. They mostly serve tourists and other occasional users, and usually are not monopolies. EN so far has paid little attention to the two extremes, but has made large articles for the dock-based systems. Which of these distinctions deserve categories, I don't know. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'd think Daylen has a good point. I'm not sure "Bike sharing" is the clearest name, but I can't come up with a better one. Category:Bicycle-sharing systems? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jim.henderson: Like Daylen, I definitely think there is a need for both Category:Bicycle rental, but I think Category:Community bicycle programs and Category:Bike sharing are redundant. I think both should be replaced with Category:Bicycle-sharing systems. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Two categories, one a subset of the other, are reasonable. The differences between docked and undocked automated operators are technical, political, commercial and cultural, and the pedias are failing to say so, but thus far the differences only create small differences in pictures. If this fast moving industry develops in ways that accentuate these differences or create new and important ones, we can adjust as conditions indicate. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, please check to make sure that the information below is correct before I begin moving categories. cc. @Steinfeld-feld: @Themightyquill: @Jim.henderson:
- Two categories, one a subset of the other, are reasonable. The differences between docked and undocked automated operators are technical, political, commercial and cultural, and the pedias are failing to say so, but thus far the differences only create small differences in pictures. If this fast moving industry develops in ways that accentuate these differences or create new and important ones, we can adjust as conditions indicate. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Bicycle rental stays the same
- Category:Bike sharing --> Category:Bicycle-sharing systems
- Category:Community bicycle programs --> Category:Bicycle-sharing systems
- Category:Bicycle-sharing systems becomes a subcategory of Category:Bicycle rental
- Any objections? Cheers, Daylen (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Daylen: Sounds good to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Daylen: If the arrows from the old categories to the new one mean they get redirected to the new category I'm ok with the move. They're useful for the HotCat and the Catalot gadget and can be make further, deeper categorisation easier as they quickly show the new category. This would be also a landing space for quickly categorised files that land in that parent category for further categorisation.(eg if they would get one of the redirected category and were move there by a bot, for reference see Special:Contributions/RussBot) --Steinfeld-feld (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC).
Category:Bike sharing and Category:Community bicycle programs redirected to Category:Bicycle-sharing systems, a subcategory of Category:Bicycle rental. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The division between Category:Text images that should use vector graphics and its subcategories Category:Alphabet images that should use vector graphics and Category:Glyph images that should use vector graphics is unclear. This is how the categories are described:
| Category | Description in {{Convert to SVG}} | Category description |
|---|---|---|
| Text | images mainly consisting of text (but use logo for textlogos and consider using alphabet where appropriate) | none |
| Alphabet | images of characters, font examples, etc. | generic Images that should use vector graphics category message |
| Glyph | For glyphs and letters, e.g. Unicode | For glyphs and letters, e.g. Unicode |
I think when these categories were created, there were intended divisions, but they have since been lost. Alphabet contains many images that aren't alphabets (Chinese characters, South asian abugidas, Hebrew, etc.). Glyph seems to be defined as "individual characters from unusual scripts." To me, splitting individual characters from sequences of characters is a specious distinction. Maybe the division between Text and Alphabet is that text is just normal text and Alphabet is supposed to be the use of particular fonts, but pure text images are out of scope for Commons and belong in Category:Images which should not be images.
The various Category:Images that should use vector graphics categories define workflow; e.g., if I want to vectorize maps, I need a tool that can produce vector maps, or if I want to vectorize coats of arms I need knowledge of coats of arms. It's about grouping the files for the right people to work on. I see these three categories as needing similar tools to work on.
I recommend merging Alphabet and Glyph into Text.
--Apocheir (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given the lack of either opposition to or interest in this over a couple months, if there are no further comments by the 1st of December, I will:
- Move the contents of Category:Alphabet images that should use vector graphics and Category:Glyph images that should use vector graphics into Category:Text images that should use vector graphics
- Redirect the empty categories Category:Alphabet images that should use vector graphics and Category:Glyph images that should use vector graphics to Category:Text images that should use vector graphics.
- -Apocheir (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Alphabet images that should use vector graphics and Category:Glyph images that should use vector graphics have been redirected to Category:Text images that should use vector graphics, and their contents moved accordingly. -Apocheir (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
If this category is for places named Place de l'Église, as the description says, shouldn't it be named either Places de l'Église (plural) or Places named Place de l'Église? Maybe it should even be a dab page, with a new category by one of those names. I also don't think it should be under places named after churches, because it's just named church, not named after a church. Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely a disambiguation page. We don't need a category for every place with a similar generic name. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've made it a dab page. I removed the subcats but left the individual files. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do we not have this cat for other Turkish cities, for example Istanbul, with many more files? E4024 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- The only sub-category with content was Category:Built in Turkey in 1927, which is obviously inappropriate for a category about Ankara. Now the only sub-category is Category:Buildings in Ankara by year of completion and it's empty. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed Category:Sıhhiye Vekaleti, the only subcat in Category:Built in Turkey in 1927, should in fact be the only tenant of Category:Buildings in Ankara by year of completion for the year 1927, but alas! Maybe we should better delete some users... (This sure is a joke and no personal attack, I was referring to myself! If we delete me then we avoid these discussions. :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. We should delete it. Do you know any admin who can do that? --E4024 (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This should be renamed to Category:Rio de Janeiro (city) to make it consistent with the categories/subcategories for Category:Rio de Janeiro (state) and also proper English. DerBorg (talk · contribs) suggested this back in June on the page but didn't create the discussion page, so I'm starting it for him here. His original suggestion from June:
- Uncontroversial typo in naming form in case of ambiguous toponyms (at least, it should be "City" with capital C, but the city is named (and known) as Rio de Janeiro without "City", in any case). I think this was a mistake occurred 9 years ago, when it was created the dabcat for Rio. See for example the Category:Rio de Janeiro (state). I think that a so important category should be fixed as soon as possible, along with the subcategories using the form "xx in/of Rio de Janeiro city"
I agree with him that this is common sense. There are dozens of subcategories with the same format that also sound odd (eg Category:Symbols of Rio de Janeiro city). Wikimandia (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Thanks @Wikimandia for this edits. Situation is the same of São Paulo (the city), and I've now created the "Paulista" CFD request. --Dэя-Бøяg 10:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
strong oppose There's no need for two disambiguations, as Rio de Janeiro often refers to the state in Brazil, and when it refers to the city, which is a subcat of the state, the disambiguation is immediate. This has always been the use here, and that's what seems to work better, inclusively avoiding thousands of absolutely needless disambiguation pages on the "Rio de Janeiro" cats. Recently people started moving the state cats to "Rio de Janeiro (state)" or "Rio de Janeiro state", and even moving the city cats to "Rio de Janeiro", creating an huge mess which has only got worse since it started. I'm reverting all that, as those moves were all but consensual, and getting all the stuff back to the model we always used here, without any problems. As for the city, it could be Category:Rio de Janeiro (city) as well as Category:Rio de Janeiro city, that seems irrelevant. As most of the cats are already named Category:Rio de Janeiro city, I don't see any need to move to a similar equivalent, with no gain at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment (as nominator, just some further details): I just want to be clear about the reasons of my rename request. First, I know nothing about the moving of Rio/São Paulo (states) categories, because my request was only related to the cities. Who started to move state categories is doing another work, and I don't know why/who/when (and, btw, I agree that it could create mess and confusion with titles without "(state)"). My request, as explained above, follows a basic concept: the principle to respect the syntax (creating titles, text etc...), as it is a fundamental rule and mantra for Wikipedia, its a Commons' rule too, at 100%, and (for what I know) must be applied, and the mistakes fixed when detected. For categories, pages, etc. "Rio de Janeiro City" and "São Paulo City" are not valid because, for what I know, is not their English name (different, for example, to Kuwait City, originally "Madinat Al-Kuwait" or "Al-Kuwait"). "Rio de Janeiro city" and "São Paulo city", with lowercase C and not under brackets, are a syntax mistake (just an example: Category:New York City). As for the states (see en:Rio de Janeiro (state), and en:São Paulo (state)) this criterion is valid for ambiguous city titles too. If the disambiguation criterion specifies the territory (ex.: Category:San Jose, California) the form is "Placename, State/Territorny whatever". If it describes the status (city, town, ward, province, state, county etc...), the form is "Placename (city/town/state...)" (see Category:Salzburg (state), Category:Washington (state) etc). Just to make an example: 6 or 7 years ago, a user (now indef blocked for other issues) uploaded thousand pics and created hundreds of categories and galleries for any quarter, road and any mini village related to Prato (an Italian city in Tuscany) and its province. Some of this titles had grammar typos (I remember, for example, -La pieta'- instead of -La Pietà-). If the "fix criterion" is valid for a microvillage unknown outside its province, it should be applied for any Commons cat. Especially for the two most populos Brazilian metropolises, and among the largest ones of whole American continent. Yes, the category works with any name, of course, but I explained the reason. For the (gigantic) work there are flagged bots and, btw, this is not the only case of "big move" (see the case of Los Angeles, one year ago). That's my only and technical reason for this request, and I hope I have explained it to the best (sorry for my English). Anyway, if it is evaluated that the current naming form is valid (so, is ok Commons' rules), it's ok for me. Best of regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello DerBorg, answered at the "Paulista" CFD (which is the same situation as here). Cheers, -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I read and answered :-) Regards, --Dэя-Бøяg 03:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Done: I agree with DerBorg wise suggestions, and actually I've been following them for months already, consistently using nothing for the state, and (city) for the city, without any opposition so far. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion as successful, and will continue proceeding with the changes. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This should be renamed to Category:São Paulo (city) to make it consistent with the categories/subcategories for Category:São Paulo (state) and also proper English form. Uncontroversial typo in naming standard form in case of ambiguous toponyms (at least, it should be "City" with capital C, but the city is named (and known) as São Paulo without "City", in any case). I think this was a mistake occurred after the creation of the Category:Rio de Janeiro city. See for example the Category:São Paulo (state) or the gallery São Paulo (city). I think that a so important category should be fixed as soon as possible, along with the subcategories using the form "xx in/of São Paulo city" --Dэя-Бøяg 09:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Situation is the same of Rio de Janeiro (the city), and I've now created the "Carioca" CFD request. --Dэя-Бøяg 10:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom Wikimandia (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Dornicke (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
strong oppose There's no need for two disambiguations, as São Paulo often refers to the state in Brazil, and when it refers to the city, which is a subcat of the state, the disambiguation is immediate. This has always been the use here, and that's what seems to work better, inclusively avoiding thousands of absolutely needless disambiguation pages on the "São Paulo" cats. Recently people started moving the state cats to "São Paulo (state)" or "São Paulo state", and even moving the city cats to "São Paulo", creating an huge mess which has only got worse since it started. I'm reverting all that, as those moves were all but consensual, and getting all the stuff back to the model we always used here, without any problems. As for the city, it could be Category:São Paulo (city) as well as Category:São Paulo city, that seems irrelevant. As most of the cats are already named Category:São Paulo city, following the Rio de Janeiro model, I don't see any need to move to a similar equivalent, with no gain at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment (as nominator, just some further details): I just want to be clear about the reasons of my rename request. First, I know nothing about the moving of Rio/São Paulo (states) categories, because my request was only related to the cities. Who started to move state categories is doing another work, and I don't know why/who/when (and, btw, I agree that it could create mess and confusion with titles without "(state)"). My request, as explained above, follows a basic concept: the principle to respect the syntax (creating titles, text etc...), as it is a fundamental rule and mantra for Wikipedia, its a Commons' rule too, at 100%, and (for what I know) must be applied, and the mistakes fixed when detected. For categories, pages, etc. "Rio de Janeiro City" and "São Paulo City" are not valid because, for what I know, is not their English name (different, for example, to Kuwait City, originally "Madinat Al-Kuwait" or "Al-Kuwait"). "Rio de Janeiro city" and "São Paulo city", with lowercase C and not under brackets, are a syntax mistake (just an example: Category:New York City). As for the states (see en:Rio de Janeiro (state), and en:São Paulo (state)) this criterion is valid for ambiguous city titles too. If the disambiguation criterion specifies the territory (ex.: Category:San Jose, California) the form is "Placename, State/Territorny whatever". If it describes the status (city, town, ward, province, state, county etc...), the form is "Placename (city/town/state...)" (see Category:Salzburg (state), Category:Washington (state) etc). Just to make an example: 6 or 7 years ago, a user (now indef blocked for other issues) uploaded thousand pics and created hundreds of categories and galleries for any quarter, road and any mini village related to Prato (an Italian city in Tuscany) and its province. Some of this titles had grammar typos (I remember, for example, -La pieta'- instead of -La Pietà-). If the "fix criterion" is valid for a microvillage unknown outside its province, it should be applied for any Commons cat. Especially for the two most populos Brazilian metropolises, and among the largest ones of whole American continent. Yes, the category works with any name, of course, but I explained the reason. For the (gigantic) work there are flagged bots and, btw, this is not the only case of "big move" (see the case of Los Angeles, one year ago). That's my only and technical reason for this request, and I hope I have explained it to the best (sorry for my English). Anyway, if it is evaluated that the current naming form is valid (so, is ok Commons' rules), it's ok for me. Best of regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DerBorg: Hello. I'll place my argument only here, but it's the same for Rio de Janeiro. First of all, I must say I have no personal attachment to some specific way to represent the cities. The only thing that can't happen is representing them using the system other countries use, leaving the main cat for the city and using the state with the disambiguation, as it would go against the use in Brazil, and will create havoc among the main users and feeders of those cats. I have no problem at all with the current system, despite it being the opposite of the use of my own country, Portugal. In Brazil the state is more important than its capital, so that should be the way it should be represented here as well. I disagree with the necessity of disambiguate the state, as it only adds unneeded clutter, and the city is a subcat of that, anyway. Finally, I can't see how "Rio de Janeiro city" is less valid as a disambiguation than "Rio de Janeiro (city)" ("Rio de Janeiro City" does not exist at all), and seems to simplify things, specially when it has to be used as a disambiguation itself: you can use "something (Rio de Janeiro (city))". Or can you? I really do not know what happens in those cases. Anyway, I keep supporting the status quo, and no change at all, but would not oppose a change to something like "Rio de Janeiro (city)", if the advantages of that would be clear.