Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/04
Wrong creating Sakhalinio (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as requested by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, error two times in corrected to Category:Stone stairs in Indre-et-Loire Traumrune (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Traumrune: I tagged it with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. That's often the best way to handle cases like this because they don't really need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please delete (spelling mistake for the name of the category) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedied. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
empty category Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There is another category about Cusine of Iranian Azerbaijan Orartu (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted as emoty cat. --JuTa 03:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
One pice xbox 46.4.123.16 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: no reason given. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Please delete (spelling mistake for the name of the category) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedied. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Arabic? Arab? We do not even have a "real" Category:Navigators (we have an uncat one with one person in it) nor anything more than an irregularly categorized image in this cat. The time and energy spent on these unnecessary cats (including the time and energy spent by people who oppose them) could be more fruitful in other areas. E4024 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- File:Négociant musulman de Mascate.jpg was the only file in the cat; and I took it out. It is clear that merchants are not necessarily navigators. While we discuss the file maybe other "Arabic navigators" populate the cat. (Indeed this denomination sounds me more like a title for some technological device which uses Arabic as language of operation.) --E4024 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your efforts in improving Commons. I appreciate anyone's effort to enrich human knowledge. Actually, Arabic referrs to Arabic civilization, whatever was the spoken language. In the same manner that English is used in referring to non-English speaking iris, Scott and welsh. Let me explain again that it's not only about starting categories with one item. It's about making a category available for anyone that would upload media to commons. I only start categories about things that I am sure are prsent, but maybe as a creative commons license today, perhaps tomorrow. Having categories ready would help to encourage contributors to commons to categorize their uploaded media. Hence save efforts consumed by non-categorized uploaded arts. There is lots of files that can be added to this category. I wonder if you know anout Ahmed bin Majid the Arabic Captain that has showed Ferdinand Magellan the way to India. Thanks for the discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all. FYI, in Commons we do not keep empty categories, except maintenance categories such as Category:Uncategorized categories where I found "Category:Navigators". Best. --E4024 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: In English, we tend to use "Arabic" to describe the language, and "Arab" to describe the ethnicity or place of origin. I would suggest a move to Category:Arab geographers which has a fairly well developed equivalent on English wikipedia (en:Category:Arab geographers). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted by Túrelio. --B dash (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted because it's a lonely category. そらみみ (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nominated for deletion as empty category by E4024, deleted by me Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted by Gbawden. --B dash (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Justus Vingboons. 129.13.72.197 14:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Justus Vingboons, reflective of wikidata and wikipedia entries. The Creator template could be adjusted too. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed without opposition. Redirect Category:Justus Finkenbaum to Category:Justus Vingboons. Josh (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge into parent category Category:Civil aircraft. This category is arbitrary and unnecessary. Josh (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. If someone wants to subdivide Category:Aircraft by decade with Category:Civil aircraft by decade, that might be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't see how 1940 is a viable cut-off date in the history of civil aviation. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and De728631: Closed without opposition. Upmerge Category:Civil aircraft/Pre 1940 into parent category Category:Civil aircraft. Sort contents into Category:Aircraft by decade as appropriate. Josh (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Fork - delete Леонид Макаров (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Леонид Макаров: Speedy delete, spelling error. Josh (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I am sure it exists, but has only one cat which in its turn also has one cat with one file in it. Are we doing something wrong here or these pages will be filled accordingly? E4024 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Allforrous Has since added some good subcategories, so I'd say keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Does this satisfy your question, or do you have further cause to keep this discussion open? Josh (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- My answer will be, as you are so productive -positively- in this area, please keep an eye on cats opened by certain users, just like I try to do; although in most cases (about 99 %) I open a CfD without looking at the user name who opened it. Sometimes I bet myself who may have opened which "IMHO" wrong or empty categorization and when I see notifications falling on user TPs I felicitate myself for winning the bet. (Regrettably no-one invites me even a beer. :) Now you close what you need to and let's hope some Wiki-gnomes (not me, too tired) clean up the hastily made arrangements, sometimes full of parallel or parent-children cats. When you have captains, seamen, sailors etc, so many "sea-related professions" all interrelated, you are surprised to see how interesting cat trees we have formed, some more twisted than bushes. Anyhow, I'm done here. Thanks Josh. --E4024 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we are discussing in vain. People continue with their course of action. Josh, still hopeful or beginning to get bored? E4024 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion already covered by Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Muslim writers. No need to make a new discussion for each subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
