Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/06
Category created by new user as a promo page. Not an actual category Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: empty. --JuTa 18:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please delete this cat because allready exist Category:Shopping malls in Quebec City The Photographer 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as redundant, non-standard, and not useful as a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
An IP that likes to open cats for every detail of women, like "women wearing earrings" etc has opened it. Inside there is only Russia, with one cat and one file. The sole file was not an "own work" as declared, therefore I DR'ed it. The sole cat involves a woman. A woman does not go around all the time in long hair, generally neither in the same colour all the time. Therefore she cannot be categorized as such. (It is the same like categorizing a woman's personal cat as "nude women" as if she always goes around nude.) That kind of -for me unnecessary, but others may think necessary- cats like "long blond hair" can only be added to individual files. This is why I opened this discussion. BTW, the passion of this IP from China may also require a checkuser control; as the various IPs used around similar cats (women, female models, actresses, female vocalists etc) and in these details like hair colour or earrings etc may be associated with some former user. (I have no idea, just a guess. Why don't they open an account if under various IPs they make so many edits, especially opening new cats everyday, although many of them have been left with "red" connections.) E4024 (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:Women with long hair category description says its for women with hair of waist length or longer. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done Deleted. --E4024 (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Another one-file cat from certain origin. E4024 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I emptied the cat for deletion because the only file had a nun image in it. --E4024 (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done Deleted by a good admin. --E4024 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Bad category created. No need for redirection. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In case of typos, Hungarikusz Firkász, you can just use {{Bad name}} on the old category to have it deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
is replaced by Nessebrücke (Leer) Gouwenaar (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have Category:Nessebrücke (Großenlupnitz), Category:Nessebrücke (Ettenhausen), Category:Nessebrücke (Wenigenlupnitz), Category:Nessebrücke (Melborn), Category:Nessebrücke (Leer), Category:Nessebrücke Eisenach, Langensalzaer Straße (B84). Should we turn Category:Nessebrücke into a disambiguation page? Or redirect to Category:Bridges over the Nesse? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Nessebrücke in Leer is not a bridge over the Nesse but a bridge from the old city tot the peninsula "Nesse" in Leer (see here). Redirect to Category:Bridges over the Nesse is not correct in my opinion. Gouwenaar (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks, Gouwenaar. A disambiguation page is most useful then, I think. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Nessebrücke in Leer is not a bridge over the Nesse but a bridge from the old city tot the peninsula "Nesse" in Leer (see here). Redirect to Category:Bridges over the Nesse is not correct in my opinion. Gouwenaar (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Converted to disambig page. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm opening a CfD by mistake. Is this cat about the same mosque in Category:Esmahan Sultan Mosque in Mangalia? E4024 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, they are the same, and it's Mangalia (a city in Romania). I'm OK with whichever fits current MOS on commons.Anonimu (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is there another Esmahan Sultan Mosque in the world? If not, we can drop the location; if so, keep it? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, they are the same, and it's Mangalia (a city in Romania). I'm OK with whichever fits current MOS on commons.Anonimu (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: Merged in "Esmahan Sultan Mosque"; duplicate category. Ruthven (msg) 11:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Exact definition and purpose of this category is unclear. I doubt that we really need "Attendance" as a category.
- all media content (except the subcategory) belongs to a page on Wikiversity: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Attendance/Howard_Community_College/fall2012/p3-503-ff
- If needed we could create a hidden (maintenance) category related to this Wikiversity page and holding these images together.
--Zaccarias (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Attendance (wikiversity project) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. --Zaccarias (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Attendance (wikiversity project) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Strong support move, note that I removed the CATs for the generic meaning, the work meaning. That should be created separately. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
New sub-category created at Category:Attendance (wikiversity project). - Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong photo LittleBlackDress2 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- If the photo is wrong, you should discuss it on the TP of the concerned file. I'm closing this CfD. --E4024 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Closing. The discussion is about a file, even if it is the only file -by now- at the cat. --E4024 (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a typo in the name, sorry. Can anyone delete it for me? Judithcomm (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Judithcomm: Typos happen. Next time use {{Bad name}} to get it deleted without the need for discussion. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is just another name for the Wright Vertical 6 engine, which already has its own category. I've moved the only image in this category to that one. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.--Threecharlie (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
DELETED. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
An accidental creation. Must be deleted at once. TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 02:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleting in favour of Category:Transport in the Philippines by province. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Already exists: Category:Charles David (engraver) Daehan (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have looking and searching for and not find before creating ! Category:Charles David (1600-1636) can be delete. - Siren-Com (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Charles David (engraver). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no place for the article and there are no images: Category:MC Mack -- Noughts (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete page soon --Noughts (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have tagged it as empty so it should be deleted soon. @Noughts: An empty category doesn't need discussion here, so using the {{Empty page}} template is a better way to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Same as Category:Pedophiles. E4024 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Merged discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Pedophiles. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I always thought this was called Antisemitism. Am I wrong again? E4024 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong again, and it wouldn't have taken much research for you to figure that out instead of starting another CFD. See en:Anti-Judaism. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism creation. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Kindly delete this vandalistic creation. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I created this category in error. It should have been "Upper Rosemary Hill". I have now created a correctly-named replacement. Motacilla (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. @Motacilla: Using the bad name template is a better option for this kind of situation because it doesn't really need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Motacilla has been informed of this many many many times: User_talk:Motacilla#Typos_in_category_names. I'm about ready to initiate a temporary block for disruptive behaviour. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I created this category in error. It should have been "Upper Rosemary Hill". I have now created a correctly-named replacement. Motacilla (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Let's delete it then. --E4024 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a hoax. Does anyone have more info? Achim (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most images are used only at en:User:Alfred.Delmore - Lauwiner Empire, a user who has made no edits except to his own page. Most/all other online references originate with a Jonas Lauwiner. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I would leave this category becouse all the files are great quality and those are perfectly in connection with Lauwiner Empire. Parzival.Knight (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Parzival.Knight: Hello, brand new user. I'm going to assume good faith here. Would you care to explain what the Lauwiner Empire is? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think its some kind of business empire becouse i saw on instagram a profile Lauwiner Foundation and tgey say its paid by the incomes of the Lauwiner Empire Businesses. Well sounds like something to me. What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzival.Knight (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Parzival.Knight: I think it comes purely from someone's imagination. I don't think there is really any foundation or any businesses, which would have some internet footprint outside instagram. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Hello i just saw that this discussion is going on. I know J. Lauwiner in person and i admire him. I know for sure that when its talked about the Lauwiner Empire its about all his businesses and Real Estate. If you are looking for a website i just know that two www.lauwiner-foundation.org and www.le-enterprises.com. Well he tries to keep all of it a secret, but of couse its not easy. And i guess everything comes out of imagination, the point is if its only in the head or is it already something... Best Regards Alfred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred.Delmore - Lauwiner Empire (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alfred.Delmore - Lauwiner Empire: Welcome, another brand new user. I believe it is only in the head. The websites have various spelling mistakes. The business address for lt-enterprises is visibly being used by another company. The page for the board of governors lists no board of governors. The company claims to have 37 employees, but lists none of them. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Haha was easier than i thought to delete all that stuff thanks :P My account you can also delete, make the empire fall ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred.Delmore - Lauwiner Empire (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21. Jun. 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as a hoax and OOS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Let's wait for the pending CU request being closed. --Achim (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Info: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alastrina Leftwich is done, so this game is over now. --Achim (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty after images were deleted and users were banned. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
empty cat. duplicate of Category:Red Canyon, Negev DGtal (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The author of this page wants to have it deleted, please see Commons:De Kroeg. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Empty category with low likelihood of being populated Useddenim (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. See further discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set green-yellow/stations and stops. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Empty category with low likelihood of being populated Useddenim (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. See further discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set green-yellow/stations and stops. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"Jahrmarktorgel" is just the German word for "fairground organ", so this category is redundant; and by the way, the form "Jahrmarktorgels" does not exist, plural would be "Jahrmarktorgeln". Abderitestatos (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- If it was gramatically correct, I'd suggest a redirect to Category:Fairground organs, but since it isn't, I guess just merge content and delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fairground organs in Germany. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This 优酷全娱乐 YouTube Channel is very likely fake and not affiliated with 优酷全娱乐. Wcam (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Wcam: So long as the videos are on commons, it makes sense to keep them together in a single category. If you think these videos should be deleted, please nominated them for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, I realized this after nominating this category and created a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Youku Quan Yule.
So if necessary--Wcam (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination here.
- @Themightyquill: Yes, I realized this after nominating this category and created a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Youku Quan Yule.