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DerBorg: BTW, I agree with you, at least aesthetically: I would not mind at all seeing something like "Rio de Janeiro (city)", and possibly it would be more clear to someone not used to the current system. Do you have any ideia about how to work out the disambiguations in those cases? (please {{Ping}} me if/when you answer here, as I don't use my watchlist very often). Cheers, -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Uhm... Thanks for anwering :-) Just to talk, if in Brazil state name is a primary topic and the city follows it, it's ok to follow Brazilian form here too. Talking abou this city categries and my requested move... About the brackets, it is a simple syntax problem: the title with "Rio (city)" is correct, "Rio city" isn't. And, note, also an eventual "Rio (City)" -under bracket with capital C- isn't correct. The naming forms, in Wikipedia as on Commons, should be fixed if they have grammatical problems, also this tiny details. For this simple reason, Rio city is lesser valid than Rio (city). Also because it could look like a sort of "Rio de Janeiro City" (and I know that it doesn't exists in English) badly wroten. Btw, it could be renamed "Rio de Janeiro (cidade)" but, the general rule for places is: category name in English, gallery name in their native language (see for example: Category:Moscow and Москва, or the Category:Dhaka and ঢাকা). Regarding the move dimensions: there are bots who can do this giant work quickly, an example is the case of Los Angeles: a so complex category was moved with all its subcats. I'm sorry if I look like pernickety ("frescurento" in Portuguese?), but I use to fix and care several boring details on Commons, from years: category trees, subcats harmonized, naming conventions, overcat, standard descriptions, syntax, and so on. The same and usual maintenance work on Wikipedia. About the last question... Aehm, I've not well understood. If the "work out the disambiguation" is about the states' categories (Paulista and Carioca), a disambiguation note above them is sufficient. If it is about the transfer: bots. If happens that someone choose the wrong category, or categorize a city picture in state category, or worse, in the disambiguation one... It happens, lots of time, everywhere :-) ... I don't remember how many files I moved from dabcats into right categories. Thanks again for answer, cheers and "bom dia" :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DerBorg: Thanks for getting back so quickly, and for your pleasant, charming attitude, despite me falling like a rock here. I do agree with you, and your argument. "São Paulo (city)" and "Rio de Janeiro (city)" do seem to be the more proper designations. (I'm laughing my head off here because of the pernickety, if you knew my real name you would understand how it's fitting :D ). The disambiguation question was due to the occasional necessity of disambiguate something which is could exist at a state level, and at city level, say, for instance, some name that could be a municipality of the state, but also a neighbourhood of the city, such as (imagine): "Pinheiros (São Paulo)" and "Pinheiros (São Paulo city)". However, thinking better about it, I doubt that will be a problem, we'll find some solution if such case appears. From my part, you can go ahead and request the renaming. Thank you for your interest in fixing that. I'm currently working a lot on those cats, so it's indeed a good time to fix what has to be fixed. Cheers, -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Uhm... Thanks for anwering :-) Just to talk, if in Brazil state name is a primary topic and the city follows it, it's ok to follow Brazilian form here too. Talking abou this city categries and my requested move... About the brackets, it is a simple syntax problem: the title with "Rio (city)" is correct, "Rio city" isn't. And, note, also an eventual "Rio (City)" -under bracket with capital C- isn't correct. The naming forms, in Wikipedia as on Commons, should be fixed if they have grammatical problems, also this tiny details. For this simple reason, Rio city is lesser valid than Rio (city). Also because it could look like a sort of "Rio de Janeiro City" (and I know that it doesn't exists in English) badly wroten. Btw, it could be renamed "Rio de Janeiro (cidade)" but, the general rule for places is: category name in English, gallery name in their native language (see for example: Category:Moscow and Москва, or the Category:Dhaka and ঢাকা). Regarding the move dimensions: there are bots who can do this giant work quickly, an example is the case of Los Angeles: a so complex category was moved with all its subcats. I'm sorry if I look like pernickety ("frescurento" in Portuguese?), but I use to fix and care several boring details on Commons, from years: category trees, subcats harmonized, naming conventions, overcat, standard descriptions, syntax, and so on. The same and usual maintenance work on Wikipedia. About the last question... Aehm, I've not well understood. If the "work out the disambiguation" is about the states' categories (Paulista and Carioca), a disambiguation note above them is sufficient. If it is about the transfer: bots. If happens that someone choose the wrong category, or categorize a city picture in state category, or worse, in the disambiguation one... It happens, lots of time, everywhere :-) ... I don't remember how many files I moved from dabcats into right categories. Thanks again for answer, cheers and "bom dia" :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Done: I agree with DerBorg wise suggestions, and actually I've been following them for months already, consistently using nothing for the state, and (city) for the city, without any opposition so far. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion as successful, and will continue proceeding with the changes. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I created this category by accident as well, please delete it. I'm really sorry for bothering Balkanique (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
DELETED|creator's request on creation day. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
not enough content. Keine Amnestie (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it as empty for deletion because there was not "enough" but "no" files in it. --E4024 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
DELETED|Taivo (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Empty category that is no longer needed. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Moved to Category:Gerry Davis. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Old name is redirected, it seems fine. --ghouston (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Empty category that is no longer needed. Lepricavark (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Moved to Category:Greg Bird. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Old name is redirected, it seems fine for now. --ghouston (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Un photo n'est pas de cette ville Delagaugue (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Delagaugue: I removed File:Hôtel du Parc à Vichy, années 20.jpeg from this category. It belongs in Category:Hôtel du Parc (Vichy). C'était le seul problème? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Delagaugue and Themightyquill: Hello ! I uploaded one of the 3 photos. Thank you for the move. For me, all the other photos are ok (from Salies). --Tangopaso (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
KEPT|The photo in the wrong place has been removed. VIGNERON (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Opheffing; Purmerplantsoen bestaat niet in Amsterdam Ceescamel (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Already deleted. --ghouston (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
horno tostador 170.0.179.42 16:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
KEPT|vandalistic nomination. Taivo (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
If we do not have a Category:Hair behind the ears (left) or Category:Hair behind the ears (right) why do we have this cat? Category:Hair behind the ears should be enough. Right? Or wrong? E4024 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds logical. Maybe the creator was trying to indicate that, even though "ears" is plural in the cat name, images might show hair behind only one ear. Maybe "Hair behind one or both ears" would be better? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are also right. For me what I propose helps to prevent overcategorization. Let's hope others also say something. --E4024 (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Hair behind the ears (left) or Category:Hair behind the ears (right) are good idea and cat-names. It had been tentatively subcategorized. Cat-names, I'll leave it to you. Thanks. This cat is Category:Asymmetry hairstyles. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Category isn't needed since it has been split into Category:Hair behind left ear and Category:Hair behind right ear. --ghouston (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Category with a typographical error in its name Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I moved the cat but the only file inside is DR'ed. Let's hope to have better files in the cat. --E4024 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
DELETED|Taivo (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category be named "Graffiti of graffiti removal" ? Basile Morin (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the files of this category, it would certainly gain to be renamed "Graffiti of graffiti removal" so as to include it in the Category:Graffiti removal which matches more precisely than Defacement of graffiti.
There is an interesting self-reference connotation in these paintings, that would be worst to highlight. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed on all points, based on the images in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Graffiti of graffiti removal - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This category and its two sub-categories should be deleted:
Delete They are arbitrary trivia about the aircraft models, not the media contents. --Josh (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd lean towards deletion as well. There are no parallel categories that I can see, and all three were created by Hhm8 earlier this month. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Utterly misleading name, compared against the current content. Delete now! Subcategories are also unhelpful – Commons categorizes media, not models, and for such quantity as “how many years in production” sorting could be used anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No oppositoin in months. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
German category name, needs to be merged with Category:Footbridges IMO. Ies (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Some pictures seem to feature ladders going over a fence. Do we have a category for that? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved out the files and turned into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikimedia Labs (as a collective entity) has been renamed to "Wikimedia Cloud Services" partially to solve the longstanding "labslabslabs" confusion. Renaming this category is one of the final pieces to complete. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved & recategorized. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Requesting moving to Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro. Because other categories in Category:Rapid transit stations in China are named like "Stations of XXX metro" or "XXX metro stations", showing names of metro company. But this one only shows name of Chengdu City, not Category:Chengdu Metro. そらみみ (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: There seems to be no uniform naming scheme in Category:Rapid transit stations in China. As pointed out in the edit summary, Metro stations in [location] is a common name (if not the standard) globally, per Special:Search/prefix:Category:Metro stations in. Transit systems can have stations in different locations, Metro stations in Chengdu ensures that this category will always fit in all applicable category trees, especially Category:Train stations in Chengdu, which is named in the same way as this category. FDMS 4 12:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Despite the lack of a uniform naming scheme in China, most of the categories under Category:Rapid transit stations by country are either in the format of "Stations of X Metro" or "X Metro stations". I'm fine with either Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro or Category:Chengdu Metro stations. Does the Chengdu Metro reach beyond Chengdu? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: What problems are there with the current name? Why harmonise within China (which as of today has no uniform naming scheme), not globally plus with Category:Train stations in Chengdu? FDMS 4 08:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Despite the lack of a uniform naming scheme in China, most of the categories under Category:Rapid transit stations by country are either in the format of "Stations of X Metro" or "X Metro stations". I'm fine with either Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro or Category:Chengdu Metro stations. Does the Chengdu Metro reach beyond Chengdu? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we're in trouble either way, aren't we? If a metro system crosses city boundaries, it makes sense to have all the stations from the same system categorized together (e.g. Chengdu Metro stations) but it also makes sense to have them categorized by their location (e.g. Metro stations in Chengdu). We might then, end up with both, despite the redundancy.
- I think it makes more sense to categorize everything by the metro system first. Using Chengdu as an example, if all stations are in Chengdu, then Category:Chengdu Metro stations can go in Category:Rapid transit stations in Chengdu, and we accomplish both goals. If they aren't all in Chengdu, those that are in Chengdu can go directly into Category:Rapid transit stations in Chengdu (or in a sub-category Category:Metro stations in Chengdu, and those aren't can go in [[:Category:Rapid transit stations in <nearby city>]] (or in a sub-category [[:Category:Metro stations in <nearby city>]]. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The station category scheme we (yes, multiple users) established for Category:Vienna S-Bahn works quite well, actually … Nice thing about metros is that only a minority of them crosses city borders, but when they do, having categories like Metro stations in Chengdu and Metro stations in [other location] in the main metro category doesn't hurt at all imo. FDMS 4 17:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess that makes sense. It's highly unlikely that a city would have multiple metro systems, so there isn't much danger of overlap. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for being late. I know that Category:Metro stations in Chengdu and Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro are the same at now, but if I want to create Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro Line 1, Category:Stations of Chengdu Metro Line 2... to sort categories in Category:Metro stations in Chengdu, is it no matter?--そらみみ (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't – metro station categories are already sorted by metro line in the individual metro line categories on the same level, thus creating metro stations of line categories would only have downsides, namely the loss of a flat list of metro station. FDMS 4 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not done, as opinions against this request occurred.--そらみみ (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't have buildings and streets combined in one category. I suggest splitting this into two categories, even if they each contain all the files here. The new cat names should probably be more like, for example, "unidentified buildings in Maracaibo", with the word "unidentified" first. What does " undefined" mean anyway in this context? Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Unidentified locations in Maracaibo. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- That would work for me. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- It can then fit under Category:Unidentified locations in Venezuela. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- That would work for me. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Unidentified locations in Maracaibo - Themightyquill (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be changed in Crosses in the Eichsfeld or so. Ies (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. It's enough to look at the parent cats to see this necessity. --E4024 (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Crosses in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. This category and its subcategories should be renamed in Wayside shrines in the Eichsfeld Ies (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. --E4024 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Wayside shrines in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Churches in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Some of the entries are chapels, not churches. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Churches in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language mishmash category. Should be renamed and split - or better deleted. Ies (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Split and renamed. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Stations of the Cross in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- The category should continue to be called "Kreuzwege im Eichsfeld". When german wikipedia users upload their pictures, they will at least find the category. Why should a specific category for german cultural heritage monuments be named English? Another example: The "Category:Olympiastadion Berlin" (german) is not called Olympic Stadium Berlin (english). ... And the top category "Stations of the Cross in Thuringia" is precise enough for a user from any country to get used to what's meant. ... Excuse me, if my language in English is not the best. -- Triplec85 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Stations of the Cross in Eichsfeld because of the rules: Commons:Language policy and Commons:Categories. Please familiarize yourself, Triplec85. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Monasteries in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Monasteries in Eichsfeld - Themightyquill (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language mishmash category. Should be split into Maria columns in the Eichsfeld and Lourdes Grottoes in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Weak support for splitting, but I'm not sure whether all "Grottoes of Mary" in Eichsfeld are also "Lourdes Grottoes", so I would prefer the name Grottoes of Mary in the Eichsfeld. Everybody can identify any of these "buildings" as a grotto of Mary, but it may be difficult to get to know whether it really refers to Lourdes. --Dehio (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right. But better are two categories. --79.214er (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld which apply here too. