Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/12
was erroneously created and misspelled Cosal (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bonifatiuskirche in Altendorf (Naumburg). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Elle fait double emploi avec "Master of the Biberach Holy Kindship". Je l'ai vidée, il n'y a plus qu'à la supprimer ManiacParisien 14:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Master of the Biberach Holy Kinship. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I want this category to be deleted. It's a wrong place name, and a little confusing with Category:Beppu, Oita.--そらみみ (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of correctly spelled Category:Befu, Kakogawa. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:1983 royal tour of Australia by Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales
[edit]88899658rk4pxjffofl l;58056754= 207.107.99.47 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing nonsense nomination by anon ip. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
merge to Category:Hostile design Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good suggestion! Fine for me. /--FrankieF (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Done, merged --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at Category:Iceboats, since it contains images of iceboats? Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I have moved it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
ANCIEN MATELOT MACHINE SUR 9O9 voudrai plus info tecnique 2A02:A03F:607F:C500:AA:49A:7A4D:DF5D 14:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Empty cat. Störm (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're right. It should better be deleted. --E4024 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
whitewashinghttp://www.vidmate.mobi/puredownload?p=Mjg&ref=cu 1.47.78.38 03:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- ?--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- this request is strange to me... I am not clicking on the link just in case (if it is pseudo-trolling, I don't risk, sorry) and I remind that these names are quite standard for the current Wiki Science Competition.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing nonsense nomination by anonymous IP. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
{{Delete}} see Category:Pictures formerly showing a librsvg bug — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, author's requset. --Achim (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
بس لو فيهم من المشاركات للعضو الى 129.45.125.126 10:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Closed, no reason given to discuss this category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete empty category Mindmatrix 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. @Mindmatrix: Using the empty page template is a better option than CfD for cases like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There is need for a "by country" subcat here. E4024 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's no need for discussion here. You can just go ahead and create it. --MB-one (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I will, in 2018, if no-one does it before. --E4024 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing: nothing to discuss. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
unnecessary grave category Bodhisattwa (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- The images have been moved to Category:Grave of Sarah Betts. Should they be renamed as well? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cat tagged with {{Category renamed}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
error, its not that municipality, delete please Anastan (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it as empty for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Name. Antonin DELZERS and not DELZIERS Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Stamps by Antonin Delzers. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Content was shifted, category is empty Cosal (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cosal: Yes, that's true. Do we not want a redirect? If it should be deleted, you can tag it with {{Category renamed}} to get an admin to delete it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ausgemusterte Glocken in Altendorf (Naumburg). - Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
not needed Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Images are in Category:Grave of Henry Russell. Is it a simple matter of typo, Bodhisattwa? You can use the {{Bad name}} for that sort of thing - no discussion is needed. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Themightyquill: , I will keep that in mind. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Up-merge with its parent category. This is a meaningless category: there is nothing that characterize or define these canoes as "other". If ever the parent category gets so full that we need sub-categories, it would make more sense to sub-categorize the images by ethnicity or origin. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Completely agree, as with other "Other foo" categories also under discussion. Some folks seem to dislike loose files in main categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can use another name. In this category, there are canoes made of birch bark, which are made according to Indian technology, but which were used by the Europeans. Still a work in progress. It is necessary to think. Confused there very much. --Сергей 6662 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious upmerge. Сергей 6662, I appreciate your attempt to help sorting these categories and images, but I feel you do not have a solid understanding of how categorization works on commons. Perhaps best to categorize images using the existing categories for a while first? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Self request of a user category. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 12:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Can you please removed the images from the category and mark it with {{Empty category}}. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Done. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 13:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Please delete the category. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 13:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I meant {{Empty page}}. Anyway, deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Requesting deleting because of obviously error in category name, also with the following categories.
--そらみみ (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done, deleted.--そらみみ (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted - divided in Karlebo (Lolland) and Karlebo (Falster) Beethoven9 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Images removed to correct caegory after correct identification of the statues, this category is no longer needed. According to Joseph Beglar's 1878 report, the statue has a symbol of lotus on the pedestal. The symbol denotes that the statue is of Padmaprabha. The symbol is almost obliterated today. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Long-term abuse category created by a sock which is locked for abusing multiple accounts. --209.242.141.28 17:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted. --E4024 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, by Christian Ferrer on the same day. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Empty cat could be deleted ? Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why not? Just ask an admin or add "Empty page" within {{}} sign. --E4024 (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Can this category be deleted as there is a typo? Thanks slleong (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it as empty for deletion. One of our good admins will soon delete it kindly. --E4024 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, categories with improper names should be nominated for speedy deletion, not for discussion. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
spam Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. Taivo (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
empty category Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. Taivo (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Obvious error in category name, redundant. See Category:Aphthona. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}. Should be deleted soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an image of a musician whose article on ENWP failed [Notability Guideline]. It is therefore unlikely this category lives up to an educational use policy on Commons: COM:EDUSE. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AadaamS: If you think the files should be deleted, please nominated them for deletion. So long as they exist, it makes sense to keep the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: already did, for instance Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sherissa4.jpg. AadaamS (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @AadaamS: Excellent. If they are deleted, just ping me and I'll be sure to erase the category. Best, Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: It seems my deletion requests for all the images were denied, others claim the images are "in use", when they are only used on talk pages or project pages and the like. "Educational use" has not been demonstrated imho. AadaamS (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, AadaamS. If they are deleted in the future and this category is empty, you can use {{Empty page}} to delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
To disambiguate to Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (or Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) or Category:Bolton, Metropolitan Borough of Bolton) (and move Category:Bolton (disambiguation) to Category:Bolton) there are many names unrelated to this one, see talk for earlier discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC) By unrelated I mean they don't derive from this like London/London, Ontario or Paris/Paris, Texas for example. While it appears many so (such as Bolton, Connecticut), some probably don't but come from the many other small places around the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's meanings are too varied not to be disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per countless similar discussions. The Bolton at Bolton is primary topic. Correct target in event of move is difficult as well. The proposed titles fail to completely disambiguate, except for last (Bolton, MB of Bolton) which should be rejected as bonkers.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Per countless similar discussions we have established that primary topics should have a higher bar and this would seem a good example to apply this. We have Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire (city) which doesn't really disambiguate from the district with city status and you could probably make a stronger case for Wakefield as it is a cathedral city and county town unlike Bolton and there are a lot less uses of Castleford and a higher population difference even though WY and ID are unrelated. The points raised by Auntof6 (talk · contribs) are surely the case here as its easy for bots and humans to add pages for other unrelated places. Plymouth, Devon is relevant to people interested in Plymouth, MA as it is where their journey started and the name comes from (and it mentioned in the lead at w:Plymouth) while Bolton, Cumbria or Bolton, East Lothian have no relevance to this one. How does Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) fail to completely disambiguate? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Instead of having the same debate over and over - wait for ONE to finish, there is no rush to this (and I don't get why you can't just wait!!!). Having a billion similar CFDs open just forks the discussion, and exhausts community patience. I'm not going to give a detailed rationale, or even a detailed evaluation of the case. I merely note that this one is very similar to those already open, with similar merits.
- When one of these discussions actually reaches a consensus, that releases the bottle-neck - and if needed we can have a bunch of "per X" CFDs.
- Opening up a new debate when there are a bunch of unresolved open ones about similar matters is basically forum-shopping. That is because if you keep rolling the dice, its possible that someone might close any one of them, in good faith and in ignorance of the other cases. That would then incorrectly have weight on the other CFDs where meaningful discussion has taken place.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because the last discussion we had on this was about 8 months ago, more than enough time for the Plymouth discussion to have been completed.