- @Wcam: Oops, sorry, I should have checked first. If you nominated all the images, there's no need to withdraw this discussion. Having the CFD open will remind us to check and delete the category if/once all the files are deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted - after deleting the files per above mentioned DR - Jcb (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The associated wikipedia article en:North Britain suggests that the definition of North Britain is unclear and unstable. Theoretically, Category:Scotland and all its contents could be a sub-category. I don't see the benefit of this, unless it's media specifically related to the idea of "North Britain" like a map depicting the region, but we don't have one of those. I'm open to alternatives, but I'm proposing deletion. Themightyquill (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing to object , @Themightyquill: . I too found it a bit weak, in hindsight. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support deletion. We don't need categories that aren't or can't be clearly defined. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can anyone explain why the images seem to be of New York State? Does "North Britain" have some US meaning? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe User:Blackcat can explain: he/she moved this file here from Category:Albany in February 2014. North Britain has no US meaning that I know of. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I must have done a mistake with cat-a-lot, @Auntof6: . Now 4 years have passed and I don't remember why I did that, but likely I moved a file from a wrong category (Albany, which is a disambig) to another wrong category (I should have been moving them to Albany, New York). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe User:Blackcat can explain: he/she moved this file here from Category:Albany in February 2014. North Britain has no US meaning that I know of. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, it should be redirected to Category:Great Britain. What "north Britain" means could depend on the person, like "north Devon" frequently includes Torridge, so that's one of the reasons we have it at Category:North Devon District and Category:Huish, North Devon District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It shouldn't be merged, and certainly not to Great Britain. If anything, a better and more historically accurate target would be Scotland, but even that's archaic and pretty useless as Commons categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just delete it altogether after we have moved the images, I suggested merge to avoid breaking links to the page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be merged, and certainly not to Great Britain. If anything, a better and more historically accurate target would be Scotland, but even that's archaic and pretty useless as Commons categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Deletion (Empty, redundant with Category:Imperial Japanese Navy rank insignia) GELongstreet (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Flagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Some cats like this one use the denomination Seljuq while others use Seljuk. Which one is valid in English? E4024 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Both are valid. EnWP prefers Seljuk, as do a few dictionaries I have checked. Encyclopaedia Britannica prefers Seljuq. Google Ngram Viewer shows a preference for Seljuk. I propose we standardize to Seljuk, but keep the other categories as redirect. --rimshottalk 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moving to Category:Seljuk art- Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no country named "Congo", so there can be no honorific order from an entity named "Congo". There are actually two countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo. I have created the 2 appropriate categories. This category and its subcat Category:Ribbon bars of Congo should be deleted. BrightRaven (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Both tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
At the time of ONUC, the county was called Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) or Congo-Léopoldville. It's now known as Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo. There's added confusion because the UN mission was called "United Nations Operation in the Congo." Can we move to Category:Swedish Armed Forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Same goes for Category:Swedish Air Force in the Congo, Category:Swedish Army in Congo, and Category:Irish Army in Congo. Or, since all these categories are child categories of Category:UNOC, they could be Category:Swedish Armed Forces in ONUC, etc. Thoughts? Themightyquill (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No oppsition in months. Moving to Category:Swedish Armed Forces in ONUC, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This cat is confused with the "Caucasia" region that we all know. Something must be done. E4024 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Caucasia, Antioquia matching en:Caucasia, Antioquia. Category:Caucasia should either be a disambig page like en:Caucasia or a redirect to Category:Caucasus with a separate disambig page elsewhere (Category:Caucasia (disambiguation)). - Themightyquill (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Caucasia, Antioquia. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Luwan district has merged with Huangpu district in 2011, all buildings in Luwan district can categorized under Category:Buildings in Huangpu District Fayhoo (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect? I see no reason to keep it since all buildings that were in Luwan are now in Huangpu. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree to delete it.--Fayhoo (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not needed. Double of Category:Khoja Akhmet Yassawi Kamolan (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree they are redudnant, but I'd lean towards a category name without the honorific title. I don't know about spelling. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, if you already emptied a cat, why open a discussion on it? Secondly why no reaction to Category:Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasavi? Thirdly, I'm sorry, it never occurred to me to look for him under "Akhmet Yassawi". That's all from me. Back to the swimming pool... --E4024 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The wikikpedia article is at en:Ahmad Yasawi. Is everyone okay with moving to Category:Ahmad Yasawi? It would certainly make sense to have redirects from Category:Akhmet Yassawi and Category:Ahmed Yasavi and Category:Ahmet Yesevi. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ahmad Yasawi. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
|
There is only one image in this category and the described type is an unfrequent variation--PRZ (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the current hierarchy (2 files, 11 layers of categories)
- Category:Network tied arch bridges (1 C, 1 F)
- Category:Network tied arch bridges by country (1 C)
- I'd be willing to keep Category:Network tied arch bridges for two files, but we should delete the rest. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Go out and find other samples instead of harassing those that do with deletion attempts. I'd be very willing to assume that the current state in commons does not reflect reality and so it is only just to suggest the current branch as a prototype to categorize media of the same nature. Unfrequent variation is an unproofed claim, esp. in a global context. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep There are an awful lot of bridges in the world. "unfrequent" is plenty of them. If this is a recognisable design pattern for bridge building, the name used here is the recognised term for them, and it's not unique (in which case we'd name the specific bridge) then it's justified to be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm fine keeping Category:Network tied arch bridges but do you think the 10 layers of sub-categories are necessary though? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- "Necessary" is the wrong question. We're not talking about the effort to create them, we're talking about a need to delete them, once they already exist, as something harmful. There's a vast range of situations where "I wouldn't bother to set that up", but at the same time I'm not going to seek to remove it, if someone else has done.
- The categories here are generated by intersecting four dimensions (type, material, function and location) and pushing that intersection to the ultimate. If that makes navigation tiresome, the solution to that is to ignore OVERCAT (Commons doesn't do that anything like often enough) and include the individual bridge in the higher level categories as well. This isn't a common type, so placing individual bridges into Network arch bridges in <country> is quite proper. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm fine keeping Category:Network tied arch bridges but do you think the 10 layers of sub-categories are necessary though? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- All that said, the names are wrong anyway. These should be network arch bridges, not network tied arch bridges. Although they are tied arches, that's secondary to their distinguishing feature here and not part of COMMONNAME within their discipline. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm opposed to the intersection of so many topics, creating an overly narrow category, and I'm willing to do the work to delete them. Do you actually oppose deletion or you just wouldn't do it yourself? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should probably go down to the country level for type / region intersections. Maybe lower if there is some additional significance - there do tend to be local fashions in bridge design and some types are significantly popular in some places, unused in others. If there was a smaller region demonstrating that, then it would be worthwhile to highlight it, but I don't think that's the case here.
- I see material as an unimportant categorisation here, as they're pretty much all steel.