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Split into Category:Maria columns in Eichsfeld and Category:Lourdes Grottoes in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Castles in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Castles in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Boundary stones in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Boundary stones in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Transport in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Transport in Eichsfeld. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language category. Should be renamed in Village greens in the Eichsfeld. Ies (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Village greens in Eichsfeld. Themightyquill (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this not a duplicate of Category:Families of England? "Families of..." seems to be the more common format, but the categories are both decently populated. There is no correspondening Scottish families alongside Category:Families of Scotland but I wanted to get input before creating a redirect. Wikimandia (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, "Families of ..." does seem to be the standard format, seems like a good idea to me.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support deletion in favour of Category:Families of England. There's no need for a redirect here. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Merged into Category:Families of England. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Requesting redirecting to Category:Kyoto Tamba Kogen Quasi-National Park. According to Commons:Naming categories#Language, "category names should generally be in English". And there is no need to create a category for files of cultural aspects in my opinion. そらみみ (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done.そらみみ (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Old trades" means or why this is a sub-category of museums. Themightyquill (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Empty category Merson (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Empty category, non-descriptive name Ciacho5 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ciacho5: If you'd like it deleted, you can change the category redirect to a {{Empty page}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the need for disambiguation since there is no other Ludowy 8 as far as I can see, but the nomination by the creator is unopposed. Moved to Category:Ludowy 8 (iceboat). - Themightyquill (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Lottahuttunen hevonen Janne Olli Ronja Emma Maximus Sanni 2001:14BB:80:4EDC:E339:5A1E:EB58:564E 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination by anon ip. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, there is already a category named "Category:Expulsion of Poles from Gdynia", secondly the photos in this category do not depict the deportation of Poles but rather resettlement of the ethnic Germans from Baltic States. Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thirdly, if there have not been plural waves of "deportation", this word should be singular in the title. --E4024 (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Move files to Category:Deportations of Poles from Gdynia and redirect. The cleaning out of the homes of deported poles is obviously connected to their deportation, even if the cleaning is being done for ethnic Germans moving in. @E4024: This is semantics, but even if it wasn't multiple waves, they likely weren't all deported on a single train, so then multiple deportations occurred, right? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Expulsion of Poles from Gdynia to Category:Deportations of Poles from Gdynia. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: @Geof Sheppard: I think this category should be split in London Underground S7 Stock and London Underground S8 Stock because there are two different types of S Stock. S7 Stock is used on the Circle, District and Hammersmith and City lines while the S8 stock, which is an earlier version than the S7 Stock, is used on the Metropolitan Lines. I think this category should be split into both types of stock to avoid confusion. Also, both versions of S Stock are completely different so I don't this they should be all in one category. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the right thing to do would be to create those categories, but have them both be subcategories of the existing Category:London Underground S Stock. Similarly, there might be Category:London Underground S7 Stock interior, which would be a subcat of both Category:London Underground S Stock interior and Category:London Underground S7 Stock. --bjh21 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I should point out that there's also S7+1 stock, which is not the same as S8. Honestly, I'd just leave it as is, they're the same train, just different subclasses. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: was renamed to Category:London Underground S7 and S8 Stock by another user. --JuTa 03:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The Ordnance Survey spells it without hyphens but the sign spells it with, WP article was originally at the title without hyphens and was there for most of its time but moved a few months ago Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: what are you trying to say? Do you want to have the category renamed? What should the new name be? Multichill (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes that's what I am suggesting, because the current name appears to also be commonly used I have started this discussion. The new name should be Category:Sutton in the Elms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's hard to do a google comparison, by just from eyeballing the results, the use of hyphens seems to be far less common. I'm fine with a move back, though something should also be done with the wikipedia page. Of course, a redirect should be left. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: The WP article has now been moved, see w:Talk:Sutton in the Elms#Requested move 24 January 2019 so can we close this as moved? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I had forgot all about this so had no idea what this was even about, Anyway now the EN article's been moved I support this being moved
(I would close and move myself however us peasants don't have access to the closing-tool so will leave it but yeah no objections to closing & moving). –Davey2010Talk 13:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I had forgot all about this so had no idea what this was even about, Anyway now the EN article's been moved I support this being moved
The result was moved, no opposition in over a year (and one support) and the user (Davey2010) who objected to the {{Move}} has now agreed with the move since the WP article was renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Road signs in the Japanese language. Fry1989 eh? 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but why do you open discussions after you have moved the cats? (I have done the same once.) What are we supposed to discuss "now"? --E4024 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fry1989: The better way to handle this would be to put the {{Category renamed}} template on the category with the wrong name. No discussion (which is what CFD is for) would be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Because I am not aware of any proper way to nominate a category for deletion. If {{Category renamed}} is better, then I shall do that in the future. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please discuss further at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Road signs in Hebrew language. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing. Cat has more recently been renamed to Category:Japanese language road signs to match naming of similar categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Slag heaps, my mistake, sorry for creating that Gower (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Do we need to delete it, or would a redirect make sense? Is "mine dumps" a term? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Closed discussion from lack of activity. Evrik (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Empty and never really used (uploaders who don't know how to categorize BSicons usually just dump them in the top-level categories or don't categorize them at all). Jc86035 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete is OK. I guess that top-level dumping works just as well. We do want new ones to be scrutinized. -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @DePiep: We also have bot-generated logs now, so it doesn't really matter where new icons are categorized anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Even better then. Was talking about scrutinizing *my* new ones ;-). Anyway, long time ago for me. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @DePiep: We also have bot-generated logs now, so it doesn't really matter where new icons are categorized anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, unused now. --rimshottalk 23:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Road signs in the Polish language. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Road signs in Hebrew language. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Road signs in the Belarusian language. Fry1989 eh? 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Road signs in Hebrew language. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an odd category, and as far as I'm aware, it's unique. We have categories for "Saint James churches" and "Episcopal churches" (although the latter is actually "Anglican churches"), but a mix of churches-by-saint and churches-by-faith is unusual and, in my mind, really not helpful. People will browse churches by name because it allows you to ignore churches of other names, and churches by faith is a natural division, but merging the two of them isn't helpful. It also (unintentionally) encourages their seclusion from geographic categories; someone might put a church into "St. James churches" and leave it there until it's sorted down into the right category, but instead of staying there to get sorted properly, it gets moved here, and someone diffusing the category geographically won't notice it. And finally, in case my meaning isn't clear, all of these should be put into their appropriate geocategories and into St. James churches before the category's deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Category requires deletion, mis-named as UK not created until 1801 Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that Lobsterthermidor has already moved the category to Category:Coats of arms of King George III of Great Britain (Arms 1760-1801). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Could be redirected to "Gray impressions" Basile Morin (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK--GT1976 (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We should try to make things standard. Either all "gray" or all "grey". We also have cats with "centre" and "center", "theatre" and "theater" etc. --E4024 (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is a very rich Category:Gray impressions and a very poor Category:Grey impressions. And inside there is just 1 file for 7 "in the queue" categories :
File:2017-09-07_(130)_ASFINAG_Rastplatz_Enns_Nord.jpg --Basile Morin (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Bahnfrend from Austria (or Australia?) can have a say on this also. --E4024 (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Both versions of the spelling are acceptable. As an Australian, I spell the word as "grey", but that's just my personal preference. I don't think the categories need to be all "gray" or all "grey". But if there's a "gray impressions" cat and a "grey impressions" cat, then one of them should be a redirect to the other. Also, if there's a "Grey Lancia automobiles" cat there should be a "Grey Maserati automobiles" cat, not a "Gray Maserati automobiles" cat, although a "Gray Chevrolet automobiles" cat would be acceptable, as Chevrolet is a north American-centred brand. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some further observations: according to the English Wikipedia article Grey (note the spelling), "Grey is the dominant spelling in European and Commonwealth English, although gray remained in common usage in the UK until the second half of the 20th century. Gray has been the preferred American spelling since approximately 1825, although grey is an accepted variant." So I would generally use "gray" for United States themes, and "grey" for themes linked with other places, including Canada. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- This wouldn't quite be in compliance with our universality principle … I can absolutely live with both spelling variants, but imo we should choose one and apply it universally. (Maybe I'm consuming more AE media than BE media, but as a European I always found gray to be more common than grey … or maybe that's because gray looks more like the German grau than grey does.) FDMS 4 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: newer category, redirected to older category. --ƏXPLICIT 00:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Maribo-Torrig Jernbane is the right name Beethoven9 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Or (gold for those not familiar with heraldry) is inconsistently capitalized throughout categories - sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. It should be consistent. The outcome of this discussion from 2011 (to capitalize Or in categories names so people don't confuse it with the English word "or") is contrary to the English Wikipedia manual of style for blazons as it stands now. Since we use the English names for category names, it makes sense to follow the English manual of style, which seems reasonable. Apparently, Fox-Davies advises against capitalizing or. As far as I know, there are no categories in heraldry that include the English word "or" (ie "chevrons or crosses engrailed") so I don't see how it could lead to any confusion that would somehow require two categories to be made. Additionally, obviously a large chunk of the people who use these categories are non-native English speakers, and would not be confused by or (especially since the words for "gold" are or, oro, ouro etc in Romance languages).
Whatever the outcome is, I suggest that categories not be deleted but exist as redirects to avoid red links, so people do not recreate them thinking the category doesn't exist at all (which is how I started in this mess). Wikimandia (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- We should capitalise all instances of the tincture "or" for the sake of consistency. This is not the English Wikipedia so we can very well develop our own pratical guidelines by consensus. While category names should always be correct, we also write them in a way to not confuse the common user who doesn't know anything about blazoning or heraldry in general. The combination of "and or" is especially confusing if the tincture is not distinguished from the conjunction, and capitalisation is an established method. There are even published authors who support this practice.
- De728631 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK first, it appears twice as many categories are written with or in lower case so sake of consistency isn't an argument on its own. Second, neither of those sources are credible. They are both self-published books about non-heraldry subjects and would be questionable even as a source for an article, nor do they cite any reasonable authority. Even Dorothy Neblett Perkins who wrote Some Nebletts in America (published by Neblett Press), just includes a note in her glossary that she "usually" capitalizes it. Secondly, of course this isn't the English-language Wikipedia, but it is a fact that the category names are all using English. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is written per the best sources available on how to write blazons in English, and those sources are also our best sources. The reason Fox-Davis said there is no reason to capitalize or is because the English word "or" is never used in heraldry blazons. If there was some conflict, they would describe it as such, (ie, "one roll said this, while an alternative roll said this," but they would never use the word "or" when it could be misconstrued). The reason the categories are all created in English-language blazon style, not in general English, is because they are so very precise, and this is perfect for our categorization needs. And finally, I can't find any reasons the conjunction "or" would be used in a category name for heraldry either. Can you? Categories are inclusive, so "and" would be used in case the category was encompassing both things (ie, we would have "Category:Bends and chiefs ermine" and not "Category:Bends or chiefs ermine"... And I don't even see such a reason to have a category like that). So how would it ever be confusing? Wikimandia (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- You and I know how categories work but I'm sure someone who has never edited at Wikipedia or even Commons before and is just looking for some heraldic images may get confused. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort of applying common sense for the average person just browsing around, but that is a hypothetical that doesn't make sense in this situation. People who are just looking at heraldic images probably don't care about categories and are not going to be recategorizing images or creating new ones. But let's say someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki categories, but does know enough about heraldry and is just browsing shields using the categories, this person would know that or means gold, and would not be confused and would never think it means "or". So, then your second option is that this person doesn't know anything about heraldry (so doesn't know or means gold) AND doesn't know basics of Wiki categories, the fact that it is capitalized or lowercase is pointless, since if they thought it means the word "or" they will be just as confused about this category, because for reason one, there are no cases where "or" could actually mean the conjunction. Color comes after objects in heraldry, with the exception of the base color of the shield in which it is the very first word, so a good chunk of these categories either start with/end with or or have it in some other place where a conjunction would not exist. The word "or" makes no sense here: "Compony bordures gules, or and vair". Nobody would think it meant "or" since "or and" is not understandable English (that would be and/or but we certainly don't have that in categories.) Likewise for the category: "Argent, gules, or in heraldry" or even "Or a bend sinister gules." Huh?