- There has already been consensus on similar issues or at least have been done like this for example Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire (city), Category:Brighton, East Sussex, Category:York, England, Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire and Category:Norfolk, England. I expect that this one will likely be closed as move eventually, but not as likely as Bury. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the first set of (3) new CFD that we have opened up since New York, Georgia and Mississippi and we both have varying views on them so it can hardly be forum shopping. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree several months should be enough time to reach a conclusion. But they 'haven't closed! Seriously. WAIT. More discussion = good. More discussion venues = bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize for not waiting but I might be unblocked on WP soon so I don't want to be thinking too much about this and as I know that both discussions (the 3 I started and Plymouth) are likely to be successful I started it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you get unblocked from WP, you can still edit here. You don't need to rush things through.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize for not waiting but I might be unblocked on WP soon so I don't want to be thinking too much about this and as I know that both discussions (the 3 I started and Plymouth) are likely to be successful I started it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree several months should be enough time to reach a conclusion. But they 'haven't closed! Seriously. WAIT. More discussion = good. More discussion venues = bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Per countless similar discussions we have established that primary topics should have a higher bar and this would seem a good example to apply this. We have Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire (city) which doesn't really disambiguate from the district with city status and you could probably make a stronger case for Wakefield as it is a cathedral city and county town unlike Bolton and there are a lot less uses of Castleford and a higher population difference even though WY and ID are unrelated. The points raised by Auntof6 (talk · contribs) are surely the case here as its easy for bots and humans to add pages for other unrelated places. Plymouth, Devon is relevant to people interested in Plymouth, MA as it is where their journey started and the name comes from (and it mentioned in the lead at w:Plymouth) while Bolton, Cumbria or Bolton, East Lothian have no relevance to this one. How does Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) fail to completely disambiguate? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment Above thread is off-topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth considering what has happened in other cases, but I don't think previous discussions necessarily set a definitive precedent. Some city names are definitely more unique than others, and therefore, are more likely to require disambiguation. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- And this one is not even unique in etymology. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that any other discussions will not set definitive precedents. However when there are several open discussions, adding more on the same sort of thing splits involvement. I consider Bolton to be a stronger primary topic contender than others with "live" discussions. The place doesn't need to be unique, but it does have to be more important than the alternatives (think England, Scotland or Germany - which are all places in the US).
- Etymology is irrelevant. The fact the X in Canada is named for the X in France doesn't mean the French one takes priority because the other is named for it. The French place is more likely to be significant because its been around for longer, and that greater history is likely to translate into more significance.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely more so than Bury.
- Etymology is not irrelevant and X in England is sometimes named after X in the US or X in England for example Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear/Pennsylvania, Exeter/California, Ipswich or Gainsborough, Suffolk indirectly from the one in Lincolnshire. While Woodbridge, Ontario isn't named after Woodbridge, Suffolk. I would suggest that which one is older is irrelevant as it is likely that the points about being around longer will apply to the one in Canada in the future. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Etymology is COMPLETELY irrelevant - the fact one town has another named for it doesn't add one iota to the significance of either place. Ignore it.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- And the same argument could also apply to stability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- No. Stability of titles is a goal, to be balanced against other titling goals like ease-of-access, reduction of bad categorisation, conciseness or precision. Etymology means absolutely nothing to nobody (except you apparently).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- If people already know something is named after then they won't be surprised to find it, if not then perhaps its a learning opportunity[1][2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Serendipitous learning is a very minor titling goal (that's part of the reality of WP browsing - find a specific article and then click links through to other articles).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- If people already know something is named after then they won't be surprised to find it, if not then perhaps its a learning opportunity[1][2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- No. Stability of titles is a goal, to be balanced against other titling goals like ease-of-access, reduction of bad categorisation, conciseness or precision. Etymology means absolutely nothing to nobody (except you apparently).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- And the same argument could also apply to stability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Etymology is COMPLETELY irrelevant - the fact one town has another named for it doesn't add one iota to the significance of either place. Ignore it.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- And this one is not even unique in etymology. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth considering what has happened in other cases, but I don't think previous discussions necessarily set a definitive precedent. Some city names are definitely more unique than others, and therefore, are more likely to require disambiguation. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus to move. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
DAB to Category:Bury, Greater Manchester or Category:Bury (town) (and move Category:Bury (disambiguation) to Category:Bury), see talk for earlier discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The most common use of the word "bury" is not for a place, and even if it was, there are many places by that name. Disambiguation is necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- And yes, even though we don't have a category at Category:Bury (word) or even Category:Bury (verb) probably per W:WP:NOTDICT that doesn't mean users (or bots) aren't going to upload content and put it in this cat like they did with Rush for example (as noted on talk). Per w:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT a topic may be ambiguous with more that one term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we do have Category:Burying. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- And yes I wouldn't be surprised if someone would search for "Bury" to get there just like "Libel" redirects to Defamation on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we do have Category:Burying. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- And yes, even though we don't have a category at Category:Bury (word) or even Category:Bury (verb) probably per W:WP:NOTDICT that doesn't mean users (or bots) aren't going to upload content and put it in this cat like they did with Rush for example (as noted on talk). Per w:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT a topic may be ambiguous with more that one term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per countless similar discussions. The Bury at Bury is the primary topic. I agree the concept of burial is more significant, but as the term "bury" is an unusual search term for that concept. Correct target in event of move is difficult as well. Both the proposed titles fail to completely disambiguate.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Per countless similar discussions we have established that primary topics should have a higher bar and this would seem a good example to apply this. The work "Bury" as in dogs often bury bones in the garden is what I was mainly referring to but even still there are several other places called "Bury" as well as Bury St Edmunds (40,664 town, 112,900, district) compared to GM (78,723, town and 188,700, district) which is often called just "Bury", considering you were skeptical of the move of Mundham its only logical we should DAB here even if we consider stability as a factor. The points raised by Auntof6 (talk · contribs) are surely the case here as its easy for bots and humans to add pages for things being buried or even other places. With Cleveland or Carlisle one could guess that Cleveland refers to the Ohio city as it is much better known that the original and Carlisle is much more well known that the other places that get its name from but "Bury" is an extremely common word (per Com:Cat "The category name would be enough to guess the subject"). Category:Bury, Greater Manchester (town) would be another target if the first 2 are unacceptable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Support per nom, LTHOUGH WITH NO OPINION ON THE NEW TITLE. as an American, I would imagine "Bury" to be a malformed category name for burial. That's not an excuse for putting cemetery images into this category, but it does mean that Americans with UK geo-knowledge equal to or lesser than mine are likely to put interment files into this category, especially in automated or semi-automated situations like the Rush one fixed in the link above. It's obviously the primary topic when compared to little towns, but when compared with everything else put together that can go by "bury", it's not. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This town is obviously not the primary use of the word bury, which makes it inherently different from other discussions over which town has precedence. Moved to Category:Bury, Greater Manchester, and Category:Bury (disambiguation) moved to Category:Bury. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be "Musical manuscripts by Johann Sebastian Bach" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- If there are objections against omitting a preposition then I think it is beter to choose "of" instead of "by" which can be used for a categories like "Category:Musical manuscript by composer".
Note also the "Category:Sheet music examples by composer" having the sub categories like "Category:Sheet music examples Johann Sebastian Bach". --Elgewen (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)- The parent category is "Musical manuscripts by composer". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Allright, a parent category Category:Musical manuscripts by composer looks quite normal to me.