- So, Category:Network arch bridges / Category:Network arch bridges by country / Category:Network arch bridges in Germany. Do what you like with the rest. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm opposed to the intersection of so many topics, creating an overly narrow category, and I'm willing to do the work to delete them. Do you actually oppose deletion or you just wouldn't do it yourself? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Deltetion (in progress) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
One could be misled by this name, i.e. the category is of history paintings originating from Ancient Greece rather than of paintings depicting Ancient Greece. Perhaps rename to History paintings of ancient Greece KTo288 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Or Category:Ancient Greece in history paintings to match parent Category:Greece in history paintings ? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Does that work for you, KTo288 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Ancient Greece in history paintings looks fine to me.--KTo288 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Does that work for you, KTo288 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ancient Greece in history paintings. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Textile images in a sheep breed cat. "Merino" here, "Merinos" elsewhere... E4024 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. en:Merino isn't disambiguated, but it seems to cover both the sheep and the wool. There are also a bunch of other potential meanings at en:Merino (disambiguation). Let's make Category:Merino a disambig page, and move this to Category:Merino (breed) or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Merino (breed) with sub-category Category:Merino wool. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Non-standard structure and the intersection of too many details produces very narrow room for growth, and no category tree to connect with. Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Network tied arch bridges. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
These three colonies were served together by the East African Posts and Telecommunications Administration, but they never were united or anything. Move to Category:East African Posts and Telecommunications Administration ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but the postage and the postoffice stamps put them together.--Ashashyou (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right, which is why I'm fine with the subcategories Category:Meter stamps of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika and Category:Stamps of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:East African Posts and Telecommunications Administration. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose moving this category to Category:Pages with incorrect usage of Template:ProvenanceEvent. This is to make it inline with other incorrect template usage categories in Category:Pages with incorrect template usage. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point in grouping together man-made railway stations according to their location on an archipelago. There are no other similar sub-categories of Category:British Isles. Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. This category is utterly unnecessary. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Same goes for Category:Festivals in the British Isles. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with eliminating both (railway stations and festivals). Care should be taken that their contents remain in some railway station/festival category that indicates location. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to gain much other content, and no category tree to join. Rename to Category:Székesfehérvár in the 16th century or delete. Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Székesfehérvár in the 16th century. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The name is a faulty English translation of Gold Medal of Aeronautic Valor. See en:Medal of Aeronautic Valor. The equivalent Italian article is it:Medaglia al valore aeronautico. The category should be renamed to Category:Medal of Aeronautic Valor with Category:Gold Medal of Aeronautic Valor as a sub-cat of this category. The medal is given at three levels: Gold, Silver and Bronze. Note that File:Luca Parmitano EMU.jpg would go in Category:Silver Medal of Aeronautic Valor, if that sub-cat were created. Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Logical and no opposition in months. Moved to Category:Medal of Aeronautic Valor. @Voceditenore: Feel free to create Category:Gold Medal of Aeronautic Valor as a sub-cat if you want to sort them. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fue creada sin idea de como hacerlo Agrr1 (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of the sub-categories of Category:Central Europe are named "Middle Europe". While Mitteleuropa is more common in German and possibly other languages, "Central Europe" is far more common in English. I propose we harmonze under "Central Europe". Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Harmonized as "Central Europe" - Themightyquill (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds nice; but the only subcat is Category:Former empires. Sorry to remind all that "empire" is not a "form of government". My 2 cents. E4024 (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- And that subcat has only a "kingdom, Kingdom of Mutapa" (I never heard its name before, maybe because not even has the word "empire" in its title) while we have sooo many "former empires" like the Austrian, Belgian, British, French, German, Ottoman and Russian Empires. --E4024 (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- But "by form of government" is pretty vague. We do have Category:Former monarchies, Category:Former colonies, and Category:Former republics which could also go in there, depending how we define it. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to have been filled. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Why is this cat a redirect to x-ray astronomy? That should be for me an own category. Sanandros (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since it was last touched almost ten years ago, we may never know why. It seems to me that this would be OK as a category if 1) we have files to put into it and 2) the cat is renamed so that "galaxies" is in lower case. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Category:NGC 1275 has already 3.--Sanandros (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anno I categorized Category:Galaxies, and the idea was that having categories per galaxy (like Category:NGC 4) but to have categories per image type, too (X-Ray, visible, infrared, etc). I don't know the reason of Redirecting. Maybe there were too few images in that cagegory.KGyST (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Category:NGC 1275 has already 3.--Sanandros (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: No one seems to know the answer. If you'd like to create Category:X-ray images of galaxies as an actual category and fill it, please do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK now I put some pics inside and wrote a description.--Sanandros (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Done: Has now some pics and description.--Sanandros (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It should be in English. Yann (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Google translate gives me "Selected photos of Salfit" so I'd suggest we move the contents to Category:Salfeet and delete this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Salfit. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Mother and daughter of Category:Girls wearing hijabs; because "passion for Islam and women" do not let us (all :) from trying to impose our choices on these issues. Result: A mess. E4024 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please propose a solution so that this can eventually be closed. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Stale. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request --Parzival.Knight (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Was this a test edit, Parzival.Knight ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
O i made some mistake, i left the reason empty. I think this category should be deleted becouse there is only one picture saved. This picture could be moved in a other category? Parzival.Knight (talk)
Comment: Please close this nonsensical CfD nominated by a sock. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per Tuvalkin. --ℯxplicit 06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Cross-wiki self-promo. User:Te750iv has alerted us to Wikidata items for this person which are being deleted. Mahir256 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete --Alaa :)..! 05:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ℯxplicit 03:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I keep being hit by this. Surely this redirect should be to the weapon, Category:Browning M2, not the weapon's ammunition? Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Closing: duplicate of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:BMG 50. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Does “unidentified” mean the baby has no name associated with it or perhaps it has no obvious sub category. Either way the category is superfluous. Most of the baby pictures have no identification and the only file in this category has plenty of good sub categories Headlock0225 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Like unidentified plants.--Juandev (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Category:Unidentified plants doesn't exist to find out the pet names I give my house plants. I think it's safe to assume all the photos here will be humans. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Unidentified people, Category:Unidentified men, Category:Unidentified women, Category:Unidentified children, Category:Unidentified families have the same problem. Some of people (including babies) can be (or can become for the future) notable persons, but it is not useful to use these categories for ordinary people if there is no indication of their personal notability for Wikimedia projects. These categories can be useful but they should be used sensibly. Btw., insufficiently described private photos of anonymous people are rather candidates for deletion due to project scope. --ŠJů (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point. Some photographs are sufficiently formal and people clearly of certain rank (lords ladies kings queens military fire chiefs etc ) that an identity ought to be known and perhaps someone can identify them. Very often old photos of babies have identifiable parents with offspring but which offspring is shown is not clear (take pictures of Queen Victoria as example). But solo pictures of babies are likely to remain unidentified. They could be of someone who became notable or they just be average Joe or Joanne. How would you judge? Even if you left instructions in the category I fear that its purpose would be misunderstood and overtime it would become misused. So on balance I don’t think Category:Unidentified babies is useful and I am still for deletion.
On your more general point if we deleted all the private photographs of anonymous babies we would cull about 80% of them!! Tempting, as we have far too many photographs of babies but I would not like to be the judge of which 80% to delete! --Headlock0225 (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep Most "unidentified" like categories have a sense. If you dont place it in such category and you want it to be definte, noone will never definite it. There are people with specified knoledge looking to such categories and identifing depicted objects.--Juandev (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category with low likelihood of being populated Useddenim (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Since you emptied the category just after nominating it for deletion, I can't really be sure if the category actually needs to be deleted. We probably shouldn't be deleting all of these, because we sort of have to keep the /mixed (railway–subway) categories and some of the other mixed categories (e.g. u–g, u–f). Jc86035 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: There was a single file in it, two levels down from Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set mixed/other colors/stations and stops. While it's probably a good idea to have separate categories for the +f, +g, +u, u+f, u+g, f+g icons, for most other colours there aren't enough icons to warrant their own cats. (See en:WP:SMALLCAT.) Useddenim (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Please don't empty a category and then nominate as empty - it's disingenuious. If there's good reason to delete a category, as there seems to be in this case, then state the real reason in your nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: already done by Túrelio. --ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
How is this different from Category:Cricketers from Nepal? Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fair question. The difference might be that cricketers 'of' Nepal might possibly be cricketers playing in Nepal who could also be not Nepalese, and 'from' being born in Nepal, who could well be playing in Nepal or elsewhere. It's a very fine and moot point, and I admit confusing, especially as this difference is not found in equivalent allied cats. On balance I think we could get rid of the 'of Nepal', and transfer those to 'from Nepal' and delete the 'of' cat. Acabashi (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:A Heritage fire engine in Toronto helps inform and entertain the public on 2015 08 06
[edit]This is a category for an event, but the title is very much not category-ish. It should at least be renamed. grendel|khan 16:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Maybe "community outreach event in David Crombie Park, 2015 08 06", or maybe something more specific to the fire engine. Also, the amount of text should be reduced. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- All the pictures are of the fire truck/engine with little evidence of "community outreach" and it seems to be outside the park. I'd say that, ideally, we should just make a category for the truck (Category:Toronto Fire Services Engine No. 33 ?) and categorize it under year/maker/model, etc. But some quick googling hasn't helped me to identify it... - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I started this category. Sorry I haven't weighed in earlier. I have no objection to renaming the category, or to editing or reducing the text in the hatnote. FWIW, if it is renamed, I prefer Category:Toronto Fire Services Engine No. 33. Maybe we will find more images of it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- All the pictures are of the fire truck/engine with little evidence of "community outreach" and it seems to be outside the park. I'd say that, ideally, we should just make a category for the truck (Category:Toronto Fire Services Engine No. 33 ?) and categorize it under year/maker/model, etc. But some quick googling hasn't helped me to identify it... - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Toronto Fire Services Engine No. 33, since all pictures are of the truck. Elli (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I opened this cat, because I felt there is a need to bring together all about school attacks, gun control demands and demonstrations etc. in the States. I'm sure the existing cats can be adjusted a bit to open place for this one. If you think it is unnecessary (I watch TV and see this everyday) please also tell me. E4024 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No action proposed or taken. Elli (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge content to Category:Ireland in the 18th century. Northern Ireland didn't exist in the 18th century, and it was never part of Great Britain. Themightyquill (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I agree but note that Category:Ireland in the 18th century is in Category:Ireland (indirectly) which is currently for the ROI, which doesn't include NI, this discussion should be resolved first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support, per recent deletion and upmerge of similar categories at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:1660 in Northern Ireland Sionk (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ireland in the 18th century. Category:Ireland is no longer about just the ROI. Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This should be the same thing with Category:Child sexual abuse. E4024 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- These are two different things.
- Pedophilia: "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."
- Child sexual abuse: "Child sexual abuse, also called child molestation, is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation."