- You and I know how categories work but I'm sure someone who has never edited at Wikipedia or even Commons before and is just looking for some heraldic images may get confused. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK first, it appears twice as many categories are written with or in lower case so sake of consistency isn't an argument on its own. Second, neither of those sources are credible. They are both self-published books about non-heraldry subjects and would be questionable even as a source for an article, nor do they cite any reasonable authority. Even Dorothy Neblett Perkins who wrote Some Nebletts in America (published by Neblett Press), just includes a note in her glossary that she "usually" capitalizes it. Secondly, of course this isn't the English-language Wikipedia, but it is a fact that the category names are all using English. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is written per the best sources available on how to write blazons in English, and those sources are also our best sources. The reason Fox-Davis said there is no reason to capitalize or is because the English word "or" is never used in heraldry blazons. If there was some conflict, they would describe it as such, (ie, "one roll said this, while an alternative roll said this," but they would never use the word "or" when it could be misconstrued). The reason the categories are all created in English-language blazon style, not in general English, is because they are so very precise, and this is perfect for our categorization needs. And finally, I can't find any reasons the conjunction "or" would be used in a category name for heraldry either. Can you? Categories are inclusive, so "and" would be used in case the category was encompassing both things (ie, we would have "Category:Bends and chiefs ermine" and not "Category:Bends or chiefs ermine"... And I don't even see such a reason to have a category like that). So how would it ever be confusing? Wikimandia (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- So then reason two, if someone doesn't know or means gold, they probably also don't know gules means red and probably 95% of the other terms used to classify categories so capitalization is completely irrelevant because absolutely none of the terms would make sense apart from basic terms like animal names. None of the names of the categories for heraldry are for the benefit of average people just browsing coats of arms. They're named and categorized according to heraldic terms, and heraldic terms are exact to the point of being scientific. I don't think there is a single category where someone might think or means "or" because that would never make sense, either to someone familiar with heraldic terms or not familiar with heraldic terms — who would possibly interpret the category "Argent, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry" as "argent, gules OR sable, vert in heraldry"? This is a scenario that doesn't exist. So the problem we have that because it's illogical to only capitalize ONE of the colors, and Wikicommons categories ARE case sensitive, we end up with people creating duplicate categories. Do you see what I'm saying? Wikimandia (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really care if we capitalize or not, but please reach a consensus so we can be consistent. PS: it seems that most of the category use « or » (Id' say in a 2:1 ratio, but I'll check if I can have precise numbers). PPS: either way, it will always be a bit confusing (this is natural language, it's almost meant to be confusing, e.g. sometimes the conjunction is capitalised : Category:The Fossils of South Downs Or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, but I think it must be consistent completely. All tinctures capitalized, or no tinctures capitalized. Otherwise, if only Or is capitalized, we will simply end up with the same problem again. In 2011, it was decided to capitalize only Or, but since then many, many, many more categories have been created as more and more shields are added, and categories get so crowded it makes sense to create subcategories by tincture. And then we will end up with this discussion again in 2020. Also, this example, Category:The Fossils of South Downs Or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, is a case where "or" should not be capitalized, but it's not particularly important, since it is just for pages from an old book from 1822: The fossils of the South Downs, or, Illustrations of the geology of Sussex (although as you can see, the title page is in all capitals so I'm sure some versions have all words in the title capitalized). PS: Thank you for searching the ratio, that is very helpful to estimate how much work would have to be done. Wikimandia (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wikimandia: it's a bit hard to make precise numbers (categories can be quite entangled). At least, here is the list of the 490 categories containing the letters "Or " (mostly heraldic categories, but not all of them ; and you need to be patient, the page can take some minutes to load). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! It looks like there are not actually that many where Or is capitalized (when you exclude the categories that start with Or) in the Heraldry categories. I will try to use that tool to find more. Wikimandia (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wikimandia: it's a bit hard to make precise numbers (categories can be quite entangled). At least, here is the list of the 490 categories containing the letters "Or " (mostly heraldic categories, but not all of them ; and you need to be patient, the page can take some minutes to load). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, but I think it must be consistent completely. All tinctures capitalized, or no tinctures capitalized. Otherwise, if only Or is capitalized, we will simply end up with the same problem again. In 2011, it was decided to capitalize only Or, but since then many, many, many more categories have been created as more and more shields are added, and categories get so crowded it makes sense to create subcategories by tincture. And then we will end up with this discussion again in 2020. Also, this example, Category:The Fossils of South Downs Or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, is a case where "or" should not be capitalized, but it's not particularly important, since it is just for pages from an old book from 1822: The fossils of the South Downs, or, Illustrations of the geology of Sussex (although as you can see, the title page is in all capitals so I'm sure some versions have all words in the title capitalized). PS: Thank you for searching the ratio, that is very helpful to estimate how much work would have to be done. Wikimandia (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON, Wikimandia, and De728631: Do I understand that there was consensus here? Can you tell me the decision so that I don't need to read your whole discussion before closing? If you need help with mass automated renames, that can probably be arranged. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank you. Well, I would say there is consensus in support of following the WP:MOS for Heraldry (none of the colors are capitalized), but of course I'm biased, lol. It seems pretty logical to follow the English Wikipedia manual of style, since we use English terms for the categories here, and it is the least amount of work to rename the capitalized Or categories to lowercase (instead of capitalizing all the lowercase ones or changing all categories so that every color is capitalized). I would have liked to have more participants in this discussion. If you would like more input I could ping some people active in heraldry, but I don't know that there will be anyone who sees the point in just having Or capitalized for the reasons above (there are no circumstances where it could be mistaken for the conjunction "or"). If you do the rename, could you ensure the original categories are redirected and not deleted? Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- As with Wikimandia, we should clearly write it lower, there is no other rational reason (or reputable reference), as "it could be confusing", but in practice there is not really a conflict, since it emerges always from the context what is meant. PS: The really problem I have with the uppercase is, it makes the existing system of the spelling of tinctures to a senseless farce. -- User: Perhelion 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say there is consensus to decapitalise the Or categories. I'm also with Wikimandia that the existing categories should not be deleted but redirected. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like there is consensus to move all sub-categories of Category:Or (heraldry) so that "or" is lowercase. Wikimandia has asked for redirects instead of deletions, but that doesn't make much sense. If we delete, anyone search or using hotcat would get the lowercase categories even if they type it in uppercase, so I don't see the benefit. Keeping both and forcing users to choose between upper and lowercase versions would be rather confusing. Am I missing something? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Leaving a category redirect doesn't do any harm. So, if we all agree that, for instance Category:Argent and Or in heraldry should be renamed to Category:Argent and or in heraldry, maybe we can close. --Ruthven (msg) 08:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
As per consensus, categories renamed from "Or" to "or". GFJ (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
All male swimmers swim topless, normally. 176.239.85.61 09:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- That hasn't always been the case, but I agree that it's so common now that this category would end up too many files to be very useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete it please.--176.239.85.61 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fine with deleting, but do we put Category:Male swimmers in Category:Topless male sportspeople? Or do we not intersect these categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any category under Category:Topless male sportspeople should specify topless. See this photo of a
men'sswim team: they are not shown swimming, but posing with medals wearing more than just swimsuits. Note that "male swimmers" is not the same as "males in swim clothing". --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any category under Category:Topless male sportspeople should specify topless. See this photo of a
- I'm fine with deleting, but do we put Category:Male swimmers in Category:Topless male sportspeople? Or do we not intersect these categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete it please.--176.239.85.61 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: So you're in favour of keeping this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for it, because I think it's easy enough to find images of topless male swimmers without a separate category, but I have no strong preference if others think it's needed. Whatever categories get kept should be properly categorized. This one seems properly categorized at the moment. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I fully accept your reasons for not putting Category:Male swimmers in Category:Topless male sportspeople but I guess the challenge is that Category:Topless male sportspeople might end up with hundreds or thousands of images of topless male swimmers. I can't think of any good solutions though. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the images actually require assuming or outside knowledge that the swimmer is topless, such as this one where the splashing water obscures the swimmer's torso and others like this one where the torso isn't even in the frame. Then there's this one where the focus is on a swimmer where we see only the legs, but there happen to be other (topless) swimmers in the background that aren't good illustrations of toplessness. To be in this category, I think the toplessness should be clearly visible.
- I feel silly even discussing this. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I fully accept your reasons for not putting Category:Male swimmers in Category:Topless male sportspeople but I guess the challenge is that Category:Topless male sportspeople might end up with hundreds or thousands of images of topless male swimmers. I can't think of any good solutions though. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for it, because I think it's easy enough to find images of topless male swimmers without a separate category, but I have no strong preference if others think it's needed. Whatever categories get kept should be properly categorized. This one seems properly categorized at the moment. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Haha.. I agree completely, both with your suggestions and with your sense that this feels rather ridiculous. I guess wikidata will help eliminate some of these issues. Then we can put everything in flat categories and not worry about it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Do you really think that will take care of it? I have my doubts. You can't, for example, do an intersection on "women" and "people wearing blue" and expect to get only women wearing blue, because the individual attributes could apply to different people in an image. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Maybe "eliminate" was the wrong word... maybe "help with" would have been better. I don't know how it will turn out. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Do you think it would help to distinguish between Category:Swimmers (which would include competitive swimmers personal categories, images like this and maybe people in swimsuits sitting next to a pool) and Category:People swimming (for images of people actually in water)? Maybe that exists already and I'm just not seeing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply: I didn't get the ping because the post wasn't signed. I guess that would be helpful. Someone could want pictures of people actually swimming -- not just in the water, because they could be keeping still there, but actually swimming. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Ooops, my mistake. Sorry.
- There would likely be a lot of overlap between the two categories (both sub-categories of Category:Swimming ?) I wonder if it would make sense to move Category:Swimmers to Category:Competitive swimmers, so as to distinguish it from Category:People swimming ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- That would seem to mirror what's under Category:Swimming. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that male swimmers are typically topless is somewhat misled, it is a generalization that only can apply to the past several years. In fact, until 2010, swimmers regularly wore full-body swimsuits during competitions. Just take a closer look back at the 2008 Olympics, the United States mens swim team wore full-body swimsuits in competition. As I said, it was not until after 2009 that this changed. One of many catalysts was an incident in which US swimmer Ricky Berens had such a suit rip completely down his backside during a competition (revealing his derriere for all to see). But the main cause was controversies about so-called "high tech swimsuits" (which cut down substantially on drag) that led to F.I.N.A. banning such swimsuits from competition in 2009, a rule-change which only took effect in 2010. Therefore, it has been less than a decade wherein toplessness has been standardized in the pool during competitions. And this still does not account for some of the most-photographed moments of competitions, namely the pre-competitions (where competitors regularly are wearing warm-up jackets) and the medal podium (where competitors frequently are seen wearing shirts) SecretName101 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @SecretName101: Thanks for your input, that's actually really helpful. While that may hold true for competitive swimmers, we might still have a problem if we separate between Category:Men swimming and Category:Competitive male swimmers. There's no reason to divide the latter into topless or not, but the vast majority of Category:Men swimming would be topless men. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 12:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Upton-by-Chester, the name on the Ordnance Survey for the CP has hyphens. The PC website also uses hyphens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - FWIW I declined the move as both names are commonly used so choosing one name over another achieves nothing in this case, If both names wasn't used then this would've been a slam-dunk move. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Upton by Chester" doesn't appear as commonly as "Upton-by-Chester" (see Google) but has been used in the past. The settlement is called just "Upton" but "Upton-by-Chester" makes sense as natural disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- In what ways is the current name also commonly used? Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Upton by Chester" doesn't appear as commonly as "Upton-by-Chester" (see Google) but has been used in the past. The settlement is called just "Upton" but "Upton-by-Chester" makes sense as natural disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 12:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Upton upon Severn, the name of the settlement does not have hyphens on the Ordnance Survey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - FWIW I declined the move as both names are commonly used so choosing one name over another achieves nothing in this case, If both names wasn't used then this would've been a slam-dunk move. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- If one is official, I would tend to move there. At very least, redirects should go from one name to the other. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I would normally move if like yourself it is official but to me as both names are commonly used everywhere it would seem kinda pointless moving in my eyes, Anyway I agree with the redirect part so I've created Category:Upton upon Severn as a redirect, not to jump the gun or anything but I know if I don't follow this now I'll end up forgetting about it, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- The OS (and Google Maps) spells the settlement without hyphens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I would normally move if like yourself it is official but to me as both names are commonly used everywhere it would seem kinda pointless moving in my eyes, Anyway I agree with the redirect part so I've created Category:Upton upon Severn as a redirect, not to jump the gun or anything but I know if I don't follow this now I'll end up forgetting about it, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- If one is official, I would tend to move there. At very least, redirects should go from one name to the other. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 12:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Redundant category. All files are also classified in Category:Sexual penetrative use of food. 2604:6000:140E:800D:592A:C15B:ED4B:C722 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Do we really have these cats?.. --E4024 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I created this category by mistake because a file is wrongly named "St Aidan" instead of "St Julian". My apologies. Motacilla (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Motacilla, please see my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:St Saviour's Chruch, Ravensthorpe and Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Christian Science churches in Scotand. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Marked for deletion as empty. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Inadmissible German language mishmash category. Should be deleted. Ies (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Ies: my German language is bad, but this category seems a mess ('church songs in Eichsfeld'). Category to be deleted?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Two weeks no objections. The result was deleted, subcategories are upmerged into category:Religion in Eichsfeld Estopedist1 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The category seems to be redundant; perhaps it should be merged into Category:Cannabis sativa seeds or Category:Cannabis seeds. Djadjko (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the intoxicant and the not intoxicant version of this plant. When people talk about cannabis they mean the intoxicant variant while hemp is the not intoxicant version of it. In my opinion a merge of Hemp seeds and Cannabis seeds is not something brainy. Neither is the merge of Cannabis sativa seeds with Cannabis seeds. Cannabis sativa is a strain. The same question would be why you don't place all images of apple trees in one category. I saw that some people did mindlessly recategorised some images so maybe the categories need to be resorted at some point.
- In short Oppose mixing the category --D-Kuru (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale. No consensus to merge Estopedist1 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Die Gemälde wurden bei mir als Künstlerin gekauft. Der Käufer hat diese hier veröffentlicht, ohne sich bewusst zu sein, dass er kein Urheberrecht erworben hat. Silvia Klippert, Burgplatz 12, 40213 Düsseldorf; www.klipp-art.de Ich bitte um Löschung der Katergorie und damit der Fotos. Danke! Silivia Klippert 92.205.35.198 09:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment Für diese Bilder liegt eine Genehmigung per Email vor, OTRS-Ticket:2012042010006444. Wir werden das überprüfen. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Die Freigabe stammt von der auf klipp-art.de angegebenen Kontaktadresse und ist zumindest für alle von Annette Salewski hochgeladenen Dateien gültig. --Didym (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Danke, Didym. Dann können wir also davon ausgehen, dass Sie, Frau Klippert, der Veröffentlichung der Bilder unter der freien Lizenz "Creative Commons Namensnennung 3.0" zugestimmt haben. Das Urheberrecht kann in Deutschland auch gar nicht veräußert werden, sondern bleibt nach wie vor bei Ihnen. Allerdings haben Sie damals unwiderruflich die Lizenz erteilt, dass jedermann diese Abbildungen Ihrer Gemälde frei verwenden darf, solange er dabei Sie als Urheberin angibt. De728631 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Die Freigabe stammt von der auf klipp-art.de angegebenen Kontaktadresse und ist zumindest für alle von Annette Salewski hochgeladenen Dateien gültig. --Didym (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Stale. @Didym and De728631: Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion should take place at Category talk:Paintings by Silvia Klippert, or at concrete, problematic files. But, is this discussion ended, and we can close this out-of-scope CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: As of now, all uploads in this category were uploaded by user Anette Salewski who has a Creative Commons permission for them. So there is no copyright infringement. / Derzeit sind in der Kategorie nur Bilder vorhanden, die von Anette Salewski mit einer gültigen Creative Commons Lizenz hochgeladen wurden. Es liegt daher keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor. --De728631 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the civilization necessary? Wouldn't a logical combination of Category:Medieval Islamic medicine and Category:Medieval physicians be Category:Medieval Islamic physicians? Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Civilization" shouldn't be needed, unless we need to separate Medieval Islamic physicians who were from uncivilized places. ;) Also, "physicians" should be in lower case. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- If changed, it would be understood as Islamic physicians of middle ages. They were not Muslims all. A lot were Christians (from different groups), Jews, some were "Magus", or from Indians faiths as Mennkah of Bagdad, I am not sure may be Hindus. What brought them all together was the Islamic civilization not the Islamic faith. I think Auntof6 could not understand the difference. It does not mean civilized in front of uncivilized, it means Islamic civilization. --Ashashyou (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Perhaps you didn't notice the "smilie" in Auntof6's comment. I'm not sure the confusion you worry about would happen, unless we use the term "Medieval Muslim physicians]] but Wikipedia uses en:Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. Perhaps we should do the same and make Category:Physicians of medieval Islam? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry i am not familier with smily's signs. I am not sure what choice is better. Why do not we leave it as it is?--Ashashyou (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Perhaps you didn't notice the "smilie" in Auntof6's comment. I'm not sure the confusion you worry about would happen, unless we use the term "Medieval Muslim physicians]] but Wikipedia uses en:Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. Perhaps we should do the same and make Category:Physicians of medieval Islam? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't follow the category tree and it's mis-capitalized. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe it is needed. Islamic here doesn't just mean Muslim People = people who took Islam as a faith, but it also means who were Muslims by culture, and this includes all the Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Hindu..etc scholars who lived during the time of the Caliphate. Khalil Gibran and Mikha'il Na'ima, two of the best well known Arab Christains in their field (Poetry, Philosophy, and some History), explained this by saying: "Orient Nazaras (an Arabic term for christians) are Christians by faith, Muslims by Culture"--باسم (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's why we're using the word Islamic rather than Muslim. If we use the name Category:Physicians of medieval Islam there's little or no potential for confusion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ashashyou kind of likes to use capital letters in the cats they open. I remember the "Iftar canons" (sic) discussions (I guess still not finished). I must recognize though that they are not stubborn and had given the go to correct things as we wished. Today I met Category:Medieval Islamic Ophthalmology and moved it without lengthy discussions. FYI, Ashashyou, good old friend. --E4024 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Let us hope to finish this discussion in the XXIst Century. We cannot live attached to Medieval Islam or less to Ancient Egypt. The caravan must move forwards... E4024 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024, Auntof6, باسم, and باسم: The base category is Category:Islamic Golden Age. Could we rename this (and possibly its peers) accordingly? Since the era (800-1500) fits within the Medieval Era (500-1500), they can still all be sub-categories. Category:Physicians of the Islamic Golden Age ? Category:Medicine of the Islamic Golden Age? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: yes I see no problem at all. In fact, the sugested new name fits much better. Best--باسم (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: you can execute your suggestions--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: yes I see no problem at all. In fact, the sugested new name fits much better. Best--باسم (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to "X of the Islamic Golden Age" -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no clear definition of what this category should contain; its parents seem to be a disparate collection, as do its contents. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, This is a useful category to retain I feel which corresponds to a well-recognised environmental issue as in the corresponding Wikipedia page, which I have now used to describe/define what the category should contain. However, I agree that as Rodhullandemu mentions some disparate parent categories have been added. Most of these parent categories could be removed or made into sub-categories: Electric power transmission Canals Water supply infrastructure Rail tracks as they include general categories including those that are not intrusions in natural areas. Only Firebreaks and Cut Lines (Forestry) could be retained as sub-categories they are linear infrastructure intrusions.--Shankar Raman (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I get it now I've seen the original WP article. Perhaps the category could be split into sections reflecting the effects described in that article, e.g. wildlife mortality, because it isn't immediately apparent from the category itself that roadkill is one of those effects. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rodhullandemu. I've removed some parent categories and added relevant sub-categories. Feel this is ok for now and it can be improved going forward. Does that make sense?--Shankar Raman (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I get it now I've seen the original WP article. Perhaps the category could be split into sections reflecting the effects described in that article, e.g. wildlife mortality, because it isn't immediately apparent from the category itself that roadkill is one of those effects. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale. The result was keep. The term is defined in enwiki en:Linear infrastructure intrusions Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Bulk-imported image category that contains an incredibly high proportion of fluff and derivative copyvio images. As per User_talk:Ubcule#Notices, even the primary uploader concedes that there is a problem here.