Perhaps the following example is helpful: Category:Sheet music by composer => Category:Sheet music by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart => renamed "Category:Sheet music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart". --Elgewen (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Elgwewn: Can you explain why "of" would be better than "by" ? I feel like I'm missing something. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill:
Hello,
Your question "Can you explain why "of" would be better than "by" ?" Well, I'am not sure, but I'll give it a try.
- "autographs by composer" when "by" means "the files with autographs are ordered in a sequence of various composers.
- "autographs of a specific composer" when "of" means "the various files have representations of autographs written by a composer.
So I think that it is permitted to say: A copy "of" a work "by" an author; and A file "of" an autograph "by" a composer, etc.
But please note that perhaps I am completely wrong not being a native English speaker. --Elgewen (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Elgewen. Referencing autographs confuses the situation a little, because we wouldn't normally say "an autograph by someone" but "the autograph of someone" (or more commonly "someone's autograph"). When discussing a work, I think it's more common to say a painting, a book or a song by someone (so as to distinguish authorship from ownership). So "Manscripts by Bach" is effectively short for "Manuscripts written/produced by Bach" (not manuscripts purchased by Bach). On the other hand, "Manuscripts by composer" is effectively short for "Autographs, sorted by composer." Since there is no one named "composer" and there are not a variety of Bachs to categorize by, I don't think there's any threat of confusion. That's how we do it will all other categories, like paintings as well, as far as I know. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: @Pigsonthewing: I agree with your opinions. Please allow me a remark. We can have a "Category:Musical autographs by composer" a parent category for musical autographs sorted by various composers; and another "Category:Musical manuscripts by composer", also sorted by various composers although not written by them but by others (copyists). (Of cause an 'autograph' is also a 'manuscript'.)
I have no objections using "by composer", "by Bach", "by Corelli" ect.
There is some work to do because we have now some inconsistencies, such as:
and
- Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach
- Category:Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach
- Category:Motets by Johann Sebastian Bach
I take it that categories such as: "Category:Sheet music examples Johann Sebastian Bach" should be renamed likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgewen (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Elgewen, for pointing out the other inconsistent and problematic categories. I had forgotten about the use of "autograph" its meaning for writers and composers, as separate from signatures. In that case, "Autographs by X" might be perfectly appropriate.
- I would think Category:Musical autographs by composer could be a subcategory of Category:Musical manuscripts by composer, correct? Aren't autographs always of one's own compositions? Could we have:
- Category:Compositions by composer (for any related files, including audio)
- Category:Sheet music by composer (for any sheet music, handwritten or typed)
- Category:Musical manuscripts by composer (for any handwritten sheet music, sorted by composer)
- Category:Autographs by composer (for self- handwritten manuscripts, sorted composer/handwriter)
- Category:Musical manuscripts by composer (for any handwritten sheet music, sorted by composer)
- Category:Sheet music by composer (for any sheet music, handwritten or typed)
and therefore:
- Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (for any related files, including audio, by Johann Sebastian Bach)
- Category:Sheet music of Johann Sebastian Bach (for any sheet music by Johann Sebastian Bach)
- Category:Musical manuscripts by Johann Sebastian Bach (for any musical manuscripts composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, replacing Category:Musical manuscripts Johann Sebastian Bach
- Category:Autographs by Johann Sebastian Bach (for handwritten manuscripts composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, replacing Category:Musical autographs of Johann Sebastian Bach)
- Category:Musical manuscripts by Johann Sebastian Bach (for any musical manuscripts composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, replacing Category:Musical manuscripts Johann Sebastian Bach
- Category:Sheet music of Johann Sebastian Bach (for any sheet music by Johann Sebastian Bach)
- Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Looks good to me Themightyquill, but please note that we have already a category for autographs by composer for handwritten texts, letters ect. The use of "musical autographs" instead of "autographs" in case of handwritten music would make your proposal perfect, I think. --Elgewen (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I've fixed a lot of it, but Category:Sheet music examples by composer and its subcategories still remain. Do we move Category:Sheet music examples Johann Sebastian Bach to Category:Sheet music by examples Johann Sebastian Bach or Category:Examples of sheet music by Johann Sebastian Bach ? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill:
We have two options I think:
- a. Parent category Category:Sheet music examples by composer with the sub category Category:Sheet music exemples by Johann Sebastian Bach both having the same beginning "Sheet music examples", or
- b. Parent category Category:Examples of sheet music by composer with the sub category Category:Examples of sheet music by Johann Sebastian Bach both having the same beginning "Examples of sheet music".
- a. Parent category Category:Sheet music examples by composer with the sub category Category:Sheet music exemples by Johann Sebastian Bach both having the same beginning "Sheet music examples", or
I would prefer option a. having the advantage that all categories beginning with "Sheet music" will stand together in alphabetically lists. --Elgewen (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- We definitely don't need to - and should not - include the word "examples". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not? The Category:Sheet music examples is a convenient subcategory of the Category:Sheet music for a lot of files with small parts of written music with or without annotations, excerpts, incipits etc. who are difficult to categorize otherwise. Furthermore the word "examples" is an understandable expression for a lot of people, including the non-English speaking. --Elgewen (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate a little Pigsonthewing, though I agree "examples" does sound a little funny. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because the images in the parent category are also examples of sheet music. It may be understandable but is superfluous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well then, let us throw the superfluous Category:Sheet music examples" overboard together with the subcats "Category:Sheet music examples by composer" (with the subcats), "Category:Sheet music examples of Cuban music". --Elgewen (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. Upgrading the subcats of Category:Sheet music examples by composer to Category:Sheet music by composer where possible.--Elgewen (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well then, let us throw the superfluous Category:Sheet music examples" overboard together with the subcats "Category:Sheet music examples by composer" (with the subcats), "Category:Sheet music examples of Cuban music". --Elgewen (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll get started. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've dealt with Category:Sheet music examples by composer and its sub-categories, but I could use some help sorting Category:Sheet music examples, unless you want a simple dump into Category:Sheet music. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: There's agreement that Category:Sheet music examples should be deleted. Do you think we should simply dump it into Category:Sheet music or is there any better alternative? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: @Themightyquill: I'am already carefully busy pushing the "Category:Sheet music examples" towards the "Category:Sheet music" and possibly other categories such as Category:Musical notes, if nescessary. But I would like to have a category for the many files with unidentified music, unknown composers etc. Otherise the main category "sheet music" could become overloaded, I think. --Elgewen (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: There's agreement that Category:Sheet music examples should be deleted. Do you think we should simply dump it into Category:Sheet music or is there any better alternative? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Unidentified sheet music ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: @Pigsonthewing: Yes, I think Category:Unidentified sheet music is a useful category. I hope Andy does agree. --Elgewen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I just found the already existing Category:Unidentified music which can be used for the purpose. --Elgewen (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: @Pigsonthewing: Yes, I think Category:Unidentified sheet music is a useful category. I hope Andy does agree. --Elgewen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Elgewen: I've created Category:Unidentified sheet music. Hopefully it will help in clearing out Category:Sheet music examples. Anything else can be upmerged to Category:Sheet music. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks for your help. I'am busy recategorizing the category:sheet music examples. Please do not dump the whole category at once. A lot of files are still familiar to me so that I can replace them quickly. --Elgewen (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The Category:Sheet music examples is empty now and may be deleted. --Elgewen (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Elgewen. That's the last bit we needed to clean up and close the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest this category should be moved to Category:Jesse Ashbridge house of 1854, or something similar, so Category:Ashbridge Estate can be its parent, and also include the other images related to the family's properties. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Noting that the Historic Places site calls it “Jesse Ashbridge House“, I don’t think the “of 1854“ is needed, as it ought to be the primary version. At any rate, I agree with the case for making this cat a parent to the house cat along with other features of the property.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion that it should be Category:Jesse Ashbridge House. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Created sub-category at Category:Jesse Ashbridge House. Please check the content to see if I moved everything appropriately. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