- --Kafka-kun (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Closed; no action taken, different topics. Elli (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Same as Category:Child sexual abuse offenders. E4024 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per description of pedophile they are the same thing. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There is already a discussion open at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Child sexual abuse offenders in which the nominator says exactly the opposite. Technically speaking, not everyone diagnosed as a pedophile as committed sexual abuse, and not everyone that has committed child sexual abuse has been diagnosed as a pedophile. In practice, however, it seems likely that any images we have would be of people who are both. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Same as Category:Child sexual abuse offenders. Per description of pedophile they are the same shit. --E4024 (talk) 12:32, 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 children 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. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rodhullandemu, I agree with "Immoderate, non-neutral language as opposed to an academic approach, is not going to help the situation." I used the word shit -at least openly- for the first time in Commons, for reasons I know. Sorry all the same. Now an admin question for you: I came to your TP to complain about ugly talk (personal attack towards me). You kept silent. Now my "shit" -not aimed at anybody- disturbs you. Why? --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, you agreed with me; now we have one cat as I defended. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, now we have one defensible cat, which can be supported by reliable evidence. AS for your complaint on my TP, I either missed it (sorry) or thought you could properly deal with it yourself. If it's still a problem, please remind me there with a link if possible. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Child sexual abuse offenders and Pedophiles are quite different groups defined by quite different criteria. Most of child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles and most of pedophiles are not offenders (no sexual orientation implies ofenses toward the preferred (attractiong) subjects/persons inherently). Although both those terms have a bit blurred defining border lines (there are many various definitions of "sexual offense" and various experts uses a bit different definitions of paraphilias), both items are certainly objective and relevant for educational purposes. --ŠJů (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
No action taken; rough consensus that they are different topics. Elli (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we define what exactly should be categorized as K6-92? Like this it's possible to categorzie any smg with this name with this cat. Sanandros (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now category has only 3 pictures and 2 of them was maden from 3rd one. SMG at the original pic is Grozny-made copy of K6-92 and has "K6-92" markings on it. So I see no problems. UPD: Now all of K6-92 remains only in different museums and have plates on them. Красный wanna talk? 20:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Does there exist any liturature which is defining this weapon?--Sanandros (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- For example here are some of those. Красный wanna talk?
- Does there exist any liturature which is defining this weapon?--Sanandros (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
13:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No clear changes proposed or implemented. Elli (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
All the files the moved from the Category:Roni Alsheikh are during his period as the Commissioner of Israeli Police, so I find this category useless. Categorize by years is ok but not this one. -- Geagea (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why not? The guy will not endlessly remain in this position. Further more we don't have mixture of media which is unrelated to israeli police.--Sanandros (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look in Category:Barack Obama. Do you see Barack Obama as ....?
- Take a look in Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Do you see Hillary Rodham Clinton as ...?
- etc.
- You have made unconventional category and moved all the files to this category.-- Geagea (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefere it also there that these categories are categorized like this. Because Obama was never Senator and President at the same time.--Sanandros (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- And what made you to think that Roni Alsheikh was in 2 roles in the same time? -- Geagea (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shin Bet (where we unfortunatly don't have any media) and Police.--Sanandros (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not at the same time. -- Geagea (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yea that's what I meant.--Sanandros (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Geagea what's the bottom line? בקש (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yea that's what I meant.--Sanandros (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not at the same time. -- Geagea (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shin Bet (where we unfortunatly don't have any media) and Police.--Sanandros (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- And what made you to think that Roni Alsheikh was in 2 roles in the same time? -- Geagea (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefere it also there that these categories are categorized like this. Because Obama was never Senator and President at the same time.--Sanandros (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept. בקש, I have created Roni Alsheikh in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and Portrait photographs of Roni Alsheikh. As the categories were created, another category makes no harm. -- Geagea (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
From the 1700s-1750s, we have Great Britain in the XXXXs, then we have both Category:Great Britain in the 1760s and Category:United Kingdom in the 1760s, and both Category:Great Britain in the 1770s and Category:United Kingdom in the 1770s, then Great Britain only in the 1780s and 1790s, then United Kingdom from the 1800s onward. Since the category tree starts with Category:Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 to 1801), I could potentially see a double category at Category:Great Britain in the 1800s (with two subcategories) and Category:United Kingdom in the 1800s (with eight categories) but otherwise it should be clearly divided, no? Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- And what to do about Category:United Kingdom in the 19th century? Do we double up with Category:Great Britain in the 19th century just to handle Great Britain in 1800 and part of 1801? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just a comment: the Kingdom of Great Britain may have been a country, but the term Great Britain, without "Kingdom of", refers to an island. If we want, we can have parallel categories for the island and the various political entities that have existed on it, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do - Category:Great Britain, though maybe it should be renamed Category:Great Britain (island) for clarity? I'll tag it and maybe we can get some additional input. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment The term "Great Britain" is much more commonly used to refer to the political entity, and therefore includes the outlying islands of England, Scotland and Wales. The main island itself is definitely a secondary meaning. Trying to disentangle the island from the political divisions is a bad idea and would make a complete mess further down the category tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Common usage is important, but we need to find clarity. Great Britain may exist as a political entity, but the nature of that political entity is unclear and, today, somewhat unofficial, no? It certainly doesn't fit into our category structure. On the other hand, its use to describe the island is unambiguous and fits into our category structure. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- My first point is term "Great Britain" does not refer primarily to the island, but to the combination of the three nations. While its incorrect, its actually more common to use "Great Britain" to refer to the UK as a whole than the island specifically (eg Team GB in the Olympics).
- The second is using a category to describe the island emphatically does not fit our category structure. Consider a geographical feature - like the White Cliffs of Dover. They are correctly categorised in Category:Cliffs of Kent. Which is in turn in England, then the UK. If we wanted a category for the political concept of Great Britain, it naturally fits in there as another intermediate tier.
- The cliffs are also on the island of Great Britain. But Kent isn't, as the Isle of Sheppey is part of Kent and is an offshore island. So to set things up properly, including a category for the island of GB, needs an entirely parallel scheme.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nilfanion: So do we have an extra layer under Category:United Kingdom with a pooly defined political category of Category:Great Britain (political union of various definitions) or an extra layer under Category:Islands of the United Kingdom with a clearly defined geographic category Category:Great Britain (island), or do we delete Category:Great Britain altogether? Or some other solution? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- The political concept of Great Britain is clearly defined (England plus Wales plus Scotland). In fact, while it has no real function, its more clearly defined than Category:United Kingdom itself (because the UK included all of Ireland for >100 years). I note that the existing subcats correspond to the political definition.
- The problem with a separate category for the island itself, is what do you actually include? If you want it to be strictly for images of the main island, excluding all offshore islands, then what images should it (or its subcategories) contain? All the millions of images of the main island? Which are all embedded in the well-developed political tree, and would need an parallel tree to be set up to exclude the offshore islands?
- The correct solution IMO is to have Category:Great Britain mean the political concept. The existing subcats make sense, eg Ordnance Survey is a Great Britain-wide (not UK) organisation. All that's missing is to add England, Scotland and Wales as subcategories.--Nilfanion (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nilfanion: So do we have an extra layer under Category:United Kingdom with a pooly defined political category of Category:Great Britain (political union of various definitions) or an extra layer under Category:Islands of the United Kingdom with a clearly defined geographic category Category:Great Britain (island), or do we delete Category:Great Britain altogether? Or some other solution? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Common usage is important, but we need to find clarity. Great Britain may exist as a political entity, but the nature of that political entity is unclear and, today, somewhat unofficial, no? It certainly doesn't fit into our category structure. On the other hand, its use to describe the island is unambiguous and fits into our category structure. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nilfanion: What parent categories are you thinking? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I as an English resident wasn't aware until a few years ago that the UK is sometimes called Great Britain, and I wasn't aware that the term "British" can also include the whole of the UK until recently. However I would note that the islands around GB are often refereed to as being in Great Britain. In some languages the UK is called GB (the equivalent in the language) therefore because Commons is multi language I