To my mind, this is symptomatic of what is wrong with too many bulk imports; it puts the onus on everyone else to filter out the rubbish (i.e. the hard work next to the relatively simple process of importing in the first place) simply because that wasn't filtered out- as it should have been- before upload in the first place. There are almost 13,000 images in this import category, which it's unreasonable to expect anyone except the uploader to deal with by hand.
My gut reaction is that this should be pulled and started again. Ubcule (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest moving zero-value files to either a specific junk category, or the more general Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion, with the visual cat-a-lot tool. I'm happy to support all such speedies for this Flickrstream in good faith, which I think is sufficient for us to avoid the hassle of managing bulk deletion requests. Apologies for creating a backlog burden which should have been avoided. --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment@Ubcule: @Fæ: Several of the files that are being moved to Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion are related with events and graduations in the University of Guadalajara. It seems to me, skimming on the files, that several if not all are in scope. Tm (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- This was done based on apparent value of the Flickr album. About 15% of images have been marked for speedy, at 1,484 photos. I'm presuming that folks that have added value with categorization or similar will spot the speedies and remove or convert them to DRs if they feel it has reasonable value. There's a balance to be had between how much volunteer time we invest versus losing a handful of photos with what is likely to still be quite low value. --Fæ (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- There *are* some good photos in there; the problem is the amount of work that would have to go into filtering them out. The other problem is that the cute filenames don't give a good hint to whether the file is useful outwith the personal scope or not, and it would take too much time to click on each one individually.
- I've copied a few images to the deletion category- mostly near-certain copyvios- but I still don't have the time to come anywhere near doing all of them. Ubcule (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: - Hi again. Are you finished working on this, or do you plan on coming back to it? Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was planning on having at least one more go, maybe in a few days. The last run only really touched two Flickr albums. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: ; No problem, thanks for letting us know. Ubcule (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have added just over 500 to the speedy category today, mainly dogs, people and possible copyvios, but it's getting harder. Using album name is probably not more useful than surfing the collection at this point. That may be a good thing as it's probably only a small minority left that can be thought a problem. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was planning on having at least one more go, maybe in a few days. The last run only really touched two Flickr albums. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: - Hi again. Are you finished working on this, or do you plan on coming back to it? Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- This was done based on apparent value of the Flickr album. About 15% of images have been marked for speedy, at 1,484 photos. I'm presuming that folks that have added value with categorization or similar will spot the speedies and remove or convert them to DRs if they feel it has reasonable value. There's a balance to be had between how much volunteer time we invest versus losing a handful of photos with what is likely to still be quite low value. --Fæ (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess the above is the background why I get an error messages when I try and upload files using the "Share images from Flickr" utility: "There was an error in your submission. Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site." I've identified three useful photos. The photographer was kind enough to change the licenses for them to be compatible here (well, two of the three photos). Definitely his photos and something that I had specifically looked for on Flickr (found no photos by other photographers). What do we do next? Schwede66 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 and Fæ: ; The original problem had nothing to do with licensing; please see my original comment above for details. In essence, it was that the entire(?) account was bulk-imported with insufficient checking
- As per my original comment above; the problem was nothing to do with licensing, it was due to the fact the account was bulk-uploaded with insufficient checking on the suitability of the images, and left us with a huge amount of out-of-scope (e.g. personal fluff) and copyvio images.
- I should make clear that this isn't a criticism of or problem with the original photographer, who's entitled to upload what he wants on his personal Flickr account. The problem was with the decision to upload everything on it here, regardless of suitability.
- Regardless, I'm not sure whether it's been blocked against further bulk uploads or against *any* uploads, but... (a) this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and (b) missing the point. I'm sure the account has *specific* useful images, it's just blatantly unsuited for uploading in its entirety- but then, that applies to the majority of Flickr accounts.
- That's my answer to Schwede66. However, while I'm here...
- I was distracted from the original problem around nine months ago by other things and never had the time (or inclination) to check back.
- However, I notice that despite the most egregious examples having been removed, the category is still full of fluff and images of questionable usability that I doubt would have been imported in the first place if they'd been considered individually. For example, just flicking through the first few pages, I can see...
- File:2009-365-244 So What Did You Do When Gmail Went Down? (3879991028).jpg - Derivative Copyvio
- File:2009-365-241 Smudge of My Day Dreams (3870118784).jpg - Processed beyond usefulness
- File:2009-365-267 You Are Doing it Wrong! (3952747352).jpg - Only useful if we know what it's supposed to represent
- File:2009-365-282_Off_With_Your_Head_(3997419942).jpg - Is this really useful?
- File:2009-365-38 Some Days You Need This Shirt (3262129536).jpg - Derivative copyvio, this should have been removed.
- File:2009-365-67 AT&T Can't Tell Time (3340381556).jpg - I'm sure we're not short of low-quality images of iPhones
- File:2010 in Photos (4702581690).jpg - I've no idea who this person is; in the absence of further information, it has to be assumed that (with respect to the subject) this is a personal image with no clear purpose for Commons, i.e. out-of-scope. (The only categorisation appears to have been auto-generated based on the EXIF location and tells us little).
- File:2010 in Photos (4585559343).jpg - Ditto.
- File:2010-365-136 Swimming Ahead of the Pack (4611065172).jpg - Out of scope..... and so on.
- It's all very well for Fæ to have said, "move them to Category (whatever) and they'll be deleted"- but this still requires work to be done by others that is only needed due to insufficient time having been spent on checking in the first place. While Fæ acknowledged the upload was a mistake, they seemed to think this was the best course of action. I still maintain it would have been better to delete the entire bulk upload and start again. Ubcule (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read that, Ubcule. But now, the photographer's account is blacklisted and I can't import selected photos. If there isn't a fundamental problem, why is the account blacklisted? How do we take the account off that blacklist? Schwede66 22:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- No idea, I didn't even know it was blacklisted until you brought up the issue. Ubcule (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- JuTa, you were the last admin I had dealings with. What would the process be for sorting this out? Or could you possibly flip a switch and the deal is done? Schwede66 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Schwede, please see Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors and the version history of both files to check who had entered when "your" flickr user. You can then ask him why. regards --JuTa 15:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- JuTa, you were the last admin I had dealings with. What would the process be for sorting this out? Or could you possibly flip a switch and the deal is done? Schwede66 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- No idea, I didn't even know it was blacklisted until you brought up the issue. Ubcule (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read that, Ubcule. But now, the photographer's account is blacklisted and I can't import selected photos. If there isn't a fundamental problem, why is the account blacklisted? How do we take the account off that blacklist? Schwede66 22:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, JuTa. Much appreciated. That did the trick. I can see that the blacklisting happened earlier this month by Ronhjones with these two diffs: Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. Ronhjones, how do I get these two images across to Commons without upsetting the apple cart? This one (blurry but exactly what I was looking for) and that one? Schwede66 09:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is not against policy to individually upload the images, via your local hard disk, and add the source links afterwards. This discussion is sufficient evidence of good faith. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Any admin can remove an entry in User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors, then it will not be blacklisted. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done Category:oBike in Melbourne Schwede66 23:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: you added it, so generally (at least I've seen that before) another admin would ask you to remove cogdog from the list again. I also took a look at their photostream and I see nothing massively problematic to warrant an entry on the blacklist. The vast majority of photos is just fine. Bulk-import (without sorting anything out) was a really poor decision, but that would be true for almost any Flickr account. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Removed Ronhjones (Talk) 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: you added it, so generally (at least I've seen that before) another admin would ask you to remove cogdog from the list again. I also took a look at their photostream and I see nothing massively problematic to warrant an entry on the blacklist. The vast majority of photos is just fine. Bulk-import (without sorting anything out) was a really poor decision, but that would be true for almost any Flickr account. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any admin can remove an entry in User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors, then it will not be blacklisted. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: File:2010 in Photos (4585559343).jpg looks like a stock photo for "woman reading", I think that alone should be enough to keep it. I added some categories to File:2010 in Photos (4702581690).jpg. In general I agree though that bulk-import of this Flickr account was a mistake. Images like these can have value, if they have usable categorization and keywords. Without that, they are impossible to find. Also, the only thing that had any possible informative value, the title on Flickr, wasn't imported.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale. Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion should take place at Category talk:Photographs by Alan Levine, or at concrete, problematic files. Any objection to close this out-of-scope CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree: The category makes sense as long as the images are there. Maybe copy the above discussion to the category talk page, then close this CFD. El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Kept The category is populated useful, and its name was not subject of this debate, so there is nothing wrong with the category itself. The content should in fact be discussed at the category talk page so I will copy this discussion there. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Two issues here:
- "Degree of frost" doesn't seem an accurate name. "Frost" is not the same as "temperature".
- Issues with content in the subcats: Each of the subcats is for a specific temperature, some in Fahrenheit and some in Celsius. Some of the files in the subcats show a display of the temperature, and some state in the description what the temperature was at the time the image was made. I suggest having separate subcats for the different things. The former could be in a cat called "Thermometers by temperature shown", with subcats named something like "Thermometers showing -10°C". The latter could be in cats named something else -- I have no suggestion for those.
Auntof6 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Weird. I agree it doesn't make sense, but it was created by Benzoyl who is a good contributor here. What was your plan, Benzoyl?
- "Thermometers by temperature shown" (or some equivalent) makes sense to me. Didn't we already have a discussion about this? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The beginning are (I saw) [3] etc. At that time I thought so, too, It's useful category. Thereby, I created this category.
- "Category:Temperature" may be not suitable cat. But, "Category:Cold" is also not suitable.Do you have any good ideas... Thanks and sorry. --Benzoyl (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now the current, Most of them in this category are, images of Thermometers. Thereby, Thermometers by temperature may be better cat-name.