To be deleted - part of Idestrup Beethoven9 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Corrected and replaced by Category:'Ržanovo, Kavadarci. B. Jankuloski (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then it should either be deleted or made an RD to the new cat. --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Para ser borrada, ya que está duplicada y vacía MONUMENTA (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Duplicada de qué? --E4024 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate to Category:Plaza de los Héroes de España, Melilla. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Requesting moving this category to Category:Nangang Station (Taipei), as there is a Nangang Station (Guangzhou) opened in 2017. Also, we need a disambiguation page after this page being moved.--そらみみ (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- That makes good sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done.--そらみみ (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This should be merged to Category:Juliusz Słowacki Museum in Kremenets Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Redirected to Category:Juliusz Słowacki Museum in Kremenets. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
unused, contained two bridges and I split it into two separate categories Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Split into Category:Inundační most v Kuksu and Category:Ocelový silniční most přes Labe v Kuksu - Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this cat should be deleted and the cat-opener warned. E4024 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree about deleting, if only because the criteria for inclusion would always be subjective. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Of course if several users agree that the category should be removed, i agree - category should be deleted. In my opinion the subject "MILF" exist not only into porn domain, but too in vernacular (everyday language? - sorry for my bad english). So women whom can be called "MILF" may be exemplified by not only photos of pornstars. At this moment on Wikimedia commons only porn actress are showed as MILF examples. It can be presumed that the term MILF is very pejorative and compares a woman to a prostitute, because for many porn actresses are simply prostitutes. Thank You, Stan old (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I also want to clarify that the above statement should not be understood as my negative assessment of anyone's behavior. I am not saying that women working as prostitutes or porn actresses are bad or worse than other people. Thanks, Stan old (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear E4024, please, tell me (and other users) "expressis verbis" an objective reason for your application. Thank You, Stan old (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll tell you one: by definition, this category is for mothers that one would like to, um, let's say have sex with. Whether someone would want to do that with a particular mother is very subjective. People have many different preferences about their sexual partners, so whose opinion should we use to determine what to include? In most cases, someone at some time wanted to have sex with every person who is a mother: by that logic, we might as well make the mothers category a subcat here.
- I'll give you another: how do we know that all the women included are mothers?
- And another: whoever populated this category seems to have just made it their own personal porn collection. That doesn't belong on Commons. Normally, when I've encountered the term MILF, it has been used for attractive women who are going about their business and are clothed, not displaying their genitals. If nudity is what makes one want to have sex with these women, then we don't need this category: just go to the category for nude women.
- And for the record, I don't think the term MILF has any connotation related to prostitution or porn. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good point Auntof6. Maybe the MILF category should stay, but should it contain photos of attractive mature women who are not naked? Thanks, Stan old (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the concept of MILF is age-specific. Whether or not that's true, though, the fact that you're open to seeing the definition differently indicates that the category isn't specific enough to belong here. It would be similar to having a category for mouth-watering food. What's mouth-watering is different for different people. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- And one more addition, the term "Mother" in the acronym MILF probably means the age of a woman and not whether she is really a mother. Thanks, Stan old (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree, but if that's true, it's another reason for not having the category: category names should mean what they say. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I can't agree. According to English Oxford Dictionaries definition - "MILF - A sexually attractive older woman, typically one who has children". According to Collins English Dictionary definition "milf - a sexually attractive middle-aged woman". According to Dictionary.com (based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017) definition - "MILF - an attractive older woman, usually a mother, who is regarded as a sexual object by a younger man."
- It follows that the condition of the middle age of a woman is necessary. The condition of having children is only an option. Thanks, Stan old (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as a completely subjective description. We have no Category:Attractive women (with good reason) so we can hardly have Category:Attractive mature women or Category:Attractive mothers. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Themightyquill, I disagree that the description of term "MILF" is subjective (see definions into dictionaries). But i agree that the qualifying of women to this category is subjective.
- Indeed, the porn actresses can be objective qualified as MILF, if they won the competition in this category. So, the rest women cannot be called MILF oficially and objective. OK, please for deleting category. Thanks, Stan old (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete the category due to subjectivity, admonish Stan old (talk · contribs) for Revision of Category:MILF. Commons doesn’t need foolish inclusionism for categories at all, and especially for such sensitive topics as eroto-porno-. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- "OK, please for deleting category. Thanks, Stan old (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)" means this discussion has ended; four delete, including the cat-opener, and no keep. --E4024 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as subjective. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
To disambiguate, to Category:Mansfield, Nottinghamshire (and move Category:Mansfield (disambiguation) to Category:Mansfield), there are many names unrelated to this one (such as Texas and Pennsylvania) and Ohio has a similar status. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moving to Category:Mansfield, Nottinghamshire. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
name of category and many files in it is outright silly and possibly libelous Anvilaquarius (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you'll look at parent Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant or team you will see that this was a photo scavenger hunt by teams that named themselves. Yes, most chose a name even sillier than the usual username. This doesn't look to me like a reason for getting rid of any. When @Pharos: checks in he can give more details. A minor illness has made me temporarily even more forgetful than usual. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not determined to keep it, but you'd need a better reason to justify deletion, Anvilaquarius. I agree that its outright silly, but I don't think we have a rule against that. I don't see how it would be libelous. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's simply embarassing to have "Naked pictures of Bea Arthur" in a filename of an image that has nothing to do with nudity, let alone the late Bea Arthur. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Anvilaquarius: I absolutely agree that it's a little embarrassing - I assume that was the intention. Many of the individual files contained could and probably should be renamed to accurately reflect the contents of the images. Many already have been. You can certainly help with that. The category, however, groups together images that were taken by a team with that name. There's really no clear alternative. Most people will never see the category, and even if they did, embarrassment isn't a great reason to delete it. Actually, as an internal category, it and all its peers could be made hidden, which would at least shrink the font. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept, but hidden. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The correct title is Category:Matches of Turkish Women's First Football League by season CeeGee (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it as empty for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We have a file, the picture of a jar. We do not see its contents. We do not have any other files. We do have this category. I doubt a special cat is needed for so trivial (by amount of material) content. E4024 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Copy files to parent categories and delete this. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Strange cat. It includes the Category: Communist flags etc. Maybe we should also add the Nazional Sozialist flags here or simply discuss the deletion of this cat. E4024 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand what is strange. See Category:Socialism vs Category:Communism or en:Socialism vs en:Communism. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing as stale discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Some clarity/disambiguation would be very useful here. Category:Hard, Austria ? Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Strong support clearly the opposite of soft is the primary meaning by both PTOPIC criteria. Even if it wasn't there are several meanings and only 2 languages have their DAB pages for "Hard" ending in disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, there are several hard cities in Austria, it's the one which is part of Bregenz province. --E4024 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- What other cities? GeoNames only shows this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's been a long time since I toured that country. That is my personal memory (original research) and it may be misleading. Let me look at my picture album some day. --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- What other cities? GeoNames only shows this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, there are several hard cities in Austria, it's the one which is part of Bregenz province. --E4024 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hard, Austria and turned Category:Hard into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Subjective category. Contains only one file. Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The content of this category is identical with the one of the older Category:Blind doors and should be merged. Ies (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blind doors appear to be doorways that have been closed off, but not all have been closed by bricks. Bricked up doors (which perhaps needs a hyphen in "bricked up") could be kept as a subset of blind doors, with files diffused from blind doors as appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Auntof6. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also agree it would work as a sub-category. Thanks, Ies, for spotting the connection. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bricked-up doors, left as sub-category of Category:Blind doors - Themightyquill (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Do Spain have border crossings only in Africa? None in Europe? E4024 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I mean as subcats we only have Ceuta and Melilla, I saw the files. --E4024 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Those above subcats also have very few files... --E4024 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Spain does have border crossings in Europe, but maybe there are no files for them or no one has identified/categorized them. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know, I passed through several of them; my favourite passing is in Navarre, Pyrenees. (In TR:WP they used to call me Truck Driver, for some reason, although maybe due to my user name... :) --E4024 (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand, @E4024: . Are you wasting our time with a rhetorical question? If you have images of other border crossings you'd like to upload, please be my guest. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like there are only Asian and African continents. This categorization (with the other cats around) should be studied a bit. I'm not sure if we should only make the cats for all continents (except Antarctica :) or also change dance to dances or do something else or more. I am too tired to think by the end of the year... E4024 (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems to me like an inappropriate category intersection. The fact that it is a black and white photo of a truck is information we wish to keep, and ought to be a category; maybe even the fact that it is a black and white photo of a "historical" truck (if "historical truck" means much). However, that is completely unrelated to the fact that the truck is currently unidentified, something that should be superseded by another category if someone can identify the truck. What use does it do to lump these into one category? All it does, as far as I can tell, is to make it harder for someone who is going through the unidentified trucks in hopes of being helpful, and would want to find them all in one place. Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. There's definitely no benefit to subdividing "unidentified" categories by the colour of the photograph. As long as we're going to have Category:Historical trucks (I agree it's of dubious value) then keeping Category:Unidentified historical trucks makes some sense. It could theoretically help encourage people to identify them properly. But I'm not determined to keep that either. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Function of the divis 80.108.81.70 17:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Must be moved to dances by name or something like that. (BTW "Dances of the Middle East" should not be here, as all the rest are dances with particular names.) E4024 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Dances by name seems reasonable to me. I also agree that entries like "Dances of the Middle East" don't belong here. Lambtron (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Doing as discussed and closing as there is no opposition. --E4024 (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done --E4024 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The use of "native people" here and in Category:Fur clothing of native people by country is rather strange. It seems to refer to any local residents, not "Indigenous peoples" in the political sense. We have no category for Category:Native people or Category:Native people by country. We do have Category:Traditional clothing, Category:National costumes and Category:National costumes by country, so these might be adapted there. (Note that those three are already under discussion already at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/05/Category:National costumes by country.) Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think I prefer Category:National costumes by country or Traditional clothing [of XYZ]? But all others would be also ok. Waiting for a consensus. -- Kürschner (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- We could to any of several ways here; my main concern is that traditional fur clothing of Native Americans should go in Category:Fur clothing of indigenous peoples of North America, not (as Kürschner) did here and here in categories such as Category:Fur costumes in 2012. As I had previously remarked, both when reverting similar edits earlier, and at User talk:Kürschner, most Native Americans find it offensive to refer to their traditional clothing or modern pow-wow regalia as "costumes". - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hallo Jmabel, thank you for the helpful comment. Till today, I think, I categorized them all in Fur fashion in [year]. My idea was, to categorize all in this way, which I could believe that this fur was in a normal use at this time (also native costumes). Here and now I got doubts, if it is right. In German costume has no "smell" - but we have not really native clothing anymore. Please change it the way you think it is ok. Thanks!-- Kürschner (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Costume" doesn't necessarily connote something fake in English either -- for example, no problem with the phrase "national costume" -- but in this case to refer to a "Native American costume" suggests something an outsider would wear for a masquerade. Pretty much the same to refer to a "cowboy costume" vs. a "cowboy outfit", and even more so a "nurse costume" or "soldier costume" rather than a nurse's or soldier's "uniform". I don't think there is any neat rule here, it's a slippery word. As is "native". Everybody is "native" of somewhere. I'm a "native New Yorker". "Indigenous" is less problematic, especially because many (maybe most) of the people it applies to embrace it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- So what do we do with these categories? Move to Category:Fur as traditional clothing and Category:Fur as traditional clothing in x ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Jmabel - We will get a fourth category for furs by year, costumes with fur (theatre, carneval (with Indians, trappers and others)) and new Category:Fur as traditional clothing in x, additionally to "Furs" in [year] and "Fur fashion in [year]". It terrifies me a little bit. You do not see another way, only with renamining the category? See this, and count the categories, include the lower ones... [3] ;-(-- Kürschner (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- “Fur as traditional clothing” looks reasonable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- “Fur as traditional clothing” looks reasonable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just an observation: "Traditional" means something that is used since old times, right? We have many people like the judges of the "classical" period of the Ottoman Empire that wore fur as part of their social status / professional wear. (Not in the "modern" times of the Empire, nor the Republican Era, since almost two centuries.) I hope we will not see those images as "traditional clothing of Turks"; that would be quite confusing. (Today they are used as costumes in theatre about medieval (+) times only; or almost only. :) Well, this looked more like a question. --E4024 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say traditional means "used since old times" or "used in old times (but not anymore)". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Why "but not anymore"? Most it is so, but not generally.-- Kürschner (talk)
- Could it be because they throw paint on you? :) --E4024 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Why "but not anymore"? Most it is so, but not generally.-- Kürschner (talk)
- I'd say traditional means "used since old times" or "used in old times (but not anymore)". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kürschner: Some cultures around the world continue to wear their traditional clothing on a regular everyday basis. Some only bring out their traditional clothing/national costumes for special events like holidays, folk dancing, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- We have "Clothing of [country]" categories. Simply make "Fur clothing" a subcat of that one. Leave the unnecessary "native" and "people" words out and close this discussion. Please. --E4024 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done. -- Kürschner (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Kürschner: Unless I've misunderstood E4024, he has suggested we move Category:Fur clothing of native people of Afghanistan to just Category:Fur clothing of Afghanistan and so forth. Are you agreeing to that? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, oh, yes, thank you! But I think, there is a problem. The category name should show, that only traditional fur clothing belongs here. What do you think could it be named?-- Kürschner (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Kürschner: - Two options: Category:Fur as traditional clothing in X or open it more broadly to Category:Fur clothing in X. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Kürschner: What is your obsession for "traditional"? Are we going to add some word to traditional female clothing in Afghanistan and so forth? Please be happy with "clothing of" only. Smile, I'm taking the closure pic of this congress. --E4024 (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: I have to be careful, I am not sure with my little English knowledge, to understand all correct. My obsession is a name which says, no modern style clothing belongs here. I do not care about anything else, I trust you, the native speaking people! :-) -- Kürschner (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- We all have to be careful. English is not my "native" language either. It is about categorization, not language. --E4024 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: I have to be careful, I am not sure with my little English knowledge, to understand all correct. My obsession is a name which says, no modern style clothing belongs here. I do not care about anything else, I trust you, the native speaking people! :-) -- Kürschner (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: category deleted by Hystrix because empty after recent movings. Ruthven (msg) 14:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- The issues still exists with Category:Fur clothing of native people by country and its subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere here where "indigenous" rather than "native" would not work? - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- For the vast majority, I think using "indigenous" rather than "native" would be even more confusing. Technically, both mean "originating in a specific area" but in common usage (and commons usage) indigenous/native refer to en:Indigenous peoples. That isn't normally used for, say, ethnic greeks or Category:Fur clothing of native people of Spain. "Indigenous" makes sense to keep only in places where it falls under the category tree of Category:Indigenous peoples. If we're going to keep the fur-related category tree instead of deleting it (as Kürschner suggested), I think Category:Fur as traditional clothing in x makes the most sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds good??! -- Kürschner (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the "traditional clothing" formulation. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds good??! -- Kürschner (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Although the cat was deleted, its "by country" cats continue! I saw this File:Brooklyn Museum - Two Khans in Turkoman Tribal Costume One of 274 Vintage Photographs.jpg, in the cat concerning "Turkey", and judging by the time it refers to, I took it to the "Ottoman Empire" cat although I know that "IRAN" was not part of neither Turkey nor the Empire in 1812. You see the difficulties these subjective cats cause to us? --E4024 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: That seems like an honest mistake, confusing Turkoman and Turkish. Thanks for correcting it. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kürschner and Jmabel: We can move everything to Category:Fur as traditional clothing in x and put in it Category:Traditional clothing, but the latter is also subject to a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/05/Category:National costumes by country. Maybe that discussion should be solved first before we decide to put the fur-focused sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, ok, let us wait. Thank you! -- Kürschner (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Kürschner removed Category:Fur clothing of native people by tribe on 9 May 2018. The following day Hystrix deleted Category:Fur clothing of native people as "empty after discussion". But Category:Fur clothing of native people by tribe remains, and so does the problem. I've definitely never heard someone describing Macedonians or Caucasians as tribes. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I still think the word "traditional" is the right way out of this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Grammatically, should be Category:Stained-glass windows. The same applies ot the many many sub-categories, but not to the parent Category:Stained glass. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also support proper hyphenation. — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Could you please help with this mass move? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment When performing mass renames like this, why using typewriter's minus sign, not the hyphen? --Smial (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Categoría duplicada, Category:Moroccan-Spanish border in Melilla MONUMENTA (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- What is the duplicate? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Themightyquill the duplicate categorie is Category:Melilla border fence, because it already exists Category:Moroccan-Spanish_border_in_Melilla --MONUMENTA (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a duplicate. One is of the fence, the other is of the border generally. Category:Moroccan-Spanish_border_in_Melilla cannot be a sub-category of Category:Separation barriers. And some images, like this one, may show the border but not the fence. Category:Melilla border fence could function as a sub-category of Category:Moroccan-Spanish border in Melilla. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, Themightyquill the entire border itself is surrounded by the fence, but, in itself, you are right and the category is not strictly duplicated. MONUMENTA Discusión 14:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Il faut peut-être distinguer les peintures du monastère de celles du musée. Le Monastère Royal de Brou, ensemble patrimonial unique composé d’une église et de bâtiments monastiques abritant principalement le musée de la Ville, labellisé musée de France, situé à Bourg-en Bresse, est partagé entre deux propriétaires : la Ville de Bourg-en-Bresse et l’Etat. Pierre Tribhou (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- D'où ma création de Paintings in the Musée de Brou--Pierre Tribhou (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Il y a Category:Paintings in the Musée de Brou pour les peintures dans le musée. Est-ce que ça suffit? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- J'ai changé les catégories. Le nom du musée doit correspondre à la catégorie de peinture. Est-ce le musée de Brou ou pas? Jane023 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merci, oui si le principe de moindre surprise s'applique, il faut dire "Musée de Brou".--Pierre Tribhou (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- J'ai changé les catégories. Le nom du musée doit correspondre à la catégorie de peinture. Est-ce le musée de Brou ou pas? Jane023 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: redirect to Category:Paintings in the Musée de Brou. Ruthven (msg) 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that "en:Black pudding" is one regional variant of en:blood sausage. Propose move to Category:Blood sausage(s?) by country. Themightyquill (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Most content moved to new category Category:Blood sausage by country by Phonet in January 2018. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
this category, Category:Child sexual abuse offenders, should not be in the category, Pedophiles, as they are all convicts, not necessarily diagnosed wit this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Same as Category:Pedophiles. Per description of pedophile they are the same shit. --E4024 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- As long as I've been researching this topic, which is now many years, there's alway been popular confusion about what "pedophile" means. Pedophilia is technically a paraphilia, a psychiatric condition driven by a sexual attraction to children (which latter term is rarely defined with any precision). It may or may not involve committing criminal offences against childrem which is predicated by use of the word "offender"- and the application of that term, by analogy with en:WP:BLP requires a conviction or a confession. We cannot say "He must have been", see, e.g. en:Lewis Carroll. I note we have almost no entries in Pedophiles beyond Child sexual abuse offenders, and that tells me this category is being applied correctly. There is a distinction, which we should maintain, and I support keeping the separation. Immoderate, non-neutral language as opposed to an academic approach, is not going to help the situation. Accordingly, I'm going to close this as "Remove" since it's now a stale debate with few contributions, and anyh continued debate may occur elsewhere. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: Stale; no consensus in six months. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Plural of retina is retinae.-- Kidira (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've added the CfD tag to other "retina" category to encourage further contributions. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- If a move is done, I think redirects from "retina" and "retinas" should be left pointing at "retinae" - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- In the dictionaries I checked (including Wiktionary), both retinas and retinae are given as valid plural forms, with retinas listed first. The form listed first is usually the more common one. Retinas is also the plural form used in en:Retina. I would therefore prefer Category:Videos of retinas. --rimshottalk 00:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is a move to use "retinas" acceptable to you, Kidira? Retinae is the correct latin, but English increasingly uses 's' to make even Latin words plural. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved Category:Retina to Category:Retinas and the video subcategory accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This category cannot have Category:Feldtbuch der Wundartzney inside and at the same time be a subcat of Category:Medieval Islamic medicine. The pictures (anatomical illustrations) relating to Medieval Islamic medicine should be categorized separately, with a new cat, and then included here as a subcat. E4024 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done by Ashashyou. BMacZero (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
This category only contained variants of the same subject that were removed from the main category Category:Stolpersteine in Heidelberg. There is no reason to selectively move files to this category. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- In order to find out how many Stolpersteine were posed in Heidelberg I established this category. It contained mainly bad pictures (out of focus, with rain drops and street dirt). I think it is very useful to have this category - and I do not at all agree with CHSB who redid all of my work without even asking. We do not need three pictures of the same stone (with different titles). I chose the best of the three images. And I intend to unify the naming of the pictures.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Having more than one depiction of a subject, especially over a long period of time, is definitely useful and well within the project's scope. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
To give an example, there are three photos of the stolperstein for Walter Durlacher:
- File:Heidelberg Walter Durlacher.png, uploaded in July 2014
- File:Stolpersteine Heidelberg, Walter Durlacher (Hauptstraße 121).jpg, uploaded in November 2017
- File:Stolperstein für Walter Durlacher (Heidelberg).jpg, uploaded in December 2017
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Only the first two were moved to the category in question while the newest file, uploaded by a close associate of the mover, remained in the main category. This seems like an attempt to promote own works while burying the works of others in a subcategory ("Doubletten" means "duplicates" in English). --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- What nonsense. The first pic is crooked, the second has rain drops on it. The third one is the best - regardless of the author.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the newest photo is of the highest photographic quality (as are most of the others kept in the main category), but that is no reason to remove photos of lower quality from a category. Categories do not differentiate based on the perceived quality of their images. Commons:Galleries fit the purpose you seek. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- What nonsense. The first pic is crooked, the second has rain drops on it. The third one is the best - regardless of the author.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, who will be so stupid to use the Mombert pic shown on top of this page (if there is a much better one, shown below)?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- the bad picture can be used to show how usefull cleaning is.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not only the dirt, that is disturbing, also the rain drops.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- the bad picture can be used to show how usefull cleaning is.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand the intention (this intention is not bad and very helpfull), CorrectHorseBatterystaple have you a better idea for this kind of sorting? any idea? you do not need to see bad asume, help, this would be more construtive. all pictures in the other cat can i see if i search "stolpersteine in heidelberg" or are this pictures not to see anymore?--Donna Gedenk (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Commons is not the right place to create a database of stolpersteine (Wikidata might accept entries for individual stones). Using commons categories to count stones is a futile effort as anyone can add new files to the category. Since the files are all properly named it is easy to find stones dedicated to a specific person simply by opening the category page and using the browser's search function. We should let the users decide which photo to use for their intended purposes. Some might be interested in the most legible depiction, while others might be more interested in a more usual appearance including any dirt and corrosion. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I second the suggestion of a Commons:Gallery to create a clear list with the best photos. That's not what categories are for, because they function very badly as such. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The images in the questioned category are no duplicates, but different views of the same subjects. Categories are meant to help users find images of subjects, and to choose between different views. To show a special selection of pictures, gallerie pages are intended. This subcategory contradicts in every respect the meaning of the usual category system. --Smial (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Smial. Feel free to create a gallery of the best pictures, but this is not how we use categories at Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Smial.--Mautpreller (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Smial Raymond 14:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