Weak support the rename of the island. The ISO code for the UK is also GB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- It also interesting to note that the terms UK and British often (I think) are only used to refer to England, rather than the whole of the sovereign state or island. I don't think we need to rename England to but if it was then it should probably be to Category:England, United Kingdom as Category:England (country) wouldn't be helpful in this case. However for Wales and Scotland, they should use "country" as there are other places in the UK such as Category:Wales, South Yorkshire and Category:Scotland, Lincolnshire and the use of country wouldn't appear to cause the same confusion, not that disambiguation is needed though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This is really very simple: the United Kingdom came into being on 1 January 1801, succeeding the Kingdom of Great Britain, which ran from 1707 to 31 December 1800. The year 1800 is a year of the 18th century. So for these historical periods there should be no United Kingdom categories in the 18th century and no Great Britain categories for the 19th century. To help people to understand this, I suggest that the Category:United Kingdom in the 18th century should be empty and should be redirected to Category:Great Britain in the 18th century. Moonraker (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that would certainly be convenient, but that's now how we categorize years by century on commons. Note that Category:1800 is in Category:18th century by year, and that most people celebrated the new millenium with the arrival of the year 2000, not with the arrival of 2001. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- A related issue: we have the parallel Category:Books from Great Britain by year and Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year. I don't care which one is preferred (most books seem to be published in London, England, FWIW), but some standardization would be nice, without pedantic meticulous splitting. The island or continent a book came from is immaterial: the political body is key, especially for matters of determining copyright expiration. --Animalparty (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I support to redirect Category:United Kingdom in the 18th century to Category:Great Britain in the 18th century. However, there should be Category:Great Britain in the 19th century as a geographical entity. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Involved closure, but the rough consensus is determined to be that Great Britain should primarily refer to the combination of England, Wales and Scotland, with the secondary meaning of a single island in a different category. Also, UK in the 18th century should be redirected to Great Britain in the 18th century. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
We have categories for two Empires: Japanese and Turkish. OTOH we have categories for Decrees and also Edicts. I do feel some cats are here kind of unnecessarily and they can be reduced. IMHO. E4024 (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Unclear nomination, stale discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that this category should be deleted. Before the law regulating road signs came to be known as the road sign ordinance in the 1970s, there were to my knowledge five predecessors from the years 1931, 1937, 1951, 1961, and 1966. I thus consider a 1955 set to be irrelevant. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Category should be named Game editors. And content should be persons (editors). Kungfuman (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- How would that be different from Category:Video game producers? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- When I read "game editor", I think of level or map editing software. Category:Grome seems to show images related to such an editor. File:Ambient lights cube engine.png, the only other content of this category, looks more like screenshots of the game to me. We already have Category:Level editors, so I propose to move the sole subcategory there and maybe keep a redirect. --rimshottalk 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Solution per user:Rimshot. The nominated category to be deleted, because we don't accept category names in singular Estopedist1 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Asmahan (dancer). Not a notable belly dancer. Delete cat with two files. I'd say we delete the images also. E4024 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- For al long time Ashmahan was one of the best known raqs sharqi dancers in Cairo. She is not an Egyptian, but has worked on the Nile Maxim for years. Now she is teaching classes in Egypt and all over the world. See http://www.lelahmasriya.com/ for an example. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is that your personal blog? I cannot see there anything to bring her notability. I'm sure if anyone did so, they would have opened her articles in various WPs by now. At this moment the cat does not serve for anything, as the -IMHO- out of scope belly dancer image files are only two. --E4024 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is not my personal blog, but a festival website. Here is an article from 2012 in an American journal that mentions Asmahan along with Dina, Lucy, Soraya and Katia. All wellknown dancers active in Cairo at the time. Not all of them have Wikipedia articles. If you haven't heard of them that doesn't mean they are insignificant. And there are many images on Commons without Wikipedia articles attached to them. They still have their value --Judithcomm (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is that your personal blog? I cannot see there anything to bring her notability. I'm sure if anyone did so, they would have opened her articles in various WPs by now. At this moment the cat does not serve for anything, as the -IMHO- out of scope belly dancer image files are only two. --E4024 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Judithcomm: No Wikipedia article or Wikidata entry. I suggest to delete this two-member category. If more files will be coming, we can easily re-create the category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why delete this cat? This is by no means the only cat with just two files. Should I refrain from uploading images of a dancer unless I have loads of them? The fact that there is no Wikipedia article means nothing, There are sooooo many images and categories without Wikipedia articles or Wikidata attached to them. And why delete the files? Who decides about an artist being 'notable' or not? Is that official Commons policy? Delete everything one particular user doesn't recognize? Look at all the images featuring anonymous dancers. Delete them all? I am sick of my uploads being targeted in this way.--Judithcomm (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Would you please close this discussion? I see user E4024 is no longer active on Commons and he/she was the only one interested in this debate.--Judithcomm (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The one (user:Judithcomm) who opposes, withdrawed own's judgments. The result was upmerge two files, delete the category Estopedist1 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Luwan district has merged with Huangpu district in 2011, all pictures/photos about Luwan district can categorized under "Huangpu District, Shanghai" Fayhoo (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- If we had any maps or other images specifically about Luwan District, I would keep it under Category:Category:Former subdivisions by country, but I don't see anything like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes,but the maps or images also can categorized under Huangpu district, even it related to the former Luwan district.--Fayhoo (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: moot/already deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Wrongly named cat probably with the aim of making a connection to "Hippodrome". (Yes, the mosque is also a pre-Ottoman work. :) There are similar cats with relation to Galata Tower and Bosphorus, but they are under "Views from the Galata Tower" or "Views from the Bosphorus". The Hippodrome does not even exist any more, let alone speaking about views "from" it. E4024 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is wrongly spelled, as it should be a "t" before " he Hippodrome". As far as I know, the part of Sultanahmet Square that has the two obelisks it is known as "Hippodrome", so this thing exists. And the category is used for grouping the images of the mosque from that place. --Stegop (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: already moved and deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure this is a well-organized cat; having subcats like Category:Socioeconomics? E4024 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a weird category, not not just because of Category:Socioeconomics. Most of the sub-categories are about subjects which are far broader than personal life. I don't really see the point in keeping it. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then again, it does have a connected category at wikipedia en:Category:Personal life, so maybe it can be salvaged somehow. I still think it's weird though. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Themightyquill: the nominated category to be cleaned up from not appropriate subcategories, like "Socioeconomics". Hints may be found at enwiki en:Category:Personal life. Questioning of validity of this category in enwiki is encouraged.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep and clean up categorization | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
With the case of São Paulo vs. São Paulo (state) being discussed at last at the Portuguese wikipedia, and being apparently consensual among Brazilians that it is the state that should be disambiguated, I'm opening the case here as well. If nobody oposes, we can implement the decision there, if there is one, and hopefully finally eliminate the only case here in Commons where it's the city being disambiguated, and not the state. Same for Rio de Janeiro cats. Darwin Ahoy! 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you mean when you say "here in Commons where it's the city being disambiguated". Do you mean qualified, that is, the city category has the extra "(city)" characters in the cat name? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I believe the suggestion is moving the city to Category:São Paulo, and the state (currently at Category:São Paulo) to Category:São Paulo (state). That's also the way it's done at English wikipedia, I guess, assuming the city has more notability than the state, which is hard to disagree with. I would normally lean toward disambiguating them both, but I won't demand it if I'm the only one. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Themightyquill. You're not the only one. I think both the city categories and the state categories should be qualified, with a disambiguation page at the unqualified cat. For Wikipedia, it makes sense to have the cities at the unqualified title. Wikipedia wants to get people to the article they want as quickly as possible. Most of the time when people think of "São Paulo" or "Rio de Janeiro", they think of the cities. When a Wikipedia reader goes to en:São Paulo or en:Rio de Janeiro, they probably want to read about the city. If they wanted the state, or anything else with the same name, it only takes reading the first sentence or two -- or even just the hat note -- to realize that the article isn't about the thing they're looking for.
- Commons categories are different. First for people looking for media: when people look at Category:São Paulo or Category:Rio de Janeiro, it's often difficult if not impossible to tell from the content whether it's for the city or the state unless there's a qualifier. You can tell if you look at how the page is categorized, but not everyone will look at that or understand it.
- The second way Commons categories are different is that media and subcats get added and removed by many different people, and also by bots. A person may not understand English (the language all cat names are supposed to be in) or Portuguese (the language of these city names). Maybe such a person shouldn't be assigning categories, but it happens, and it's easy for them to get it wrong. With bots, bots don't think about what they're doing. Many of them look at words in file descriptions and if there's a matching category name, the category gets added, whether or not it's correct, and whether or not it violates COM:OVERCAT. (I've even seen some add categories that don't exist just because the word was in the description.) You can say that bots shouldn't do that, but saying so doesn't stop them. In either of these cases, it's best to have the base name be a disambiguation page so that the files that land there can be evaluated by a human. The second best option is to have the base name be the more inclusive topic (in these cases, the states), so that everything that lands there is at least correct, if not as specific as it could be.
- Another issue is that there might be people who are used to the way the cat names are now and have processes set up to categorize things accordingly. If we change the base name to mean a different thing, those processes will put things in the wrong places.