there is no such thing as districts in an Austrian rural municipality. Districts as administrative units do exist only in Vienna and Graz. Herzi Pinki (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: Closed (empty cat, speedy delete) Josh (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Daniel King (chess player) Themightyquill (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved per Commons:Categories#Category names (use English). Not controversial, this is an English topic and even if it wasn't we generally use English for names and qualifiers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
This is -indeed- not for discussing the cat of the person but an attached cat. He is under Category:Navigators. He is the only person in the cat and has only one file. That cat is "uncategorized", therefore not "opened correctly" yet. Hence I could not open a discussion on Category:Navigators. The reason I am taking your time is, before vitalizing that red cat I want to make sure. We have many "navigators" here. Certainly they must have been categorized under a different title/cat. Should we RD the title "Category:Navigators" there? Where? E4024 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Thanks for your input. I categorized one extra picture in that category. Its Wikidata infobox lists "occupation=navigator" with a link to Category:Navigation, which is indeed a bit too large. A subcategory "Category:Navigators would indeed be useful. Many other people would also be worth listing in there, I guess: simply checking links to navigator (Q254651) shows more than 250! Also there is a wikidata category at wikidata:Category:Navigators (Q8669830) that is not associated to a Commons counterpart. Laddo (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Laddo: Closed (red-linked category now exists with content) Josh (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong capitalization and uncategorized. (BTW none of the 3 pics have camera EXIF?) E4024 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not the wrong capitalization if that's the name of the category. I've added it to Category:Wikimedia Israel. Problem solved? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no further action required) Josh (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be renamed to Category:Judaism in Brzeg per parent category tree Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Match peers for consistency. Especially since the content is currently a synagogue and a cemetery, not individual people. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus and Themightyquill: Closed (no objection, rename Category:Jews in Brzeg to Category:Judaism in Brzeg.) Josh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be deleted and upmerged. We don't have categories of Jews by city, only Judaism in city. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, especially considering this category isn't filled with categories for individual people. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus and Themightyquill: Closed (no objection; merge Category:Jews in Radom into Category:Judaism in Radom.) Josh (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be at Category:Judaism in Bielsko-Biała per parent category Category:Judaism in Poland by city Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Match peers for consistency. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed! --Eduardschnack (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus, Themightyquill, and Eduardschnack: Closed (no objection; move Category:Jews of Bielsko-Biała to Category:Judaism in Bielsko-Biała .) Josh (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggest deleting: There could be a use for this category, but none of the current content is specifically folk art. Note: deleting this category would leave one of the parent categories empty, so that one would also need deleting. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category's content has been expanded and would justify maintaining it, IMHO. --Arjuno (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks better now, except that some of the entries are not really folk art. For example, embroidery, handicrafts, and textiles can be folk art, but can also be non-folk. However, that's a different issue, and I'd be OK closing this now. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6 and Arjuno3: Closed (original concerns met; further maintenance may be required) Josh (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Empty category. Thyj (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thyj: Closed (no object; delete Category:Yangzhi Guanyin Stele) Josh (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
kann gelöscht werden, nicht sinnvoll, meine Fehleinschätzung Pixelsalat (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now empty category; was created for listing all 'Stolpersteine' (stumbling blocks) of one family's members, but this category isn't useful or necessary. Delete. --Waithamai (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pixelsalat and Waithamai: Closed (no objection; delete Category:Stolpersteine in Regensburg Bayer) Josh (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Empty. Sole image moved to preexising Category:Le 425 de Maisonneuve Ouest (sorry, I don't have quick delete access) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Shawn in Montreal: Closed (no objection; delete Category:La Capitale Montreal.) Josh (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
One IP is causing lots of loss of time and energy in futile issues to otherwise productive users. E4024 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: That seems like something to report to an admin or raise at the village pump. Why are you nominating this category for discussion? Josh (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objection; delete Category:Females wearing hijabs by century) Josh (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Mistake... Jolmia (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: Created by mistake. --jdx Re: 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of the older Category:Barry Barish. I've moved the contents to the original category. This category should be deleted. RexxS (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, In the Nobel Registry and on his placement tags (see photographs) at the nobel proceedings Barry C. Barish prefered to list himself as Barry C. Barish. When you search Commons for a Category for Barry C. Barish, nothing shows up and there is no reference to an existing category for Barry Barish, which I believe are the reasons why the new category was created. Also, when you google his name he is more commonly listed as Barry C. Barish than as just Barry Barish. However, I have no personal preference or opinion about it other than that there should obviously be only one category for him and that commons category search could use a little touch up. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS and Bengt Nyman: I've redirected the duplicate category - if that's sufficient then we can close this CfD, or we can continue if you think it's not worth keeping a redirect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bengt Nyman and Mike Peel: I have no preference between "Barry C. Barish" and "Barry Barish". My only concern is that we should have one Commons category and one Wikidata entry for the same person, so I merged them into the older entry (which can easily be renamed if preferred). Whatever the title or label of the page is, we can always have redirects from common aliases or search terms. Redirects are cheap. --RexxS (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Since Barry Barish is more commonly referred to and appears to prefer to be known as Barry C. Barish a rename sounds like a good idea. Bengt Nyman (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bengt Nyman and Mike Peel: I have no preference between "Barry C. Barish" and "Barry Barish". My only concern is that we should have one Commons category and one Wikidata entry for the same person, so I merged them into the older entry (which can easily be renamed if preferred). Whatever the title or label of the page is, we can always have redirects from common aliases or search terms. Redirects are cheap. --RexxS (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep redirect. I don't care what you call it. Redirects are HELPFUL. Deleting them is HARMFUL. --Animalparty (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS and Bengt Nyman: I've redirected the duplicate category - if that's sufficient then we can close this CfD, or we can continue if you think it's not worth keeping a redirect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, In the Nobel Registry and on his placement tags (see photographs) at the nobel proceedings Barry C. Barish prefered to list himself as Barry C. Barish. When you search Commons for a Category for Barry C. Barish, nothing shows up and there is no reference to an existing category for Barry Barish, which I believe are the reasons why the new category was created. Also, when you google his name he is more commonly listed as Barry C. Barish than as just Barry Barish. However, I have no personal preference or opinion about it other than that there should obviously be only one category for him and that commons category search could use a little touch up. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The duplicate is now a redirect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete Category, as the lemma changed to Category:Kobelwald Kristallhöhle, to follow other Category:Kobelwald-entries. Saippuakauppias (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment German language article is still Kristallhöhle Kobelwald. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: undeleted and redirected. --Achim (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we need that cat? Is category:Unidentified firearms not enaugh? Sanandros ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this, Category:Unidentified pistols, and Category:Unidentified semi-automatic firearms. I think Category:Unidentified handguns makes logical sense because it's an obvious category for a non-expert. Category:Unidentified rifles might also make sense. But I don't think someone who knows nothing about guns can tell by looking if it's a semi-automatic gun just by looking at an image. The average person also doesn't make a differentiation between pistols and handguns. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Prohibit and prevent opening new cats, just like they cannot upload files, to IPs and we will save time, energy and in some cases nerves also. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: You've made this suggestion at CfDs a number of times, but it's really not relevant here. If you actually want to see this happen, you'd need to suggest it at the village pump. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Sanandros, and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; simplify to Category:Unidentified firearms with handguns and rifles as subs.) Josh (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Propose upmerge to Category:Organomagnesium compounds parent-cat. Very few of the parent-cat contents (and all of the parent-cat's other subcats) are not actually more properly Grignard reagents, and the distinction of these as this special term is of uncertain use for finding the images of these compounds. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@DMacks: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Grignard reagents into Category:Organomagnesium compounds) Josh (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose deleting the following two categories:
Reason: the only content in these two categories is separated into categories for Asia and/or Europe, the two continents that compose Eurasia. There is no need to have supercontinent categories where the only content is other categories for component continents or countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should be avoiding "in Eurasia" categories unless they are somehow directly relevant to the supercontinent. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Do you think that could be made a policy or guideline? That could save having to discuss such categories individually. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd certainly support. The same kind of division hasn't happened at on English wikipedia en:Category:Eurasia or en:Category:Afro-Eurasia but it exists to some degree at en:Category:Americas. I'm not sure if that have a rule to stop it. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Do you think that could be made a policy or guideline? That could save having to discuss such categories individually. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete both. --E4024 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, and E4024: Closed (no objections; delete both Category:Cannabis in Eurasia and Category:Cannabis shops in Eurasia) Josh (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The categories listed below are all grandchildren of Category:L'Illustration by year. L'Illustration is a French magazine. I want to rename these categories to include the magazine name. What I want input on is the following:
- We shouldn't need both the issue number and the date. Can we remove either the issue number or the date from the category names? I would favor leaving the issue number without the date. If we leave both, should/could the date be put inside parentheses?
- If we leave only the dates, should the dates be translated into English?