As per this discussion, creating a gallery in conjunction with the main category would be the right move here. Pictures have been moved back to the main category. Braveheart (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. ℯxplicit 03:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Only two items in this cat, and I can't envision how a cat for icons from a fairly niche piece of software will become very large. The parent, Category:ChemSketch is for the software itself and is completely empty except for this subcat. Propose upmerging the icons into the software cat itself. DMacks (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I
Agree, this seems like easy cleanup. BMacZero (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Merged: to Category:ChemSketch and Category:Chemistry icons. ℯxplicit 03:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Felesleges kategória. A kormány épületek kategória tökéletesen elég helyette. Globetrotter19 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It should rename/move as "King coconut" as per general naming principles AntanO 01:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect this as well.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 11:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I open this cat to discussion aimed at its deletion. Please look at the files inside the only cat in this category and you will understand why I do this. E4024 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Write a full sentence telling me that I will know what the problem is, instead of just stating what the problem is? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: I agree with Themightyquill - this category is sparsely populated and the images are not incredibly high-quality, but I don't see those as reasons for deletion. BMacZero (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: This category should be deleted as it's now empty. Freddie Gibbs is a rapper who already has a category on Wikimedia Commons, and as pointed out here, he was at the Eurockéennes in 2014, but doesn't appear in the photos under Freddie Gibbs at the Eurockéennes 2014. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted per Category:Freddie Gibbs. --ƏXPLICIT 11:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect, no links to this category nor subcategories. Request deletion. Ptolusque (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. We can't know what might be linking to it outside of Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Per Auntof6. BMacZero (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
None of the files in this category seem to be photographs taken by NLA staff. Contrast this with Category:Photographs in the National Library of Australia. Since not all are photographs, I suggest all of the files here be moved into Category:Collections of the National Library of Australia until they can be diffused. Also, if this category is to stay, it should be titled "Photographs by the National Library of Australia". Opencooper (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: deleted per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 12:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Why does this category exist? What is the difference between "lifts" and "elevators"? The wiki.en entry says they are the same thing, in that case this should be a redirect to Elevators. Darwin Ahoy! 03:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think everything in the category would be called an elevator -- for example, ski lifts and cableways. I know that what's called an elevator in the US is called a lift in the UK, but I wonder if there's sometimes more of a distinction. FWIW, the "elevator" category is under a couple of categories that specify "vertical": maybe lifts can also have a horizontal aspect, as with ski lifts and cableways. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: the contents of the "lifts" category seem to be very mixed and confused, at its current state, can you help sorting them out, so that the difference between both concepts is made more evident?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @DarwIn and Auntof6: I would propose we move all the content to Category:Vertical transport devices, and either redirect this there, or disambiguate. Category:Ski lifts and Category:Cableways are indeed not elevators, so they shouldn't be a (grand)child category of Category:Elevators. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, and would add that Category:Lifts itself can be a dab to help folks navigate these, since it has apparently become a dumping ground for all manner of lift. Josh (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Nothing against, please go ahead.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, and would add that Category:Lifts itself can be a dab to help folks navigate these, since it has apparently become a dumping ground for all manner of lift. Josh (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Convered to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
While the cat includes only certain districts of Çanakkale Province, it includes the whole Istanbul Province which is a grave mistake. E4024 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- The reason to the above may -or may not- be related to the fact that the cat was opened and the Category:Istanbul Province was added in there by a user from Greece (I suppose by their name and edits). If you come to Istanbul from Northern Greece by road, you will see (If I remember well at the exit from the city of Dedeağaç, a city founded by Turks) signs about some Constantinopolis. Of course the Province of Istanbul, or even the city itself (the European part, we people of Kadıköy are accustomed to say, when we cross the sea to that part of the city, "I am going to Istanbul") is not the historical city that some yearn for. That is only a tiny portion of the city and province of Istanbul; and has its specific name as "Tarihi Yarımada" (the historic peninsula) in Turkish. This confusion about Istanbul is even greater than at first I thought when I began to work in WPs. The Province of Istanbul, until lately, had, as a district, even what is now the Yalova Province. Look where it is, and you will see the graveness of the confusion about equalizing this province with Constantinopolis. In short, Konstantiniyye/Constantinopolis is just one of the visitor attractions in Istanbul; perhaps Fatih district and little more. Anyway, turning to the category discussion, only the "European side" districts of Istanbul are in Eastern Thrace and the rest have no place in this cat. BTW Edirne Province has some, although very small, territory in Western Thrace but we may think of that issue later. --E4024 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- It rarely is a good sign when someone starts guessing what other users *may* have thought based on nothing but their nationality, and starts implying a whole narrative of nationalist-derived thinking to them, but I guess judging others by one's own thought processes is a common mistake to make. The situation is simple: the European part of Istanbul Province lies in the historical and geographical region of Thrace, specifically Eastern Thrace. As there is no internal division in the province between the European and Asian parts, the entire province is included. This is definitely less than ideal, and I would gladly find another solution, but I don't see any hint of a solution mentioned in the long-ish post above. --Constantine ✍ 08:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- " may -or may not- ": Istanbul has its districts perfectly defined and some of them are in Europe (Eastern Thrace) and some in Asia (Minor), as the city is divided by a strait. Everybody knows this. --E4024 (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Is Istanbul Province divided in two districts, one European and one Asian? No. That was my point. There are of course several districts in the entire province, and I guess we could include, instead of the province, all the European districts; IMO this would look somewhat ridiculous, but if it bothers you that much, that is the only solution I can think of right now. Again, if you have any better ideas, I am all ears. --Constantine ✍ 19:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Done: Istanbul partially included. --MB-one (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This must be made a disambiguation page. If not, people will "rightly" continue to add Tarsus city pics in this cat. E4024 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguation page and create to Category:Tarsus (bones)? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: DAB created. Enwiki has same solution. Discussion closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
To be renamed simply Category:Verracos, as common nouns in category names should be in English. Cp. en:Verraco. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that "Verracos de piedra" is used for clarity in Spanish. If we move to simply Category:Verracos, will we end up with many images of live boars photographed by Spanish speakers? Maybe Category:Verracos (sculptures) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- That’s a good idea. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wrt Spain... I'd say "verraco" is quite an unusual word for "living boars", so I think a simple "verracos" would be fine spanish-wise. Not many Spanish speakers are gonna categorise a pig/boar as a "verraco". Strakhov (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely not a Spanish expert, but think Category:Verracos (sculptures) is reasonable. The enwiki article does note that these are called "verracos de piedra" specifically to distinguish them from live boars. I also like the context it gives me as a non-Spanish speaker. BMacZero (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done: Considering all of the above, a move was made and Category:Verracos (sculptures) was created, with Category:Verracos de piedra redirecting to it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the Street performer category be a subcategory of buskers? I dunno. I guess street performers who are volunteering, just to get experience, and turn away tips, are not buskers. There may be occasions when a government agency, or business, will hire musicians to play outside one of their buildings, but tell them not to collect tips from listeners. I guess they would not be buskers.