- So to sum up, I support having both the city and state categories qualified, and having the base name be for disambiguating. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- strongly disagree with disambiguating both terms and creating disambiguation pages. There are hundreds - probably thousand of categories (current and future) using those terms, I don't believe it's even feasible to implement such a thing, and that would create an huge burden on everyone dealing with those cities and states. If it is to move to two disambiguations instead of one, then it's better to leave it as it is.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The non-disambiguated name -- whether it's the state, the city, or a disambiguation page -- will get things added to it by default. It's better to have that be the disambiguation page so that those things will be flagged and can be dealt with. Otherwise, they can sit in the incorrect category a long time before anyone notices, if anyone sees it at all. There's no reason Commons category names have to match the Wikipedia ones. Having to change a large number of category names might be the best thing if it means that things get categorized correctly. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I could even agree that it may be better, but as it's impossible to maintain that system, which would imply creating many thousands of disambiguation pages, and add immensely to the task of anyone dealing with categories related to the 2 biggest states and cities in Brazil, I don't believe that is even an option. Anyway, the current system is not that bad as well, as it works exactly as you say - in doubt, people place the files inside the non-disambiguated category, which currently is the state; and then they are moved down the tree. So, if there is no agreement to change, I'm perfectly happy with the status quo as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The non-disambiguated name -- whether it's the state, the city, or a disambiguation page -- will get things added to it by default. It's better to have that be the disambiguation page so that those things will be flagged and can be dealt with. Otherwise, they can sit in the incorrect category a long time before anyone notices, if anyone sees it at all. There's no reason Commons category names have to match the Wikipedia ones. Having to change a large number of category names might be the best thing if it means that things get categorized correctly. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I believe the suggestion is moving the city to Category:São Paulo, and the state (currently at Category:São Paulo) to Category:São Paulo (state). That's also the way it's done at English wikipedia, I guess, assuming the city has more notability than the state, which is hard to disagree with. I would normally lean toward disambiguating them both, but I won't demand it if I'm the only one. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn and Auntof6: I don't think we need a disambiguation page at every level. A disambiguation page at Category:São Paulo is sufficient. I don't imagine anyone would place an image in, for example, Category:Public transport in São Paulo if no such category exists. If we have Category:Public transport in São Paulo (state) and Category:Public transport in São Paulo (city), it will show up properly in hotcat etc, and people would choose the right one. It's actually less work to do qualify both trees, because we'd only need to move everything at "São Paulo" to "São Paulo (state)" and we can leave everything at "São Paulo (city)" alone. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I've been dealing with those categories for years, and my experience is that if the main term is not created, newbies will create it at some point and disturb the whole category tree. They have been doing that for ages. The only way to stop that is either to use the main term as the city or the state, or to place a disambiguation there, as suggested by Auntof6. The last option seems to be completely unpractical/unfeasible, so I believe it's best to stick with deciding if the main term should be the state, as it is now, or the city.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've definitely never seen that. If it happens all the time, you can surely give me just one example of it happening when categories already exist at state and city level. I could imagine that, if no there's no Category:Float planes in São Paulo (city) or Category:Float planes in São Paulo (state) someone might create Category:Float planes in São Paulo but the category tree here is pretty flushed out so this would be rare and easy to remedy on a case-by-case basis. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've been working heavily with those 4 categories since the past few years, so I do know what I'm speaking about. It used to be a mess, sometimes with images dispersed by 3 or 4 versions of the same cat, sometimes with disambiguation, sometimes without. If it is to return to that system, just leave it as it is.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand - which four categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: São Paulo, São Paulo city, São Paulo (city), São Paulo (state) - and São Paulo state, so they actually were at least five kinds, not counting the upper case varieties, which existed. Both for São Paulo and for Rio. It used to be a huge mess, and only started to take some shape when one form was chosen for the city, and another for the state. Actually things are working just fine as they are now, so I retract my proposal and strongly disagree with any change at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: São Paulo, São Paulo city, São Paulo (city), São Paulo (state) - and São Paulo state, so they actually were at least five kinds, not counting the upper case varieties, which existed. Both for São Paulo and for Rio. It used to be a huge mess, and only started to take some shape when one form was chosen for the city, and another for the state. Actually things are working just fine as they are now, so I retract my proposal and
- I don't understand - which four categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've been working heavily with those 4 categories since the past few years, so I do know what I'm speaking about. It used to be a mess, sometimes with images dispersed by 3 or 4 versions of the same cat, sometimes with disambiguation, sometimes without. If it is to return to that system, just leave it as it is.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Category:São Paulo being used for the city and Category:São Paulo (state) for the state. Similarly with Rio de Janeiro categories. (Just in case someone decides to reopen the discussion ;) —capmo (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Can we come to a conclusion here? When creating navigation boxes, it's very hard to do that well if some categories are called "São Paulo (state)" and some are just called "São Paulo". Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Müller: No clear agreement yet. DarwIn won't agree to disambiguate both. I think disambiguating only one (whichever it is) will inevitably lead to confusion. Note that Template:Brazilian states will not currently work unless (state) is appended to the end of Rio or São Paulo. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: No way I will ever agree with a disambiguation for *every category* about São Paulo. Anyway, pt.wiki has changed the main category "São Paulo" do designate the city, and passed the disambiguation to the state. Apparently it will stabilize there, and probably we should follow that as well, since it's also the system used in other similar situations, such as New York.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Müller: No clear agreement yet. DarwIn won't agree to disambiguate both. I think disambiguating only one (whichever it is) will inevitably lead to confusion. Note that Template:Brazilian states will not currently work unless (state) is appended to the end of Rio or São Paulo. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- the problem about disambiguation on commons is, unlike wikipedia, category is much more often used because thousands of files are sorted by cats. and this sorting is often done thru uploadwizard or cat-a-lot/hotcat. all of these prompt users as they type, so it's very important to make the distinction between all notable entries. only cases like London the british city which is something almost everyone would think of first, would not need disambiguation and be the primary topic.
- so the question is, are the cities SP and Rio so famous like London that most ppl think of the cities first without thinking of the states? especially when ppl upload photos etc. and when they categorise, are most files related to the cities only?--RZuo (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: Closing stale discussion, and moving São Paulo to São Paulo (state) per the common use everywhere as discussed above. -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to begin another CfD. E4024 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- As we may see easily, most national cats (subcats of) this category are titled like "Companies and brands"; for example Category:Companies and brands from the United Kingdom or Turkey; because many "companies" and "brands" indeed are the same thing. See Category:Ülker, it's a food company but also a chocolate, candy etc brand. We must do something around "companies" and "brands". IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've tagged all the "Brands of X" categories to invite additional discussion. It seems they were mostly created by different people. Most but not all are subcategories of "Companies and brands of X" categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have just noticed that there is a common category for brands and companies. I understand this problem and my suggestion is to split this into two existing categories. Reason: – So there are a lot of companies that have a lot more brands and those sell them amongst others, meaning one brand of many of the same owner, can become the property of another company. And this example for Ülker company needs to be carefully analyzed: – First, that's a pretty big company that has a subsidiary underneath, and has a holding above it. Secondly, this company has many brands, as can be seen on the company's website → Brands - ulker.com.tr. --Vhorvat (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is something I've done a lot of research on in relation to logos and how to categorize them. IMO there should just be two main categories for these kind of things that everything else should branch off of, Category:Products and Category:Companies. Otherwise, it leads to these "and" categories that are just vague and confusing. If all brands are either products or companies though, then there's zero reason not to put them in the appropriate and more specific categories. Then "Brands and companies" can just be deleted. While Brands can be disambiguated, redirected (I'm aware you can't redirect to two different categories) or something else. Just as long the current nonsense and clutter is dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Adamant1's suggestion makes sense to me. RZuo (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is something I've done a lot of research on in relation to logos and how to categorize them. IMO there should just be two main categories for these kind of things that everything else should branch off of, Category:Products and Category:Companies. Otherwise, it leads to these "and" categories that are just vague and confusing. If all brands are either products or companies though, then there's zero reason not to put them in the appropriate and more specific categories. Then "Brands and companies" can just be deleted. While Brands can be disambiguated, redirected (I'm aware you can't redirect to two different categories) or something else. Just as long the current nonsense and clutter is dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Companies and brands, same conclusion, closed on 20-12-2023.
Request: for Themightyquill: Would you please remove all the tags about this discussion from the country categories you put them in? (It is a lot of work to only clean up the Companies and brands categories, so all help is welcome.)--JopkeB (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | See Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Companies and brands | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Honest question: Is there a reason to categorize locomotives "of Great Britain" instead of "of the United Kingdom"? There are few if any other similar category trees of type "of Great Britain" as Category:Great Britain is essentially a physical geography category for the island. It creates an extra level below Category:Locomotives of the United Kingdom (and every sub-category), and I don't understand why that's helpful. Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Did something go wrong? I see no rationale. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Close Invalid nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Andy Dingley: Sorry, I'm not sure what happened. I specifically remember typing in my question when I started the CfD. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see no reason for this. If I understand correctly, Great Britain is the biggest island of the UK, and contains most of England, Scotland, and Wales. We don't categorize vehicles by this kind of physical geography, but by political geography (countries, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- This has been covered endlessly in the past. This is not an issue of geography or politics, it is one of engineering: Great Britain uses standard gauge and railway vehicles are exchanged throughout it. Ireland uses instead the Irish broad gauge, thus has developed as an isolated system (despite parts having been owned by British companies). As a result, the railways of Northern Ireland are outside those of Great Britain and have more in common with those of Ireland, even though their political structure would be within the UK (and I hope that I won't be lectured again on Commons how Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain!).
- A similar situation exists for some other areas worldwide: the narrow-gauge railways of the Balkans are split between 760mm and 600mm, depending on whether they were part of the Austro-Hungarian influence or the Serbian influence. - see Ohrid line.
- This categorization is correct, and should stay. A reader not understanding the reason for a structure is no reason to then assume that it is wrong. Clarification might be needed, and has generally been in place on the top of these categories, although (as usual) has not been repeated on every child category. There was no reason for this to be raised, yet again, as a request for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since the current name is apparently not clear, how about renaming it to reflect the gauge? Maybe something like Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- They're not all standard gauge. There's a group in there which are narrow gauge. Another group which are broad gauge (Brunel's). A further group for industrial locomotives, which could be anything. This idea, of introducing a gauge criterion for one entry in the Locomotives by <country> tree – why introduce this for just one country? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since the current name is apparently not clear, how about renaming it to reflect the gauge? Maybe something like Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, the use of both United Kingdom and Great Britain categories is confusing and inconsistent with most similar category trees (although there is an even more poorly defined Category:Railway wagons of Britain). It leads to many low-level categories being put into both parents, for example Category:British Rail Class 08. The only possible argument that I can think of is to separate out Category:Locomotives of Northern Ireland, but why should they be treated differently to Category:Narrow gauge locomotives of Wales? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- We should have both Category:Locomotives of Great Britain (as explained above) and Category:Locomotives of the United Kingdom (as an obvious node in an obvious national category structure). However Locomotives of the United Kingdom should be, as it is, a small container category - largely just for Locomotives of Great Britain.