- By the way, There is "Category:Signs with numbers". --Benzoyl (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- It should be by temperature shown, so that it's clear that it isn't the temperature of the thermometer itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
After looking around some more, I think these could be moved to Category:Celsius temperature and Category:Fahrenheit temperature, as appropriate (if they're not already there). Whether a temperature is cold or not is at least partly subjective and/or relative to something else. We could go a step farther and separate out the files that show thermometers (not all of them did when I checked earlier). --Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- How about this:
- I notice we don't have a category for outdoor weather thermometers. Is there a better term than Category:Outdoor thermometers ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your good advice (lucid categorizing). Anyway, I was tried, creation of these category. You're right, It may need, Category:Outdoor thermometers. --Benzoyl (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Benzoyl: It feels like this is basically resolved and the only thing left to be done is actually deleting Category:Degree of frost, correct? --El Grafo (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: Thanks for the ping. I see that the category has (since?) been attached to a wikipedia article en:Degree of frost which helps explain the idea behind it, but I don't see how this would be a useful category to have. I think it's ready to be deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. The contents of this category don't match what the Wikipedia article is about. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
A collection of internal documents from a museum: it's out of scope as Commons is not a hosting service. We should delete the whole category and the files in it. Ruthven (msg) 08:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should be discussing the deletion of the files in this cat. --E4024 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- these are the official documents of a public institution; they respond to the criteria for its recognition and they are most important documents for its existence together with the act of foundation and its regulation. --iopensa (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024: Yes, you're right. I wanted to have some opinion on the category first, because I might be wrong. @Iopensa: As official documents of a public institution, they should be hosted in the institution's page, unless they are usable for educational purpose. --Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I do not understand. What is "the institution's page"? thanks, --iopensa (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have posted a question in the Village pump about internal documents because I have never through there were problems with these kind of documents. Not sure if there are already other discussions about them. --iopensa (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024: Yes, you're right. I wanted to have some opinion on the category first, because I might be wrong. @Iopensa: As official documents of a public institution, they should be hosted in the institution's page, unless they are usable for educational purpose. --Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- these are the official documents of a public institution; they respond to the criteria for its recognition and they are most important documents for its existence together with the act of foundation and its regulation. --iopensa (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Ruthven and Iopensa: The nominated category is empty. We probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 Yes, all the files were deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monitoring Ecomuseo delle Grigne 2011. I suppose you can SD now. Thanks Ruthven (msg) 20:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Will write below. E4024 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- In principle, no problem. Lots of seafood in Chile. (Been there, seen that.) I open this cat into discussion because I just uploaded the File:Centollas in a can.jpg. This can may have been bought in, or imported from Chile, or simply bought in any deli store across Europe, especially Italy, Spain or France. (20-25 Euros "una cagadita" :) Therefore I need the cat called Category:Seafood of Chile, just as we have Category:Seafood of Spain. (You can find cans of sardines from Spain -or Portugal- in Turkey and use this kind of cats for those sardines.) The problem is, we have "in" cats for some countries (Chile, China) and "of" cats (or two cats) for others. As I am a maniac of standardization this situation disturbs me... What next? --E4024 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- BTW we also need a Category:Canned seafood, which I may or may not open in any moment. --E4024 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the current category (Category:Food ingredients of Chile) is sufficient. In this case, I'm not sure the precise location of the can is important information. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was not saying that "the precise location of the can is important information", indeed you open the can and prepare a plate which you may place in Category:Plates with seafood in Turkey or Category:Plates with seafood in Italy etc. I was trying to say that "the origin of the seafood is important". How can I succeed to be understood just the opposite of what I'm trying to express? Is my English so bad? :-) --E4024 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- But why is Category:Food ingredients of Chile insufficient? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Could it be because we are talking about one of the most important seafood producer/exporter countries of the world? --E4024 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- But why is Category:Food ingredients of Chile insufficient? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was not saying that "the precise location of the can is important information", indeed you open the can and prepare a plate which you may place in Category:Plates with seafood in Turkey or Category:Plates with seafood in Italy etc. I was trying to say that "the origin of the seafood is important". How can I succeed to be understood just the opposite of what I'm trying to express? Is my English so bad? :-) --E4024 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the current category (Category:Food ingredients of Chile) is sufficient. In this case, I'm not sure the precise location of the can is important information. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: Here are several questions arised. Do we have preference of using "Seafood in" or "Seafood of"? If I see Category:Food ingredients by country, then predominantly "Food ingredients of" is used--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing as stale since there's no clear consensus and the last comment was from a few years ago. I'd also like to point out that this category follows the same scheme of other "seafood in country" categories. So probably a better place to raise the issue would be Category:Seafood by country. But this should really be kept for now if for no other reason then the University Principle. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
It is for International trucks made by International Harvester Co / Corp. The Harvester word is superfluous and misleading Eddaido (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Trucks built by International Harvester (and Navistar) are branded "International". This is true from the 1908 "International Gasoline Auto Buggies" [4] until the present[5]. (I have posted this in many places). Sammy D III (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the evidence (and some further old ads) and support such a renaming. This does not mean that I support any ancillary changes, unnecessary merging or misnaming the Australian vehicles. As a matter of good practice it may always be a god idea to contact editors with previous involvement,such as @BarnCas: . Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have to oppose such a move, partially because of the old ads that Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) mentioned, and partially because of the long-standing use of the "IH" logo designed by Raymond Loewy. ----DanTD (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- You can say that seventy-five years of International Harvester brocures for "International" trucks are not accurate? The company that built the trucks did not know their own brand? You have a reference that disputes that? You are going to continue using the wrong name for the logo?
- Before I was asked about this it never occured to me that people might not know the difference, I thought it was common knowledge. POV, I guess. I posted it several places. Think: Is it a "Ford" (brand) XYZ or a "Ford Motor Company" (manufacturer) XYZ. And someone designed that blue oval. Sammy D III (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have to oppose such a move, partially because of the old ads that Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) mentioned, and partially because of the long-standing use of the "IH" logo designed by Raymond Loewy. ----DanTD (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the evidence (and some further old ads) and support such a renaming. This does not mean that I support any ancillary changes, unnecessary merging or misnaming the Australian vehicles. As a matter of good practice it may always be a god idea to contact editors with previous involvement,such as @BarnCas: . Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Eddaido had a sound basic point at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trucks#International_trucks_without_the_Harvester but we screwed things up really bad. But the basic point itself is sound.
It sort of looks like a cultural circular logic deal to me. I don't know if that makes sense. Everything is labeled "Harvester" so you think that way. And we all know the connection because we know trucks. But all the photos have International and I don't think any have Harvester. People have brought the Harvester thinking in with them. And it is not the name of the truck itself. I hope this makes any sense, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree about such a merge:
- As said in Navistar corporate site: "The year 1986 brought a new beginning to this 155 year old company, now known as Navistar.". International Harvester and (Navistar) International are practically 2 different brands: the latter emerged only when IH sold all its farming activities, leading, among other things, the logo and the badge lettering to be changed. Trucks made before 1986 were indeed apparently proposed as International only but were unequivocally claimed to be International Harvester products: one can see it when looking at contemporary ads or brochures, where the IH logo and International Harvester Company can be seen every time at the end of the documents. That also appears in the 1910 Roadster specs visible in Sammy D III's first link: it starts with "Introducing the IHC roadster [...]".
- Moreover, and as almost said by DanTD, the IH logo appeared somewhere on the grille of almost all trucks as brand logo starting with the 1953+ R-Series and until 1985 (see the 1981+ 9670, the 1983+ 9370...). For me, and without hesitation, all of this makes the pre-1986 trucks more than (just) "International" models: they're clearly "International Harvester" ones.
- So I think we shouldn't merge the 2 categories. Adding a short explanation at the top of both categories could avoid lots of categorizing errors, as long as people make some effort to understand the difference. People searching for "International trucks" from a specific period will be directed the same way to the correct category.
Regards, BarnCas (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)- @BarnCas: @DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers:
- I know absolutely first hand that these are "Internationals", but that doesn't count. This is frustrating. I hope I am polite.
- I link seventy-five years of every model truck International Harvester built, and you come up with one example to challenge the overwhelming majority of the info. The last three words in the first sentence of the exception are "International auto vehicles". "International", not "International Harvester". The exception uses both names. I do imagine there are a few other exceptions.
- Of course the IHC blurb is on the bottom, they are the manufacturer who is giving information on their products.
- Nobody has ever disputed who the manufacturer was. It was IHC. Nobody has ever disputed the IHC logo was on the trucks. It was. My issue is the name of the truck brand. Only. Do you have any support for as brand logo? Why is it not as manufacturer logo? And how does the name threaten the logo anyway?
- You seem to be using your opinion of a hood ornament to address the name. They are two different things. The grille says "International". Do we think the word "Harvester" is used anywhere other than the builder's plate? If it was part of the brand name wouldn't it be used somewhere? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have International brocures from 1957 into Navistar. Here are some front covers: 1957 International Cab over engine VCO-405...--1967 International 400 series--International 4200, 4300, and Eagle--International 4470 Australia (a COE)--International CO Loadstar--International CO4070. There are 17 others. All identify the truck as "International". No "Harvesters on the cover, only the last page credits. Most of these trucks were built by IHC. These may have copywrite problems here, but you don't have to believe me.
- Edit: this is a lot of fun to find this stuff. I am going to keep adding them. Anything between here and "The IH hood ornament..." is new edit.
- Davies, Peter J. (2000) The World Encyclopedia of Trucks, Lorenz Books ISBN: 0-7548-0518-2. Page 401 is Melbourne, Australia International Harvester. International Harvester, ACCO (or is that a model?), Seddon Atkinson, International Australia, ENASA, ITAL, and Iveco are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks (ACCO?). Trucks is an ACCO G2350 which has a visible S International logo RF. In the text is International truck ACCO G(?) and International 7600. International Transtar 4670 has International across the grille. But this is Australia, I don't know them.
- Page 402-403 are Chicago, Illinois, USA, International Harvester (my turf). McCormack, Deering, all the Australian companies, and Navistar are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks. All trucks in the text are International, International's, or just model numbers. None have Harvester. "the International name badge was adopted in 1914" is wrong, we know it was used by IHC in 1908. Maybe they are talking about a physical sign? But it is a ref, so we should debate 1908 vs. 1914 start. First pic is "International Harvester's early". Then to "International's" XL series cabovers have Int'l on LF and L door. Transtar cabover has Int'l over grille. Three have no clear name. Many of these pics have the IHC logo clearly visible, but that is already acknowledged.
- (1973) Motor's Truck and Diesel Repair Manual (26th ed.), Motor ISBN: 0-910992-16-9. The index has "International Diesel Engines" (1224-1249) and "International" (915-953). The word "Harvester is never used in the index or either section.
- I think I saw a Scout Chilton's at Half-Price Books.
- How about the US military? Trucks built for the military are Internal Harvester Model xxx, so a good case for trucks built specifically for the US Military being Harvesters can be made. Prototypes and civilian types are International or International's, but some are IHC's Model. Crismon, Fred W. (2001) Modern U.S. Military Vehicles, MBI Publishing, pp. 93, 94, 113, 129, 148... ISBN: 0-7603-0526-9. uses International or International's. I don't want to skim any more pages, call this one a draw? The US Military does buy custom-built International Harvester Model trucks.
- Wood, Donald F. (1998) American Buses, MBI Publishing, pp. 23, 41, 42,58, 65, 77, 96, 101, 116, 123, 127, 130 ISBN: 0-7603-00432-7. uses International or International chassis. Captions, I didn't read the text, I'm not doing buses just now. Not a lot of pics, International has always been big on school buses, not transit or highway. And these are buses or chassis, should they count?. Wait, aren't some of your chassis-cowls sold without cabs so they can take custom, including bus, bodies? Hmmmm.
- I don't know if this[6] counts. It is a truck sales sight. It is not official, probably not a ref, it can only tell you what professionals who buy, sell, and operate International trucks call them.
- [7]
- [8]
- Crismon, Frederick W. (2002) International Trucks, 2 edition, Minneapolis, MN: Victory WW2 Publishing, ISBN 0-9700567-2-9 I do not have this book but I call attention to it's title.
- Haynes, Chilton and factory Scout shop manuals all say International on the cover. I don't have them, it took a couple of minutes Googling "International Scout shop manuals" to come up with a bunch. Deep research. International Scout Encyclopedia by Jim Allen and John Glancey comes up too. The cover shows International and IH's (possesive?).
- I give you military tacs, but how about their engines? Doyle, David (2003) Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles, Kraus Publications, pp. 101, 125, 127, 174 ISBN: 0-87349-508-X. have Red Diamond 361 or 450. Do half-tracks count (p. 369)? Red Diamond 450.
- The IH hood ornament you talk about doesn't say "Harvester" but some say "International". That I have seen.
- The brand name is "International". It is a fact. If you want I can keep getting sources forever. You are grasping at straws in order to support your opinion. There are hundreds of documents [9] here already which refute your opinion. You may get support but you will never be correct. Sammy D III (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Denigrating others' opinion or repeating endlessly the same things won't make your point of view a truth. Nor will "clobber" people with endless posts...
- For now this discussion gives:
- someone who wants absolutely this merge to be done so the huge mess (s)he made unilaterally in the International Harvester / International categories will be validated without having to face what his/her rogue behavior implies for Commons. I'm not sure we should encourage this kind of behavior, and I for sure don't want to be part of that;
- 1 person "pro-merge" who express several time his opinion (but this makes still only one opinion
); - 1 person who said he is "pro" as long as this change doesn't involve more than the parent category (which is apparently not the purpose of the person who asked for the merge);
- 2 people against that merge.
- No consensus, then, for now.
- This said, and to answer to your questions, Sammy D III (no need to answer to my answers, I already read your counterarguments in the post above
):
- About the IHC Roadster: a single counterexample in mathematics or logic is enough to question the main assertion. And this is the same for sources, for me. And to be honest, I didn't have to search a lot, I just checked the first vehicles. How many other counterexamples are present in the rest of the document you linked?
- As far as I know, logos in the grille / hood ornaments are brand logos. You see more likely Chevrolet or GMC logos on concerned vehicles than GM ones, Freightliner ones instead of Mercedes-Benz versions; Dodge or Chrysler in place of Fiat. I may be wrong, but I also see the IH logo as brand logo because of the change that took place with the switch between the L-Series (which used the same grille logo as the K/KB-Series and the previous truck lines) and the already mentioned R-Series:
-
KB-Series ornament -
R-Series and later
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Titelblatt.jpg){kind=link}
_ASFINAG_Rastplatz_Enns_Nord.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(2163492020).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AShiroi-Koibito%27s_Temperature_sign_%283037552968%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=204751261&oldid=194462028){kind=link}
- If I'm not mistaken, IH stands here for International Harvester. And why would a brand logo be replaced by the one of the company owner?
- BarnCas (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Would the International Harvester Company know the brand of the trucks they build? That link was posted 23;36, 17 September 2017. Sammy D III (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think different.
- One person who wants International but screwed up names and stuff at the same time.
- One who only says the name is International and has no other interest.
- One who thinks the name is International but is afraid of somebody else's actions so he makes conditions.
- One person who has not responded to posts yet.
- One person who is arguing about whether all other evidence is valid over a hood ornament.
- About International we have three in favor, one against, and one not answer yet.
- I personally don't think there is a consensus if there are two of you. I would like more people here.
- You are using a hood ornament to refute a ton of good stuff. Why?
- EDIT: Are you kidding me? Your KB ornament says "International" but not "Harvester. Your own example refutes your opinion! Sammy D III (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please read carefully what is written just above. If you don't understand the few concerned lines (International until the L-line, then IH after), I'm afraid I can't find a way to explain it more simply... BarnCas (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- How does the logo used change the name of the truck? Who knows or cares what the logo is? You.
- Please read carefully what is written just above. If you don't understand the few concerned lines (International until the L-line, then IH after), I'm afraid I can't find a way to explain it more simply... BarnCas (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- "a single counterexample in mathematics or logic is enough to question the main assertion". You believe that a consensus has to be mathematically exact. "How many other counterexamples are present in the rest of the document you linked?" I said that there must be other exceptions. Again, you need an exact amount, a huge majority is not acceptable.
- "As far as I know" Your own opinion, you have no solid evidence.
- "I may be wrong, but I also see" Again, Your own opinion, you have no solid evidence.