Sample new category names, depending on answers to the above:
- Category:L'Illustration No 3748 2 Janvier 1915 (keep both, date in French)
- Category:L'Illustration No 3748 2 January 1915 (keep both, date in English)
- Category:L'Illustration No 3748 (keep only issue number)
- Category:L'Illustration 2 Janvier 1915 (keep only date, in French)
- Category:L'Illustration 2 January 1915 (keep only date, in English)
Here are the categories in question:
- Category:No 3748 2 Janvier 1915
- Category:No 3749 9 Janvier 1915
- Category:No 3751 23 Janvier 1915
- Category:No 3757 6 Mars 1915
- Category:No 3758 13 Mars 1915
- Category:No 3759 20 Mars 1915
- Category:No 3766 8 Mai 1915
- Category:No 3767 15 Mai 1915
- Category:No 3768 22 Mai 1915
- Category:No 3769 29 Mai 1915
- Category:No 3770 5 Juin 1915
- Category:No 3771 12 Juin 1915
- Category:No 3772 19 Juin 1915
- Category:No 3773 26 Juin 1915
- Category:No 3774 3 Juillet 1915
- Category:No 3775 10 Juillet 1915
- Category:No 3776 17 Juillet 1915
- Category:No 3777 24 Juillet 1915
- Category:No 3778 31 Juillet 1915
- Category:No 3779 7 Août 1915
- Category:No 3780 14 Août 1915
- Category:No 3781 21 Août 1915
- Category:No 3782 28 Août 1915
- Category:No 3784 11 Septembre 1915
- Category:No 3785 18 Septembre 1915
- Category:No 3786 25 Septembre 1915
- Category:No 3787 2 Octobre 1915
- Category:No 3788 9 Octobre 1915
- Category:No 3789 16 Octobre 1915
- Category:No 3790 23 Octobre 1915
- Category:No 3791 30 Octobre 1915
- Category:No 3792 6 Novembre 1915
- Category:No 3793 13 Novembre 1915
- Category:No 3905 5 Janvier 1918
- Category:No 3906 12 Janvier 1918
- Category:No 3908 26 Janvier 1918
- Category:No 3909 2 Février 1918
- Category:No 3910 9 Février 1918
- Category:No 3911 16 Février 1918
- Category:No 3912 23 Février 1918
- Category:No 3913 2 Mars 1918
- Category:No 3914 9 Mars 1918
- Category:No 3915 16 Mars 1918
- Category:No 3916 23 Mars 1918
- Category:No 3922 4 Mai 1918
- Category:No 3924 18 Mai 1918
- Category:No 3925 25 Mai 1918
- Category:No 4222 2 février 1924
- Category:No 4234 26 avril 1924
- Category:No 4576 15 novembre 1930
-- Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Auntof6: ,
- I think your sugestion is a good one and i have no objections.
- Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think the date is more useful than the issue number. I'd suggest using English dates, but perhaps with a comma to separate the title from the date (e.g. Category:L'Illustration, 2 January 1915) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that. My preference for the issue number isn't strong. The important things are to get the magazine name in the title and not have redundant info. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think the date is more useful than the issue number. I'd suggest using English dates, but perhaps with a comma to separate the title from the date (e.g. Category:L'Illustration, 2 January 1915) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Mr.Nostalgic, and Themightyquill: Closed (move issue categories to "Category:L'Illustration, date" with date in English) Josh (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a tree for "Jews in country". This should be deleted or redirected to Category:Judaism in Greece Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Jewish people of Greece. That might be a better place to redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are similar categories for Poland (Category:Jews in Poland) and the Soviet Union (Category:Jews in the Soviet Union) and others. If you want to move this categories to Judaism in Greece I have no objection whatsover. Actia Nicopolis (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Jews in Poland is a redirect. Category:Jews in the Soviet Union should also be redirected to Category:Jewish people of the Soviet Union or Category:Judaism in the Soviet Union. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are similar categories for Poland (Category:Jews in Poland) and the Soviet Union (Category:Jews in the Soviet Union) and others. If you want to move this categories to Judaism in Greece I have no objection whatsover. Actia Nicopolis (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus, Themightyquill, and Actia Nicopolis: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Jews in Greece into Category:Jewish people of Greece and Category:Jews in the Soviet Union into Category:Jewish people of the Soviet Union) Josh (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Subcats use the name differently. Therefore either this one or those names are wrong. E4024 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Abbassia (two B's, two S's, no Y's). Carry on through sub-cats. Josh (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; rename Category:Abbasyia to Category:Abbassia) Josh (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Julfa is a divided city and exists also in Iran (visited both, advantages of driving a truck); therefore this should not be an RD to the city of Azerbaijan but a disam page. E4024 (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Relevant categories are Category:Jolfa (linked to en:Jolfa, Iran (city), sometimes spelled Julfa) and Category:Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). - Themightyquill (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; change Category:Julfa to disambiguation) Josh (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Non notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Arif_Ali 137.97.90.163 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep Notability is not an issue on Commons. Educational purpose is. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
So long as the images exist, it makes sense to keep them in a single category. If you nominate them all for deletion and they are removed, the category can be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Should this not be a hidden cat? E4024 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Added to {{User category}}. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is niqab a proper name? Do we need a special cat for one file? We have various open discussions on these clothing / hijab issues and opening new cats without participating in those CfDs, IMHO, and sorry, may be considered disruptive editing. E4024 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't saw any of those open discussions. I don't mean to cause any harm or malice whatsoever. We already have several categories called 'Women wearing Burqa in x' so i assumed that was the norm we had decided.--Trade (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with thse cats. Why are niqab not a proper name? --Trade (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
A simple mistake, easily corrected. @E4024: Please assume good faith. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong Naming. Correct Category at Category:Digital Taipei for event of "Taipei International Digital Content Summit and Fair". Rico Shen contact... 18:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Digital Taipei. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone delete it please? Lotje (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy delete Empty and requested 2 minutes after creation (have tagged as such), we don't have anyone with the first name and neither does WP or WD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