- British Rail Class 08 isn't a problem for Locomotives of the United Kingdom (as it isn't in there), but Diesel locomotives of the United Kingdom is the one that does show overlap with Diesel locomotives of Great Britain. That's just a housekeeping task to remove them.
- Note though that, in one of the many exceptions to OVERCAT, British Rail Class 08 does belong strongly in both Diesel locomotives of Great Britain and Diesel-electric locomotives of Great Britain.
- Locomotives of the United Kingdom has poor cohesion as a group, far less than Locomotives of Great Britain. Locomotives of Northern Ireland has cohesion, but is also strongly coupled to Locomotives of Ireland (weakly populated as yet). Locomotives such as the Category:CIÉ 071 Class operate both North and South of the border. Narrow gauge locomotives of Wales has little cohesion: they are locomotives, narrow gauge and Welsh - yet these many small railways developed independently and there is little commonality to them. In particular, the Britain / Ireland issue of standard vs. broad gauge has no relevance to narrow gauge railways (including those of Ireland) and so are best rooted under the clearer UK rather than GB. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep As above. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what you mean about cohesion. Aren't all these categories categorized by specific gauge anyway, or if they aren't, shouldn't they be? If the "Great Britain" category only serves to indicate a connection with gauge, then it would be redundant as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cohesion is a term in computer science. It is a good thing for a category to have strong cohesion: a close relationship between its members. Conversely, it is also good if separate categories are not coupled too closely.
- These categories are not "categorized by specific gauge anyway"; they are geographic categories. We need geographic categories and it would be a bad thing (an unwarranted coupling) to turn them into gauge categories instead. We need gauge categories too, but they're elesewhere and separate. However we do improve cohesion and reduce coupling if we choose the most appropriate geographical boundaries: GB is much better here than UK, because it follows the gauge divide. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I know the geographic "of Great Britain" categories aren't categorized by specific gauge, but aren't (some of?) the individual locomotive categories at the bottom of the category tree? Or shouldn't they be? It doesn't seem useful to group these together geographically because of their shared gauge, but only do so implicitly, without ever stating why. ie. Better to categorized the locomotives explicitly by gauge than to categorize them by a region on the unofficial basis that the more-or-less uses the same gauge. From my reading, grouping locomotives by gague would be high cohesion, whereas grouping them by a geographical unit that mostly uses the same gauge would be medium/low cohesion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what you mean about cohesion. Aren't all these categories categorized by specific gauge anyway, or if they aren't, shouldn't they be? If the "Great Britain" category only serves to indicate a connection with gauge, then it would be redundant as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I will acknowledge that English wikipedia has a parallel category structure at en:Category:Locomotives of Great Britain. Not that this restricts our actions, but it means commons isn't some weird outlier. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "Great Britain" includes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, whereas "United Kingdom" excludes them. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- That apparently depends. en:Great Britain gives different definitions. One definition, the geographical one, is just the larger island. A political definition includes islands that belong to England, Scotland, or Wales, but not islands that don't, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I'd rather see Commons use a geographical definition, because there are enough political entities in the British Isles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Railways in the British Isles are, for reasons of history and engineering, best organised with a geographical split between (the island of Ireland), (the island of Great Britain + offshore islands), (the Isle of Man) and (the Channel Islands). On the mainland of Great Britain several organisations have operated railways with different gauges (e.g. GWR, British Rail) so gauge categories should be further down the tree. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep both UK and GB categories per Andy Dingley and Thryduulf. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This category represents a risk, immature or malicious individuals can use this category not to improve our readers' ability to use the project, but rather to simply embarrass people. I have a horrible wikistalker, indefinitely blocked after months of harrassing a number of individuals at enwiki, who then started wikihounding my contributions here. He or she recently applied this category to an image I recently uploaded, File:Han Dong, MPP.jpg. Han Dong is my representative at the Provincial Parliament. I had a conversation with him, about the wikipedia, and its sibling projects, prior to taking this image. It is embarrassing for me to have his image be the only male in Category:Nipples through clothing. Are his nipples visible through his clothing? They are barely visible, just like hundreds of thousands of image we have of ordinary people wearing ordinary t-shirts. There is no doubt in my mind that World's Lamest Critic added this category to this image to harass and embarrass the subject and photographer (me). (They added it twice.) (Hold the presses, three times) The related categories, Category:Female_nipples_through_transparent_clothing and Category:Male_nipples_through_transparent_clothing, have value to those studying fashion, or popular culture, even if they are incomplete. But what value does this category have, when it could apply to hundreds of thousands of images of most individuals wearing ordinary t-shirts? Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The plain fact of the matter is that this person's nipples are prominent in the image. The fact that he is a politician is irrelevant in terms of categorization. The main category currently only has four other images. The one example with another man shows a musician. In the subcategory Category:Female nipples through clothing, many of the examples are professional female athletes. Frankly, I'd be in favor of getting rid of this category and all of its subcategories, but until then politicians, musicians, and athletes should all be treated the same way. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan and World's Lamest Critic: It seems you both think the category is problematic. Would you both agree to keeping Category:Nipples through transparent clothing (possibly renamed through the other CFD) and Category:Wet T-shirt contests but deleting Category:Nipples through clothing, Category:Female nipples through clothing, and Category:See through shirts ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would accept your suggestion, except I can see reluctance to getting rid of Category:See through shirts.
Some categories are marked as categories that should not contain images, only subcategories. Is changing this to one of those a possibility? Geo Swan (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but normally that only occurs when the category title suggests it (e.g. Category:Clothing by country. If we keep Category:Nipples through clothing, it will likely get filled again, and we don't have any solid argument why it shouldn't be filled so long as it exists. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would accept your suggestion, except I can see reluctance to getting rid of Category:See through shirts.
- @Geo Swan and World's Lamest Critic: It seems you both think the category is problematic. Would you both agree to keeping Category:Nipples through transparent clothing (possibly renamed through the other CFD) and Category:Wet T-shirt contests but deleting Category:Nipples through clothing, Category:Female nipples through clothing, and Category:See through shirts ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1. I agree with World's Lamest Critic. 2. Let's delete as many as possible of these spurious cats. --E4024 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Clarification please E4024. You say you agree with World's Lamest Critic? You realize that it is WLC who is making questionable use of this category? He or she added it to File:Han Dong, MPP.jpg three times [1], [2], [3], including after this discussion was started? Are you saying you endorse their questionable use of the category? Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Frankly, I'd be in favor of getting rid of this category and all of its subcategories, but until then politicians, musicians, and athletes should all be treated the same way." Agreed. --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- category creator here. this was intended to be a category that contains the otherwise disparate categories of Female nipples through clothing (2 C, 162 F), Nipples through transparent clothing (2 C), and Wet T-shirt contests (1 P, 44 F). its not a container category per se, just one to allow all of these to be grouped together within the broader categories it is in. if there is an issue with inappropriate use of an image, that can be resolved at WP:MediaWiki:Bad image list, or admin noticeboards. i would suggest that this particular image be replaced with one that cannot be misused in the alleged manner, or simply deleted per a request from the subject. i think there is tremendous value in placing categories in appropriate supercats, so that the category tree has reasonable nesting levels of cats, not too specific, not too broad. i feel this one is a nice layer to have. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mercurywoodrose: in that case, do you think it would make sense to keep this category as a container category and create a new category Category:Male nipples through clothing? I don't support that, I'm just asking. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- this is a phenomenon that's been specifically named in certain languages. Japanese: 胸ポチ Cantonese: 飛釘 Chinese: 激凸. it's a phenomenon uniquely identified by people just like Upskirt is. so this cat should be kept.
- i am surprised there isnt a simpler english word for this though.
- this cat should be linked with pokies (Q11611844).--RZuo (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep completely objective super-category, commons is not censored Dronebogus (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Dronebogus Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this discussion as "no consensus" since it was started in 2018, the last comment is from a couple of years ago, and there's no agreement about how to resolve the issue. Let alone if it even is one. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Category with just one pic of a person which is not relevant. This doesn't help to reduce the mess on commons. Sanandros (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Clarification please...
- Which mess are you trying to reduce?
- You write the pic "is not relevant". Could you please clarify what you mean by that?
- You write as if there was a rule that we never create a category that starts off with just a single image... okay, where is that rule?