- I have provided a ton of stuff which you choose to ignore. You question huge majorities by a single item. You ignore multiple sources, many actively linked. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
- BarnCas, you are an asshole who is actively preventing accuracy of Wikipedia for your own tiny opinion, your ego, and your personal like of the word "Harvester". You should start finding allies to back your obstructive shit. Sammy D III (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- A logo is just that — a logo. Slinging stuff at each other does not seem to help though its hard to resist. Here is an Australian owner who needs BarnCas to sort out his choice of names 1921 International and here's another from the 1960s period BarnCas is interested in Old truck and another Travelall. What does BarnCas think about that? Would BarnCas like a few thousand more examples? or even more yet than that?
"Math"? has crept in? Eddaido (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- A logo is just that — a logo. Slinging stuff at each other does not seem to help though its hard to resist. Here is an Australian owner who needs BarnCas to sort out his choice of names 1921 International and here's another from the 1960s period BarnCas is interested in Old truck and another Travelall. What does BarnCas think about that? Would BarnCas like a few thousand more examples? or even more yet than that?
@Sammy D III: Please be civil and assume good faith. It would be great if you would delete your personal attacks above. Thank you. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I thought I would remind anyone who comes here of the evidence which BarnCas refuses to acknowledge. Instead of this evidence he has only an opinion with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
- I link seventy-five years of every model truck International Harvester built, and you come up with one example to challenge the overwhelming majority of the info. The last three words in the first sentence of the exception are "International auto vehicles". "International", not "International Harvester". The exception uses both names. I do imagine there are a few other exceptions.
- Of course the IHC blurb is on the bottom, they are the manufacturer who is giving information on their products.
- Nobody has ever disputed who the manufacturer was. It was IHC. Nobody has ever disputed the IHC logo was on the trucks. It was. My issue is the name of the truck brand. Only. Do you have any support for as brand logo? Why is it not as manufacturer logo? And how does the name threaten the logo anyway?
- You seem to be using your opinion of a hood ornament to address the name. They are two different things. The grille says "International". Do we think the word "Harvester" is used anywhere other than the builder's plate? If it was part of the brand name wouldn't it be used somewhere? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have International brocures from 1957 into Navistar. Here are some front covers: 1957 International Cab over engine VCO-405...--1967 International 400 series--International 4200, 4300, and Eagle--International 4470 Australia (a COE)--International CO Loadstar--International CO4070. There are 17 others. All identify the truck as "International". No "Harvesters on the cover, only the last page credits. Most of these trucks were built by IHC. These may have copywrite problems here, but you don't have to believe me.
- Davies, Peter J. (2000) The World Encyclopedia of Trucks, Lorenz Books ISBN: 0-7548-0518-2. Page 401 is Melbourne, Australia International Harvester. International Harvester, ACCO (or is that a model?), Seddon Atkinson, International Australia, ENASA, ITAL, and Iveco are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks (ACCO?). Trucks is an ACCO G2350 which has a visible S International logo RF. In the text is International truck ACCO G(?) and International 7600. International Transtar 4670 has International across the grille. But this is Australia, I don't know them.
- Page 402-403 are Chicago, Illinois, USA, International Harvester (my turf). McCormack, Deering, all the Australian companies, and Navistar are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks. All trucks in the text are International, International's, or just model numbers. None have Harvester. "the International name badge was adopted in 1914" is wrong, we know it was used by IHC in 1908. Maybe they are talking about a physical sign? But it is a ref, so we should debate 1908 vs. 1914 start. First pic is "International Harvester's early". Then to "International's" XL series cabovers have Int'l on LF and L door. Transtar cabover has Int'l over grille. Three have no clear name. Many of these pics have the IHC logo clearly visible, but that is already acknowledged.
- (1973) Motor's Truck and Diesel Repair Manual (26th ed.), Motor ISBN: 0-910992-16-9. The index has "International Diesel Engines" (1224-1249) and "International" (915-953). The word "Harvester is never used in the index or either section.
- I think I saw a Scout Chilton's at Half-Price Books.
- How about the US military? Trucks built for the military are Internal Harvester Model xxx, so a good case for trucks built specifically for the US Military being Harvesters can be made. Prototypes and civilian types are International or International's, but some are IHC's Model. Crismon, Fred W. (2001) Modern U.S. Military Vehicles, MBI Publishing, pp. 93, 94, 113, 129, 148... ISBN: 0-7603-0526-9. uses International or International's. I don't want to skim any more pages, call this one a draw? The US Military does buy custom-built International Harvester Model trucks.
- Wood, Donald F. (1998) American Buses, MBI Publishing, pp. 23, 41, 42,58, 65, 77, 96, 101, 116, 123, 127, 130 ISBN: 0-7603-00432-7. uses International or International chassis. Captions, I didn't read the text, I'm not doing buses just now. Not a lot of pics, International has always been big on school buses, not transit or highway. And these are buses or chassis, should they count?. Wait, aren't some of your chassis-cowls sold without cabs so they can take custom, including bus, bodies? Hmmmm.
- I don't know if this[10] counts. It is a truck sales sight. It is not official, probably not a ref, it can only tell you what professionals who buy, sell, and operate International trucks call them.
- [11]
- [12]
- Crismon, Frederick W. (2002) International Trucks, 2 edition, Minneapolis, MN: Victory WW2 Publishing, ISBN 0-9700567-2-9 I do not have this book but I call attention to it's title.
- Haynes, Chilton and factory Scout shop manuals all say International on the cover. I don't have them, it took a couple of minutes Googling "International Scout shop manuals" to come up with a bunch. Deep research. International Scout Encyclopedia by Jim Allen and John Glancey comes up too. The cover shows International and IH's (possesive?).
- I give you military tacs, but how about their engines? Doyle, David (2003) Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles, Kraus Publications, pp. 101, 125, 127, 174 ISBN: 0-87349-508-X. have Red Diamond 361 or 450. Do half-tracks count (p. 369)? Red Diamond 450.
- It has been suggested that I "Please be civil and assume good faith. It would be great if you would delete your personal attacks above." I do not assume good faith, this is clearly an ego deal with someone who is entirely closed to any challenge to an entirely unsupported opinion. I haver no intention of deleting anything. Just to be perfectly clear:
BarnCas, you are an asshole who is actively preventing accuracy of Wikipedia for your own tiny opinion, your ego, and your personal like of the word "Harvester".
Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Favour "International Harvester" over "International". One is going to be slightly anachronistic, for some of the content. But "International trucks" is going to get treated as "international trucks" and we're just going to find everything from Albania to Zambia dumped into it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia category International trucks has been there and in use since 2008 though some things have been removed in the last 48 hours by, I suppose, one of the participants in this discussion.
- So, Andy, for almost ten years there has been no problem of the kind you imagine.
- ...there's simply no way to tell how many problem images have had to be removed from that category over the years. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia category International trucks has been there and in use since 2008 though some things have been removed in the last 48 hours by, I suppose, one of the participants in this discussion.
- One of the things I have spent a pile of time on in the last few weeks is categorising International trucks by the date of their manufacture. You can access them from this page here: Category:International trucks by model year and then, in an orderly manner, make up your own mind about the need to drop Harvester from the trucks' names — from within the image and from the file name. But that's easily done by the Google test isn't it. And the category International trucks though freshly castrated proves there is no need for concern about Albanians to Zambians dumping unknown vehicles there. Eddaido (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well if you're splitting it by year, then give the right name to the right year. But I'd still call the overall group "IH". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- One of the things I have spent a pile of time on in the last few weeks is categorising International trucks by the date of their manufacture. You can access them from this page here: Category:International trucks by model year and then, in an orderly manner, make up your own mind about the need to drop Harvester from the trucks' names — from within the image and from the file name. But that's easily done by the Google test isn't it. And the category International trucks though freshly castrated proves there is no need for concern about Albanians to Zambians dumping unknown vehicles there. Eddaido (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Re-state our position as of now?
@DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers: This has gotten quite long and involved. I think we may want to make a break for easier editing and understanding.
Support the brand names of these trucks being "International" without "Harvester". I believe that A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. and the many International Harvester documents at [13] refute unsupported personal opinions. Sammy D III (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name used by International Harvester for their products. But, as Andy Dingley pointed out above, "International trucks" invites casual users to add all sorts of other entries. Many refer to these vehicles as International Harvesters specifically to avoid possible confusion. These categories are meant to make images findable to reasonably intelligent non-specialists. So, we have conflicting values (all valuable) which are (feel free to add if I am forgetting something):
- Correctness of name
- stability of categories
- Amount of effort for negligible improvement or perhaps a deterioration
- making things findable
- I personally think that the best thing to do would be to discuss the renaming of articles such as en:International Harvester Scout, de:International Harvester Scout, or en:International Harvester K and KB Series - if other editors agree to that, then Commons would follow naturally. I have the feeling that International is preferred for Navistar era vehicles, with International Harvester being used for the earlier trucks, thereby creating a clear distinction which aids in finding things - again, that is what categories are for. Precision in naming etcetera is meant for the main pages. So I guess a mild oppose. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers: posted "From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name used by International Harvester for their products." He suggests: "I personally think that the best thing to do would be to discuss the renaming of articles". I support that.
- Mr Choppers has edited International Harvester Loadstar, S Series, L Series, R Series, A Series, C Series, and Light Line pickup. He probably knows that they may be incorrectly named.
- I have tried to start a discussion about International vs.International Harvester here: Are International Harvester trucks branded "International?. Maybe since Mr Choppers has edited these articles and categories could he go there and comment on the correct name of the trucks? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have tried to start a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trucks (I can't do these links right, maybe it will be fixed) and trolled every International Harvester article, maybe something will happen. Maybe.
- EDIT:
Why would we go to German? Is it a very busy board? Doesn't it prevents me from posting IHC docs? I would not discuss the name of a Benz truck in English. I do have an interest in Article names. Just asking, not hostile.Never mind, I got it. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- The last ten years with a category International trucks has encountered no confusion like Mr.choppers suggests. Check me Category:International trucks
- A search of Australian newspapers of the 1950s (it is suggested Australia may have been different from about this time, local assembly in a temporary factory began in 1950) comes up with these results:
Eddaido (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
− @BarnCas: @Themightyquill: @Andy Dingley: @Bidgee:
- There is not one mention of Harvester in these freshly archived pages by the National Library of Australia
- ‘’’Historic Trucks, Internationals and Kenworths’’’ National Library of Australia
- There is not one mention of Harvester in these freshly archived pages by the National Library of Australia
- and a new game - its called hunt the Harvester word. National Library of Australia
Eddaido (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think I have found the word "Harvester" used outside Wikipedia or sights using Wikipedia. Of course there must be many who got it wrong on their own, but it looks to me like Wikipedia is telling everyone incorrect information across the board, and people are believing it. Sammy D III (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I can testify to the strength of Wikipedia's influence in these matters. Some years ago I changed the orthography of the name of a car article in spite of the WP article's use of the (rapidly becoming popular) incorrect form. Today the redirect receives no hits at all. The public has learnt its correct name now Wikipedia has stopped peddling the wrong one. Eddaido (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- So this book (International Harvester Trucks: The Complete History), written by someone who seems to know a little bit about the automotive stuff, was also influenced by wrong info provided by Wikipedia? Strangely, Eddaido knows this book and mentioned it in Sammy D III's WP talk page not that long ago, but none of them listed it in this page. Is it just a doubly forgotten reference, shall we assume good faith?
- So this book (International Harvester Trucks: The Complete History), written by someone who seems to know a little bit about the automotive stuff, was also influenced by wrong info provided by Wikipedia? Strangely, Eddaido knows this book and mentioned it in Sammy D III's WP talk page not that long ago, but none of them listed it in this page. Is it just a doubly forgotten reference, shall we assume good faith?
- Yes, I can testify to the strength of Wikipedia's influence in these matters. Some years ago I changed the orthography of the name of a car article in spite of the WP article's use of the (rapidly becoming popular) incorrect form. Today the redirect receives no hits at all. The public has learnt its correct name now Wikipedia has stopped peddling the wrong one. Eddaido (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Insert of Sammy D III: I couldn't get your link right. Did I have the book or did I just say "yea yea"? I don't have any International or IHC books.
- But you're right, Sammy D III, and as you suggested a few lines above, could we stop playing, now? From what I read, you're now only 2 people pro, the rest being at least mildly opposed to that merge, including at least one more person in this other discussion.
Insert of Sammy D III: This is what Mr Choppers and I posted:
- I think you missed this: "I have discussed this with Eddaido, then posted "Trucks built by International Harvester (and Navistar) are branded "International". This is true from the 1908 "International Gasoline Auto Buggies" [14] until the present[15]. I think Eddaido uses this as a reason for name changing, and I support him on this". Unfortunatly, after discussing it with him I encouraged him to just go ahead. I didn't think anyone would care, clearly I screwed up. He shouldn't take heat for that. Sammy D III (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sammy D III: I don't have a real problem with changing International Harvester to International, it's more concise. It's the additional problems, duplications and misnamings and inability to communicate that bother me. As for renaming, that can be done without disruptions. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, sorry for my part. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Will any further debate really provide forgotten arguments that would directly lead to a consensus for the merge?
- For now, and for different reasons, a majority of persons in Commons (and in Wikipedia) appear to feel more comfortable with the current IH / (Navistar) International separation, even if this means "inaccurate info" according to your criteria. Please just accept it. It's maybe time to close this discussion. That question could be asked again in a few months or years, in case people would change their minds by then?
- By the way, Eddaido, the International trucks category has not been "castrated" by "one of the participants in this discussion", as you write somewhere above: why not calling a spade a spade? You know perfectly that I moved the pre-Navistar categories you created as sub-categories of International trucks into the International Harvester trucks category due to the fact that you should not have anticipated the result of this discussion in your favor, as explained in your talk page.
- About the main subject: I still disagree about the merge of the two categories -- BarnCas (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what a "merge" is. You think a simple vote will be consensus about the brand of the company when you present no evidence? You continue to deny A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Would the International Harvester Company know the brand of the trucks they build? Have you even visited the link and downloaded the PDF.
- What is wrong with you? This was a small and understandable mistake. Why don't you just open your mind and say "oops"? Sammy D III (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, BarnCas no I didn't know you did the castration, there is no trail (that I know of). Why do you name new image files International truck and use International alone in the description?