There are two issues with this category. First, we don't have a category structure for "Old World" (and I don't support creating one). Second, we don't mix two things in a category, such as "rats and mice". This contents of this category should be moved to rats, mice, rodents, mammals, or even just animals by either country or continent. Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- per en:Murinae this is duplicating Category:Murinae, please redirect. --Te750iv (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unnecessary category, per both above. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've redirected 2 of the 3 contained subcategories per Commons:Categories#Category names for biological taxa. Category:Broad-toothed mouse was duplicating the already existing species category Mastacomys fuscus, and Category:Blanford's rat was redundant to Category:Madromys blanfordi. --Te750iv (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Te750iv: Thanks. The only thing remaining is the category for lab mice. Since lab mice are not always a specific type of mouse, maybe we can remove it. Then the old world category woyod be empty and could be deleted. Thoughts from anyone? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've redirected 2 of the 3 contained subcategories per Commons:Categories#Category names for biological taxa. Category:Broad-toothed mouse was duplicating the already existing species category Mastacomys fuscus, and Category:Blanford's rat was redundant to Category:Madromys blanfordi. --Te750iv (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've just removed Category:Lab mice from this category, since we also have Category:Lab rats. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, and for redundancy with Category:Murinae - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I waited a long time -in vain- to see if India (already has a slavery cat and is in Asia AFAIK) or China (slavery and China, joking?) or any other country would be included in this cat by its initiator, and nothing changed. Indeed all cats that we have in Commons have points to discuss, IMHO, and a discussion is never needless. However I must also inform, as an honest and transparent person, that I am opening to discussion this cat "also" to enter into records some facts when I will open a "Category opening ban on certain users" discussion. (This one, on POV grounds.) E4024 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Slavery in China it's 2013; Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire it's 2014; Category:Slavery in Korea it's 2015. I really do not see the problem and I do not understand the discussion. --Allforrous (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are no valid arguments for this discussion. --Allforrous (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion was started as a thinly veiled personal attack on Allforrous's good faith. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Bringing name in line with Commons policy of naming category files in English. The English Wikipedia page has "Church of Our Blessed Lady of the Sablon" for the title. It seems appropriate to use this title as category name (as well as in the subcategories) Ad Meskens (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Since there are no reactions nor objections the name can be changed. Ad Meskens (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) @Ad Meskens: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone invented a "supercat" for Category:Muhammad Metwally Al Shaarawy. E4024 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Sheikh Muhammed Mutawalli Sah'rawi into Category:Muhammad Metwally Al Shaarawy) Josh (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I am the author of this work. Please remove it as I do no longer wish to appear it here. There is no longer use for it. It is a year that I have requested the deletion of the wikipedia article related to my work. This has been accomplished so all images and files here should also be removed. Alberto Frigo (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Caro Alberto, we will certainly delete this cat if there is no file in it at a point of time. Therefore I recommend you instead to propose for deletion the files in there. Ciao. --E4024 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Alberto Frigo and E4024: Closed (no objections; nominate files for deletion and once empty, this category can be speedy deleted) Josh (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Cat is being used for men's football, women's basketball, etc. Please separate into subcats. E4024 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (users can create all appropriate sub-cats and sort media accordingly) Josh (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
All files and the category should be deleted per COM:CUR Poland. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Jeżeli jest taka zasada, trzeba usunąć Antoni18072016 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Michał Sobkowski and Antoni18072016: Closed (nominate files for deletion; once empty, category can be speedy deleted) Josh (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Strange title. We also have a cat for Men wearing turbans. E4024 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a link to a closed discussion that I think may be analogous to this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:People wearing turbans and restrict to images of people actually wearing a turban in the image. Categories for individuals who may wear turbans at some point in their life should not be included. Josh (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good. OTOH we have a Category:Portrait paintings of women wearing turbans although we have no Category:Women wearing turbans. We should make one. Then we should take that latter one, add to it Category:Men with turbans -that we must rename to Category:Men wearing turbans- and place both under the new Category:People wearing turbans. Of course we must also reduce the Category:Turbans (female headgear) to only images of headgear without heads in them. :) Now we need a volunteer to do all this work. (I know a few people who could dedicate their time to this repair job instead of opening new problematic cats, especially some IPs... :) --E4024 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm no expert, but I don't really see there being an inherent diferrence between an unwrapped male turban and an unwrapped female turban. We don't, afterall, have Category:Women's scarves or Category:Women's glasses. Given the discussion above, I would propose:
Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Auntof06 approvals have almost always looked good to me. :) Close. Sometimes I open wunderbar discussions, to the point... --E4024 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections to renames as proposed by Themightyquill) Josh (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong name but IMHO there is not even one PD file in there, and sooner or later will be deleted. If you wish move it. E4024 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- If that is correct, once non-PD files are deleted, the category will be empty and can be speedy deleted. Josh (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; request deletion of files and once empty, Category:Hassan mshymesh qualifies for speedy delete) Josh (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
How is this category different from its parent, Category:Prototype aircraft? Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge There is no difference between the two. Josh (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Closed (no objections; upmerge Category:Prototypes of aircraft into Category:Prototype aircraft) Josh (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Would it not be better "White teapots"? E4024 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and similarly with the other subcats of Category:Teapots by color as well as the subcats of Category:Tableware by color. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't see any reason to use this style. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:White teapots in standard "Color object" format. This format should be used consistantly for all objects under Category:Objects by color. Josh (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Themightyquill, and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; move to ) Josh (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Hasan ibn Ali opened as a subcat of the same, with two files. I emptied it and will mark it for deletion. The reason I open this CfD is I have lost track of many similar cats that were speedied. I open these CfDs to keep records and make stats for users -like Pivox who left the place- for whom I am going to ask a ban for categorization initiatives. For the moment I am only referring the name of a "former" user. Soon we will be reviewing -I hope- cases of users from the Arctic to Antarctica, from the deserts of Northern Africa to the pampas of Argentina. Please be noted. E4024 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Jeff F. King to disambiguate and match en:Jeff F. King Themightyquill (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree I have no opposition to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)
- Support Per nom, we already have Category:Jeff King (musher). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Nightscream, and Crouch, Swale: Closed (no objections; move Category:Jeff King to Category:Jeff F. King) Josh (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Already deleted out of COM:SCOPE images (fr:Soulaimane Abidy). Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: You'll need to nominate the images for deletion. So long as they exist at commons, it makes sense to keep them together in a single category. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel and Themightyquill: Closed (once all images are deleted, this category can be speed deleted) Josh (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused category created by a new user with spam-like content. Should be deleted. —andrybak (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Université du Québec. No one, not anglophones here, not the enwiki main article en:Université du Québec, nor enwiki's en:Category:Université du Québec refers to the system by this unofficial English translation. I would say User:MB-one was wrong to have created a redirect to his apparent language preference, which no one uses officially or IRL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do it. I personally prefer (generally) using English, for example University of Ankara and not Ankara Üniversitesi; but of course Quebec has a special situation and -I guess- status. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I'd add that it's a matter of consistency a) because all the subcategories for individual universities within the system are named in French, and b) so are the siblings for other francophone universities in Category:Universities in Quebec. So it's just this one which is an odd outlier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I asked an admin to move it back. No need for profound arguments here, simple case. --E4024 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I'd add that it's a matter of consistency a) because all the subcategories for individual universities within the system are named in French, and b) so are the siblings for other francophone universities in Category:Universities in Quebec. So it's just this one which is an odd outlier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- RENAME for clear consensus. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This category was created by banned username Bertrand101. 2600:6C4E:580:A:DCED:2483:6D33:47E6 18:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted because of Category:Female opera vocalists from the Netherlands Lotje (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get page deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems that this category was incorrectly created based on the subcategory “Wei Lihuang”. However, Wei Lihuang’s family name is actually Wei, not Lihuang. Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Stevenliuyi: I guess you are correct. I cannot remember what rules I followed when creating the WD item Wei (Q6849395) but obviouly the name "Lihuang" no longer applies. Since the right Commons category Category:Wei (surname) already exists, Category:Lihuang (surname) could simply be deleted. If you agree I will request it. Cheers - Laddo (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Laddo: Thank you for your reply. Please go ahead.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Requested. Deletion soon ;) Laddo (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Laddo: Thank you for your reply. Please go ahead.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