But maybe that is uncommon enough not to worry about?
Anyhow, I don't think Category:Buskers should redirect anywhere, and should be the parent directory to subcats like Category:Buskers in Toronto Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- And if we keep the buskers categories, we should standardize whether they go under street performers or street musicians. Is busking always musical? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, Geo Swan, I disagree. I think Category:Street performers is sufficient, even if they are technically in a subway or in a square (or on a sidewalk, for that matter). We don't need to be so literal, and street performers, as you say, is broader. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
At least two of the images currently in this category -- the two Luminato images -- are on the grounds of Harbourfront. That means they are not performing on a street, and should not be called street performers. Geo Swan (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, "Street performance or busking is the act of performing in public places for gratuities" and no mention is made of appearing only on the street. We don't need to be so strict on this. Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Themightyquill and suggest the category be kept unchanged. BMacZero (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 02:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Kruithuisweg is a road in the dutch city of Delft. It's part of the N470, a local road. It might be better to delete this cat, and transfer images to Category:N470. Tukka (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you meant Category:Provinciale weg 470 ? Could Category:Kruithuisweg, Delft be a sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Tukka: Any thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Making Category:Kruithuisweg, Delft a subcat of Category:Provinciale weg 470 sounds good to me. Tukka (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Tukka: Any thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Done as stated by Tukka. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
better Category:Ripples (water waves) of Lake Constance Roland.h.bueb (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Even better Category:Water waves of Lake Constance ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Roland.h.bueb and Themightyquill: I guess there would be a size difference between ripples and (water) waves? For that reason I think the term Ripples should be kept, but the disambiguation seems unnecessarily wordy to me. Category:Ripples (water) on Lake Constance? Does it even need to be disambiguated since it's already in the context of a lake? Simply Category:Ripples on Lake Constance? – BMacZero (🗩) 06:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- BMacZero, yes, Ripples on Lake Constance is better. Thank you for your help.--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ripples on Lake Constance. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Can we rename this to Category:Golden Gate, San Francisco Bay Area or something similar? It's getting some entries for other things called Golden Gate, such as this and this. If anyone is concerned about what the primary topic for the term might be, here in the SF Bay Area we'd usually think of the bridge before the strait. Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Given that Golden Gate Bridge and Golden Gate Park are also in the Bay Area, I think Category:Golden Gate Strait would be better. Category:Golden Gate could be made into a disambiguation page for all the golden gates. --rimshottalk 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe Category:Golden Gate (strait)? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, that would elegantly avoid the question of whether "strait/Strait" is part of the name. --rimshottalk 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe Category:Golden Gate (strait)? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Support disambiguation, while I agree that "Golden Gate" (capital G for gate) is most likely to be associated with the strait, its easy for it to be associated with files for gates that are golden, also there are other things called Golden Gate at w:Golden Gate (disambiguation) anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: I have created Category:Golden Gate (disambiguation). (I didn't realize how many entries there would be!) If the page being discussed is approved to be a dab, this new dab page can be moved there. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Gosh that many, that shows disambiguation is needed even though this is probably the most common by a long way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus supporting disambiguation, so which name is preferred? I ask because I saw another incorrect file (this one) added here today. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Auntof6: I support Category:Golden Gate as disambig and Category:Golden Gate (strait) for the straight per rimshot. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I moved the disambig to Category:Golden Gate and the strait to Category:Golden Gate (strait) – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Para ser eliminada, el nombre esta mal escrito y está duplicada [4] MONUMENTA (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- La has duplicado tú porque has querido. Si, efectivamente, había que incluir un "del", pues se hace y ya está. --Discasto talk 21:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Error mio. Perdón MONUMENTA (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Done: already deleted/moot. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie kann gelöscht werden. Sie wurde vor "Inbetriebnahme" durch die Kategorie "Category:Hofschaft In der Rutenbeck" ersetzt Im Fokus (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nein, nicht löschen. Ist eine "offizielle" Straßenbenennung ich werde die einzelnen Objekte zuordnen. --Atamari (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Any German-fluent user can explain the situation? Wikidata entry is only for the street named "In der Rutenbeck" (Wikidata:Q63442202). Noticing participants user:Im Fokus and User:Atamari--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Diskussion wurde vor vier Jahren beendet. Deshalb habe ich diese Kategorie aus den Categories for discussion entfernt; das ist alles. --Im Fokus (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep. The category has now had this name for six years, the subcats are named accordingly, and the discussion has been stale for 2-4 years, depending on what you count. If any clarification of the meaning is needed, I'd suggest adding a note to the category page, or I guess someone can start a new CfD (but I hope they don't). - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This RfD covers this category and its immediate children (not grandchildren, etc.). I think categories by region of the United States are best used only for things that cross state boundaries. In the US, we talk about our various regions, but they don't have the same political significance that regions do in some other countries (for example, France). Categories by US region where subcats are all broken down by state don't serve a useful purpose. Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The nominated category and its subcategories seem to be logically structured. Could you specify your proposal, user:Auntof6? Or is the current situation acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I would delete this category and its four immediate subcats. This category's "grandchildren" are already in an appropriate category (Category:Downtowns in the United States by state). I agree that these are logically structured. My argument is that, for this topic, the structure is meaningless. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I am not familiar with USA geographical dividing, but I agree with you. And because this CFD is stale, you are free to execute your proposal--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing, and seconding what Auntof6 and Estopedist1 said. I'll make the relevant deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to Category:Doellingeria scabra, as Aster scaber Thunb. is a synonym of Doellingeria scabra (Thunb.) Nees. --🍆melongena (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Melongena: you are free to do it. Should be changed in Wikispecies as well: wikispecies:Aster scaber--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Melongena, Peter coxhead, and Plantdrew: the above-mentioned reference (ie theplantlist.org) is outdated. Eg Kew POWO (one of the most reliable plant databases) says that Doellingeria scabra is a synonym of Aster scaber. However, enwiki hasn't follow the Kew POWO. I think we can close this discussion, until new scientific publications will be published about this species--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- At this point, should follow POWO, and keep the category as Aster scaber. enwiki did have the article at Aster scaber, but it was moved in 2016 (at which point The Plant List was becoming outdated, but POWO hadn't been launched). Plantdrew (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Melongena, Peter coxhead, and Plantdrew: the above-mentioned reference (ie theplantlist.org) is outdated. Eg Kew POWO (one of the most reliable plant databases) says that Doellingeria scabra is a synonym of Aster scaber. However, enwiki hasn't follow the Kew POWO. I think we can close this discussion, until new scientific publications will be published about this species--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing: seems en-wiki and uk-wiki are outliers here. Everyone else in the WMF cosmos (and most beyond) goes with "Aster scaber", so I see no reason to change this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)