Yes, that was part of the reason for getting the book. It never uses that phrase again and never gives a reason. I would guess it will have been at the urging of the publisher in the hope of grabbing any more sales. If I can find an explanation I'll come back. Regards Eddaido (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC) - Nope, no repeat and no reason given for the choice of words on the cover. Eddaido (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, BarnCas no I didn't know you did the castration, there is no trail (that I know of). Why do you name new image files International truck and use International alone in the description?
- Were put in the text to address specific points there. I didn't notice no signs, I will try to get that rightSammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
without signature just messed up my previous message, rendering it incomprehensible if not unreadable. I added a color background around these inserts, with your user name at the beginning, so other readers can understand who says what.
- Thank you Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the fact that you apparently want to see me as your nemesis,
- Why do you say that? I believe you are actively defending an indefensible position for your own ego, but I don't think you are after me other than to support your point. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
but please let's act as the civilized people we're supposed to be.
As someone already told you some months ago,
- Wow, you dug through that stuff. Did me making an Archive after that last crap make it easier for you? I had just been blanking it, but it couldn't be checked out effectively so I made that archive. If you really look you can see the problems I had making it, it took me several trys, but I got it. I thought that was up-front. No? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
please take a breath. Your life doesn't depend on the name of a Commons category, does it?
- No it doesn't, especially since I don't give a rats ass about Commons, I thought people knew that. My only position is that the CORRECT name of the brand of truck is International". Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope that while focusing on wether I'm just wrong or clearly a stubborn asshole(1) (please try also: just a person trying to understand the bases of the current separation. It's certainly more close to the reallity 
), you also understood that some other people do also prefer to keep the situation unchanged for different reasons and therefore disagree with the merge proposed by Eddaido?
- "I do;n't know what a "merge" is". The second line in the first post said "The Harvester word is superfluous and misleading". That is what the conversation has been about, the word "Harvester", which is not in the brand name of the trucks. Deflecting with "merge" does not change the name brand of the truck. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
From what I understood from Commons rules, the current situation is: "no consensus for the merge nor even a majority in favor of it means no change in the current split".
- Could you link me to where it says that a "consensus" is a pure majority, and evidence is not considered? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And this lack of consensus / majority doesn't depend only on me,
- Your math doesn't follow to me. You assume support from DanTD, who hasn't been here for a while. His last post was "I have to oppose such a move, partially because of the old ads that Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) mentioned, and partially because of the long-standing use of the "IH" logo designed by Raymond Loewy."He may have mis-understood Mr Choppers' old ads. Hardly sounds carved in stone. I am willing to assume that he is open-minded and will make his position clear if and when he wants. I have been thinking "leaned toward".
- Mr Choppers has posted "I looked at the evidence (and some further old ads) and support such a renaming. This does not mean that I support any ancillary changes, unnecessary merging or misnaming the Australian vehicles. As a matter of good practice it may always be a god idea to contact editors with previous involvement,such as @BarnCas:.", "From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name", and "So I guess a mild oppose." Also other things. To me this looks like somebody who is open-minded and rational. I have considered him as an "undecided".
- I invited Andy, check his talk page. I asked him to comment on the name, but he addressed the cat itself. Fine. He posted "Well if you're splitting it by year, then give the right name to the right year. But I'd still call the overall group "IH"". I don't think he will comment on the name itself, although I would like him to. I consider him "not hostile".
- Your clear consensus doesn't seem so clear. I think more discussion should take place.
- Eddaio asked me a question, I realized he was right and the name was wrong everywhere, and that became my mission. We talked about things that didn't interest each other. But "Harvester" was wrong. Since then we became friends with little in common.
- We went somewhere, I told him I though years were stupid and he told me that Trucks in the US was stupid. Nothing but "Harvester" in common.
- He wanted an admin, but I saw no wrongdoing, so I just suggested he go ahead, there was nobody here. I wish I could take that back.
- Eddiao changed model names which got Mr Choppers. I apologzied and said that the timing was not his fault. Mr Choppers, even though he was having problems with Eddaio, was polite to me. I don't know that either of us are hostile to the other.
- Then someone came buy who simply will not consider the evidence. Have you gone to A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. and downloaded the PDF yet? There is absolutly no evidence that you have present that refutes that. The name is, and has bee since at least 1914, "International". No what your ego problem, you ARE wrong about the name. Period.
- I did post the first 'asshole" out of frustration. The next was just to show that I wasn't afraid. If you had checked my page you should have known that. The admin didn't have much time, the word was pretty obvious, but they popped me for an "edit war" too. No problem, it's their job and they were busy.
- You don't realize talking about trucks is fun for me.
- What is wrong with you? This was a small and understandable mistake. Why don't you just open your mind and say "oops"? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record, mr.choppers said "So I guess a mild oppose" since the part you quote (see 13:44, 20 September 2017 - UTC). -- BarnCas (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
1: your word, not mine 
- You reached a higher score, dear Sammy D III: you managed to delete the last part of my message with your "editing" technique. I'll assume good faith / error of manipulation, even if the deleted part contains something you apparently can't remember since it happened (the fact that mr.choppers changed his opinion from pro-merge to mild oppose) . Same causes, same effect: color background, and I "re-wrote" the part you deleted...
- According to you, I'm wrong, close-minded and other name-callings. So why bother to try to convince me? You call it a mission(!) in your last message , but I'm certainly not worth this "abnegation"
- In reality, you denigrate others' opinion when not compatible with yours, keep on copy-pasting the same arguments ad nauseam and then insult your interlocutors when this technique doesn't work (but does it ever, on any subject?) before starting again the same loop. Strange technique when trying to persuade others that you hold the truth (The Truth?). For me, it just appears that you clearly can't bear when someone disagree with you. Your problem, not mine, though I think this must be hard for you in your non-digital life...
- I think that you may have missed the main point of this discussion: it's not about how the manufacturer called its truck lines, it's about how Commons should categorize the related files and pages, trying to take into account users' way or working and visitors' expectations and habits. Moreover, you seem to lack most of the bases needed to participate in a collaborative work like Commons or WP. But this is not the place nor the time (nor will I ever have the required energy) to explain you these bases. As [You] don't give a rat's ass about Commons, as said in your previous message, what are you doing here, in fact???
- Keep on bashing me if that does you good, then (but please do it after this message, so I won't have to correct your mess in my messages again ). But whatever the number and length of your repetitive copy-pasting, whatever your name-callings, I won't change my mind and still disagree with the merge of the 2 categories (i.e. there are 2 categories which would be joined together if your option was the one chosen by the community. I don't know how to explain it more simply. About Consensus, please see here. For other words or concepts you don't understand, please refer to Wiktionary or to Wikipedia). -- BarnCas (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: @BarnCas: @Bidgee: @Chaheel Riens: @DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers: @Shaded0: @SteveCof00: Not one single piece of evidence. Not one word. Smoke and mirrors to deflect attention from not one single piece of evidence. While the discussion could be going on like below. Sammy D III (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ooops, I almost didn't notice that you were trying to steer the discussion away from the first point, the brand name and trying to change the focus to the category. You no longer discuss the actual brand name. The conversation, in which you took part in, was about the brand name. I missed some of your smoke.Sammy D III (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: @BarnCas: @Bidgee: @Chaheel Riens: @DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers: @Shaded0: @SteveCof00: Not one single piece of evidence. Not one word. Smoke and mirrors to deflect attention from not one single piece of evidence. While the discussion could be going on like below. Sammy D III (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Sammy D III (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- New merge target
Instead of moving everything from Category:International Harvester trucks to Category:International trucks or leaving the confusing status quo, I propose another target category for a double merge which eliminates the ambiguity of the word "international" in the latter: Category:International brand trucks. The flagship brand of both IHC and Navistar is "International", no matter the hood ornament or logo. Hopefully, this would keep other brands out. Other categories could follow suit. I felt Category:International brand trucks would be less confusing and ugly than the purer Category:International (brand) trucks or Category:International (truck brand). For all the vehicles branded "International", I would use Category:International brand or Category:International (brand) as the parent, which would be in the existing parent Category:International. — Jeff G. ツ 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for you input Jeff G. There is no confusion created by the name of the category International Trucks. It has been there for almost a decade without any confusion (such as you suggest) being experienced. The word Harvester is mistakenly included in the name for the trucks. A vanishingly small number of editors are reluctant to let it (it is the subject of this discussion) go. HTH Eddaido (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- One is a sub-unit of the other, possibly creating a category within the other would clear things up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: Currently both International trucks and International Harvester trucks are sub categories of International Harvester vehicles. The discussion arises because including Harvester in a name of the category for images of the trucks is not only redundant it is incorrect. In either / any case they are sub categories of International Harvester vehicles so I don't see any virtue in your (very welcome) suggestion. Eddaido (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Stalker
Sorry guys, with all the due respect and apologies of the case; as I have found all you who know more about trucks than others, could one of you kindly tell me the brand/manufacturer of the abandoned pickup truck in File:Old pickup 02.jpg? Thanks in advance and sorry for the disturbance. --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, E4024!
The answer is in your talk page. Feel free to prefer the unidentified trucks category in Commons or the WikiProject Trucks talk page in en:WP (there are equivalent pages in other languages: de:WP, fr:WP...), when you need help to identify some trucks -- BarnCas (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Quote
@BarnCas: @Bidgee: @Chaheel Riens: @DanTD: @Themightyquill: @Mr.choppers: @Shaded0: @SteveCof00:
from: International Harvester Trucks (sic). The complete history. Patrick Foster. Motorbooks. 2015 Quarto Publishing Group USA ISBN 978-0-7603-4860-4
Chapter Eight, the new Navistar page 172
“On January 7, 1986, the old beloved International Harvester Company name was officially laid to rest as the company assumed its new corporate name: Navistar International Corporation. A made-up name , it combined Navi as in navigate with star, a word long used by International in names such as Paystar, Loadstar and Fleetstar. The new logo for International trucks, dubbed the Diamond Road, was an orange diamond emblem bisected by a symbolic road, to connote the new direction the company was taking. This new emblem began to be applied to trucks during April that year. The vehicles themselves would be known as International trucks, as always.”
I repeat 'International trucks, as always'
A search of eBay revealed the following usages:
- 1056 for International trucks check me and
- 181 for International Harvester trucks check me these results show their imprecision by displaying images of the objects they want to sell with names excluding Harvester. In addition there are children's toys named International Harvester trucks and that is a poor lead for WP to follow.
Eddaido (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Eddaido (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing conversation/start over from the beginning
[edit]Stale discussion. The nominated category is well-populated and fits well into the parent Category:International Harvester vehicles and Category:International trucks. Can we close this CFD as no consensus to merge/delete? @DanTD: @Mr.choppers: @Jeff G.: @Eddaido: --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Yes. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it should be merged. Category:International trucks should be the only category, Category:International Harvester trucks has no reason to exist as has been amply proved by Eddaido and others. Or maybe place both into "International brand trucks" as proposed above? In any case, IH trucks is incorrect. FYI, in the last four years, the various en:wp articles have also been renamed without the misleading "Harvester" name. I stated earlier that if this happens then renaming should happen here as well. See major discussion here with many more editors involved. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. and Mr.choppers: is the merging valid only for trucks, or also for Category:International Harvester vehicles (we also have Category:International vehicles)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's sort of unclear - International Harvester Corporation and later Navistar built trucks and other things sold under the International brand. I used to think otherwise, but over the years I have been forced to accept this by the relentless efforts of Eddaido and others. It seems that the Commons categories have been forked, with "International Harvester" incorrectly applied as the brand for IHC-era vehicles and "International" for Navistar era vehicles. This is technically wrong, but I can understand the reasoning for it. My gut feeling is to place all into categories simply named "International" (as this is the correct name) and to remove the division.
- Before, I was concerned with other things being incorrectly placed into "International trucks". In the years since, however, this category seems to have been perfectly managable and while all of the IHC articles were renamed "International" in en:wp the sky has not come crashing down there either. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of seeming spineless I concur with everything said by Jeff G. and Mr Choppers. The important issue is fixed. Regards to everybody, relentless Eddaido (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. and Mr.choppers: is the merging valid only for trucks, or also for Category:International Harvester vehicles (we also have Category:International vehicles)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it should be merged. Category:International trucks should be the only category, Category:International Harvester trucks has no reason to exist as has been amply proved by Eddaido and others. Or maybe place both into "International brand trucks" as proposed above? In any case, IH trucks is incorrect. FYI, in the last four years, the various en:wp articles have also been renamed without the misleading "Harvester" name. I stated earlier that if this happens then renaming should happen here as well. See major discussion here with many more editors involved. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This discussion is way to long and the formatting of it sucks way to much take anything useful from it. Plus it seems to descended into an off-topic personal spat about half way through. So I'm closing it as no consensus for now. Since that seems the best optional currently. Although it might be worth reviving in a CfD at a later date without all the nonsense. But there's really no way this is going to go anywhere with how it is currently. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
There is no thing called "Grand" that things get named after. Grand just means "big". We could either delete this category or rename it to "Things named 'Grand'". Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Concur, but I'd lower-case 'grand'. - Jmabel ! talk 14:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It's my understanding that we don't group things by their common name unless they are named specifically after someone or some thing. The only exception seems to be for colours (though I'm not sure why). If we want a disambiguation page at Category:Grand, that's fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- That hasn't been my observation, Themightyquill. See Category:Hotels by name for some examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ughh.. you seem to be right. Category:Streets by name. I still think it's a bad idea, but I guess I can't claim precedent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: So, Category:Things named Grand ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I guess that would work. Looking at what we have right now, the only other "Things named <foo>" categories we have are things named with a color (for example, Category:Things named black). If we don't mind opening the door to many more of these categories, then "Things named grand" (or Grand) would work. I would foresee an onslaught of new categories to follow the pattern, which may or may not be a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete
we probable don't want to open doors for "Things named <foo>"--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)delete for this specific category, because there are thousands and thousands of categories with the name part "grand". In general, "Things named <foo>" is acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
this category only contained photos of the 1953 F-100 truck, so it's unneeded. Sascha GPD (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sascha GPD: Any objections to delete this "funny" category. The category consists of two images (File:Abandoned car in Bodie.jpg and File:This is an old truck i saw in a junk yard in Green River Utah I like the Layers of paint on these old trucks . Nice Headlights - panoramio.jpg), maybe neither of them are not Ford F-100 (1953)--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)