- Schmidt is both a Navy SEAL and a Porn star. WRT to organizing images that belong to multiple categories -- are you suggesting that when there are additional images of Schmidt they should all be included in Category:Persons of the United States Navy SEALs and Category:Porn stars? Or, are you suggesting that every time we upload an image of someone, we try to figure out if there are other images of them, and create a subdirectory for them at that time?
- Some fans of the USN may consider Schmidt an embarrassment, because his years of appearing as a porn star was a breach of regulations. I can't remember ever seeing a category being challenged because it currently only contained a single image. Could you confirm that you didn't initiate this discussion because you are a fan of the USN, trying to downplay the embarrassment of SEAL working as a porn star? Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- If he is a "star", how come his only pic not used in his WP articles? --E4024 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I added use of the image to United_States_Navy_SEALs_in_popular_culture. Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- If he is a "star", how come his only pic not used in his WP articles? --E4024 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete @Geo Swan: I can promise you, many many categories are challenged and successfully deleted becaue they only contain one photo. If the person is notable and has a wikipedia article, I tend to leave it alone. If the person is not notable, but there are many photos of the person, I also leave it alone. In this case, the man is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, and there's only one photo. No possible reason for a category of its own. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Is he notable enough for a wikipedia article? Maybe. Please see Joseph John Schmidt III. I considered starting one on him, in April 2017, but, in the end left that draft on a non WMF wiki, with looser inclusion criteria. I have a google news alert on him, and, when I no longer think an article on him is vulnerabe to BLP1E, I am porting that article. Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I guess we'll have to wait and see? If a wikipedia article holds, I won't object to keeping a category for him. But until then, I see no justification to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest that is too strict a call. Notability is an enwiki rule. I think Commons:Scope is what applies here. Image(s) of him are potentially useful now. That is all SCOPE requires. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, as a simple practical matter, suppose a WMF contributor, or an outside reader, noticed we had an image of a Navy SEAL, who was also a porn star, and then, at some point in the future, realized they had a use for that image, but couldn't remember Schmidt's name? Wouldn't the first choice for finding that image be to search for the subset of Navy SEAL and porn star? What possible value is there in removing the keys to finding images? Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I'm sure if anyone searches for a subset of Navy SEAL and porn star, it would come up with a single image, the one you have of Joseph John Schmidt III. That image should definitely be in both categories. But that's not a rationale to keep a category for just one image of a non-notable person. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Should the current image of Schmidt yelling at trainees be in Category:Porn stars? I suggest it would risk being removed by someone who reviewed that category and cast out every image that wasn't obviously of a porn star...Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I'm sure if anyone searches for a subset of Navy SEAL and porn star, it would come up with a single image, the one you have of Joseph John Schmidt III. That image should definitely be in both categories. But that's not a rationale to keep a category for just one image of a non-notable person. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I guess we'll have to wait and see? If a wikipedia article holds, I won't object to keeping a category for him. But until then, I see no justification to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Is he notable enough for a wikipedia article? Maybe. Please see Joseph John Schmidt III. I considered starting one on him, in April 2017, but, in the end left that draft on a non WMF wiki, with looser inclusion criteria. I have a google news alert on him, and, when I no longer think an article on him is vulnerabe to BLP1E, I am porting that article. Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment On nominator's user page I saw a link to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:William Davis (Navy SEAL). It, in turn, links to Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Jim Turilli and Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Rick Best. Turilli and Best are friends of a flickr contributor. It was argued that categories of images that included them should be hidden. The same argument was applied, improperly in my opinion, to William Davis (Navy SEAL), and nominator may think those arguments apply to John Joseph Schmidt.
I am guessing that part of the reasoning behind obfuscating Turilli and Best is that, as non-notable individuals, they are entitled to privacy, even if their flickr buddy included them in his images.
A decade ago I had a challenger on en.wiki, who left a note on my user page "Geoswan is a contributor on Wikepedia whose main emphasis is to endanger members of the United States military and their families by plastering their names and images on the web when they work in highly volatile situations in the War on Terror."
Of course I had done no such thing.
The individual who left this note claimed to be a lawyer, and claimed that I required the explicit permission of any DoD employee whose image I uploaded, without regard to whether that image was in the public domain.
Nonsense, of course.
Turilli and Best are civilians, non-notable civilians. Under the precautionary principle someone might suggest they would have turned away, or hidden their face, if they knew the picture their flickr buddy snapped might illustrate a wikipedia article someday.
But Navy SEALs are under military discipline. Like any other soldier or sailor, they can't say, "Gee Lieutenant, I'm shy. I don't want my picture up on the internet."
So any arguments about protecting the privacy of Turilli and Best don't apply to Schmidt or Davis. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- If there was just one photo of either of those people, I would also support deleting those categories. But since we have a lot of photos of them, it makes some sense to group them together in invisible categories. If we had 10 images of Joseph John Schmidt III, I wouldn't want all 10 images individually in Category:Persons of the United States Navy SEALs and Category:Porn stars, I'd want us to have a Category:Joseph John Schmidt III. But we have just one. See the difference? I don't think privacy was mentioned as an item of concern for Turilli and Best. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had to guess at the reasoning for obfuscating Turilli and Best. WRT Schmidt, IF it occurred to someone, they might find the image that way. It's more work for them, and they might not know how. It seems to me if we are going to make finding content more difficult for our readers we should be able to articulate a good reason. Am I missing something?
Is there an aesthetic reason? Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's more difficult to find. If someone searches for "Joseph John Schmidt" this image will be the first to come up. If someone searches for "Navy seal porn star" this image will be the first to come up. What's the advantage of giving him a category? Categories are designed to group together similar images, and, since the introduction of wikilinks and wikidata, they also connect images to wikidata/wikipedia articles. I don't see what other function they serve. And this category serves neither function. Why do you want it so badly? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had to guess at the reasoning for obfuscating Turilli and Best. WRT Schmidt, IF it occurred to someone, they might find the image that way. It's more work for them, and they might not know how. It seems to me if we are going to make finding content more difficult for our readers we should be able to articulate a good reason. Am I missing something?
- If there was just one photo of either of those people, I would also support deleting those categories. But since we have a lot of photos of them, it makes some sense to group them together in invisible categories. If we had 10 images of Joseph John Schmidt III, I wouldn't want all 10 images individually in Category:Persons of the United States Navy SEALs and Category:Porn stars, I'd want us to have a Category:Joseph John Schmidt III. But we have just one. See the difference? I don't think privacy was mentioned as an item of concern for Turilli and Best. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
If Schmidt once gets its own article on any wp then I would not suggest to delete the cat. If we have more pictures I would also accept the compromises which we found on the other discussed categories of non relevant people. But as Themightyquill already explained it's realy not worht to have a cat for him. Further more I'm neither a USN fan nor did I knew that he is a pornstar.--Sanandros (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. 
Great! by user:Themightyquill! I also support to Delete, still one file and no article in enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | More images were placed in the category by Geo Swan. So it will kept for now. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
no se ajusta ni a la nomenclatura de commons ni a la del museo que representa Latemplanza (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Category:Museo de Alfarería Vasca ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Es obvio que hay que redireccionar Zarateman (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- is redirected. I guess that the discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Es obvio que hay que redireccionar Zarateman (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | The category has been redirected, making it pointless to keep this open. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Everyday I see at TVE (Televisión española) Spanish and Latin American men killing their women for "honour" and none of them -AFAICS- are muslim. E4024 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- This kind of categorization (in WP or here) only serve Islamofobia. (Or is it Anti-Turkism?) If we want to make such a cat, we could rename Category:Duels as such; as that seems to be the only honour killing activity to me. The rest are domestic violence. --E4024 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The people in this cat should be categorized as Category:Victims of domestic violence, together with, for example, File:Victims of Domestic Violence marker, Courthouse Square.jpg. Stop demonizing muslims. I swallow the rest because this is not a forum. --E4024 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Domestic violence in the States: Why do you think those men in the US kill "their women"? Simply because they -like the others in this cat- believe the women "belong" to them and is part of their duty of honour to protect their "belongings". --E4024 (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Killings by type" are only this and one other, as side dish, to continue Turk-bashing. No, I'm not exaggerating. --E4024 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hola? Nobody from Spain here? No me oye nadie? Cuantas mujeres van muertas en los primeros 40 dias del 2019? Cuantas tenian su asesino (marido, novio, ex marido o novio) "Musulman" o "Hindu"? No existe algo que se llama vergüenza? Es que yo siento "vergüenza ajena" por este silencio... E4024 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody there? After more than a year? I found for you a reading piece. Any action or reaction from Hispanic people? There is a poor Chilean gentleman -now- in the cat. I hope he will not feel embarrassed in his grave to be put in the same basket with Moslems and Hindus, the only people who kill women... --E4024 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Clearly "honor killing" is a social concept. I liked through the subcategories in this though and the link between the people and "honor killing" as it's currently understand was extremely thin. Plus as E4024's points out most killings are done for honor. I don't think it's worth categorizing images for dead people based on the motives of the murder either. Putting the people in a specific category for homicide is more then enough. So I just moved everything out of the category and nominated it for deletion. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||