typo, pls delete Pikador (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Nature reserve Uroczysko Grodziszcze. @Pikador: Next time, feel free to use {{Bad name}}. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Mail at abc@microsoft.com 2001:4898:80E8:2:A937:89B0:8AAC:5B8B 01:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing as nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we split Small arms, rifles, carbines and grenade launchers in diffrent categories? Sanandros (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: Or just Category:Firearms of STC Delta ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK moved it.--Sanandros (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: moved--Sanandros (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Typo in title CeeGee (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:National sports teams of Ivory Coast. @CeeGee: Next time, please use {{Bad name}} to delete typos. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Category:Space images (if needed) could go directly into Category:Images by subject Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. --Allforrous (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. No objection. Support from category creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Requesting deletion of a category I accidentally created. I misread the genus of the plant, and it should have been Vernonia, not Veronica. I've since corrected it for the file's metadata, but don't need the incorrect category floating around. Clifflandis (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. When you do not want an empty cat to float around, please do what I did to it (mark it as empty for speedy deletion) and not open a "discussion". (We already have too many discussions, partly for me... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Done - marked for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be same topic as Category:Isocyanides, so proposing to merge them. I think the merger direction should be this here going into that there because this one here is much newer (retain pre-existing that User:JWBE might not have noticed). DMacks (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Merged with Category:Isocyanides. Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Same with Category:Moors (people). E4024 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- From the category descriptions, I thin Category:Moors was meant for medieval Muslim residents of Southern Europe, whereas Category:Moors (people) was meant for the term is it is (apparently?) still used today. I don't know that this division makes any sense, particularly because I can't find any clear reference to it being used today. English wikipedia has only one entry at en:Moors. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- AFAIK beside the historical name for Moroccan/Mauretanian peoples, modern use is pretty much restricted to a handful of hyper-Afrocentric religious groups who regard “Moors” as a sort of Chosen People from whom African-Americans are descended; see e.g. w:Moorish Science Temple, kind of a cross between the Nation of Islam and the Black Hebrew Israelites. Or something. Anyway, I agree this should be a dab.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate From Category:Moorlands, bogs and swamps, Category:Moors (people) and Category:Moors (surname). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:Moors (people) is unambiguous. Make Category:Moors a dab page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Josh, as you are around, why don't you cut the cake also in this one? IMHO simple issues drag on for too long in CfDs. --E4024 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Odysseus1479, Crouch, Swale, and Joshbaumgartner: Merged to Category:Moors (people) and turned Category:Moors into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose deleting this category. The only contents are three categories for LGBT in specific parts of the Americas. As far as I know, there is are no LGBT issues that are specific to the Americas as a whole; if there are any such, then they are not represented in this category. Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should be avoiding "in the Americas" categories unless they are somehow directly relevant to the supercontinent. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Vatan Partisi corresponds to "Vaterland Partei". Patriotic is something else and cannot be monopolized by any party. Patriotic or Patriot in Turkish is "Yurtsever" or "Vatansever". Please see Category:Vatansever (surname). E4024 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @E4024: , when I am created like this category, I am using to English Wikipedia page names. And there are page name already same Patriotic Party (Turkey). If has to be change, It has to be change also there. Regards Sakhalinio (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- English news sources definitely seem to prefer "Patriotic Party." I have no idea why. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The party's official website has an English version (here) and it repeatedly and exclusively refers to itself as "Patriotic Party (Turkey)". Since this is the name they give themselves in English, we should keep this category as-is. Josh (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Sakhalinio, and Themightyquill: Closed (no consensus; keep as is; if further issues come up, a new CfD can be started) Josh (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Block this IP range, best solution. E4024 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Please include an explanation when creating a CFD. Please stop suggesting actions that are not relevant to a CFD. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no proposal put forward) Josh (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
None of these weapons are used by china, so to it's not useful to be a subcat People's Liberation Army. Sanandros (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: Can you suggest an alternative category to indicate where the weapon was first developed? That seems like relevant information. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yea that's what I didn't came up yesterday. So I ask the comunity to suggest soemthing. I will check once when I have more time and can suggest something.--Sanandros (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sanandros and Themightyquill: The same problem existed for Category:Aircraft in that there was confusion regarding what "Aircraft of country" really meant. There has since been a division into "Aircraft of country origin" and "Aircraft in country service" to clarify each piece of equipment and allow it to separately be classified by where it originated, and by who is operating them. Perhaps military equipment at large needs to have a similar delineation made? Placing Category:Type 69 RPG directly within the PLA tree would indicate all of the media of it depicts Type 69's in Chinese service. The reality is that it is variant of the RPG-7 (of Soviet origin) so should be under Category:RPG-7, and since the specific Type 69 variant is of Chinese origin, it should be under something like Category:Grenade launchers of Chinese origin and Category:Antitank rockets of Chinese origin. Josh (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes origin and service cat could be something. I think about it. It should be then discussed in the firearmy by country cat But the grenade launcher cat should also be tidy up, in another disucssion.--Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sanandros and Themightyquill: Closed (should be categorized more clearly, but this probably needs to be built from a higher level than this specific piece of equipment) Josh (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary. If we want to group the files of the Flickr user, simply create Category:Photographs by John Lubbock instead. B dash (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Rename Category:People's Vote March, 23 March 2019 images by Jwslubbock to Category:Photographs by John Lubbock.All images already exist in Category:People's Vote March, 23 March 2019. Josh (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)- Keep You can rename it if you like, but your proposed renaming would not work, as 'photos by John Lubbock' would only include my photos of that event, not the thousands of other photos I've uploaded to Commons. I wanted a sub category of the People's vote march photos which were just my photos so I could share them all in one place. I don't see the problem with retaining the category as it is. It may seem unnecessary to some but it's quite useful to me to distinguish which of the photos within the general category are mine. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jwslubbock: Thanks for your contributions! Perhaps it would be better if we had a parent category Category:Photographs by John Lubbock or Category:Photographs by jwslubbock (your preference) and under that categories like the nominated one as well as other subjects you have covered. In anycase I withdraw my rename recommendation as it appears it would not be correct given what you have said. Josh (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep You can rename it if you like, but your proposed renaming would not work, as 'photos by John Lubbock' would only include my photos of that event, not the thousands of other photos I've uploaded to Commons. I wanted a sub category of the People's vote march photos which were just my photos so I could share them all in one place. I don't see the problem with retaining the category as it is. It may seem unnecessary to some but it's quite useful to me to distinguish which of the photos within the general category are mine. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and ideally group it and other catgories by the same contributor under Category:Photographs by John Lubbock or Category:Photographs by jwslubbock. Josh (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@B dash and Jwslubbock: Closed (keep) Josh (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This should be "objects", not "products". I had opened a CfD but perhaps at the wrong place. I hope that this time I'm not mistaken. (And of course it is not only about Number 17 but all; simply I ran into the 17 cat and must have opened the discussion where I first saw "products" instead of "objects". My bad. :) E4024 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is only one number in a series of "Number X on products" categories. Category:Products is a sub-category of Category:Objects, so Category:Number 17 on products is a valid sub-category of Category:Number 17 on objects. Josh (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, but I still do not understand why "dice is a product" and not just an "object". Why is this extra layer? --E4024 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we need that distinction, either. Many of the types of things under numbers on objects are also products: books and magazines, automobiles, stamps, billiard balls, clocks, playing cards, clothing... I don't see what's different. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- And by the way, there are other number-on-product categories that we should be including here. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Yes, that was actually my concern. I guess I meant Keep for now unless it is resolved that the entire Category:Numbers on products level should be eliminated and that Category:Numbers on objects is sufficient. I would agree with that, but it should be raised as a CfD at that level, not just one of the many numbers within it. Josh (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, but I still do not understand why "dice is a product" and not just an "object". Why is this extra layer? --E4024 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Auntof6: Closed (issue to be resolved at higher level CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Numbers on products) Josh (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we are discussing in vain. People continue with their course of action. Josh, still hopeful or beginning to get bored? E4024 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral comment: English wikipedia does have en:Category:Muslim scholars separate from en:Category:Islamic studies scholars (potentially parallel to Category:Islamic scholars here at commons and subject to a different CFD). That said, the Christian peer at English wikipedia (en:Category:Christian scholars says "This category is for scholars whose Christianity is a defining characteristic, not for scholars who are incidentally Christians" if this is kept, that could also be applied here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (discussion not specific to this category, discussion merged into Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Scholars by religion) Josh (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Writers by religion being even developed. I think we are discussing in vain. People continue with their course of action. Josh, still hopeful or beginning to get bored? E4024 (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Christian writers has existed since 2007 and en:Category:Muslim writers has existed since 2006. That said, en:Category:Christian writers has specified "This category comprises articles pertaining to those who write or wrote commentary on Christian themes." The same could be applied to Category:Writers by religion here rather than grouping unrelated attributes (e.g. Science fiction writers who happen to be Muslim). Whatever happens here should also apply to Category:Muslim poets (and please not that Category:Sufi poets is a subcategory there) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Josh, I would like to see you also here; we need not-involved patient contributors who can teach cats/subcats etc to people making such edits about their own cats, using mother and son together and staying away from participating at discussions about these very same cat innovations. I always thought I had what I like to call "Oriental patience" but insistent -and in a sense disruptive- arbitrary categorization about Islam and Muslims, almost always within a very small group of contributors, began to make me desperate. Maybe that is the reason why lately, as you wisely observed, I may have begun to throw a topic on the table and not bring many arguments about my point. The problem is, arguments are limited, you cannot find new balls (arguments) playing in a limited area, but others may have a broad freedom and can "campar a sus anchas" usando toda la cancha... --E4024 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Vote to maintain the category. Thank you.--Allforrous (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your vote but this is not a voting booth, it is a discussion where we expect "arguments". --E4024 (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge into Category:Writers. What is the value to the project of segregating writers by religion? If I write a series of young adult fiction or instructional tennis manuals, why would it matter to anyone what my religion is? If my young adult series has strong Christian themes, does that change the calculus and make it valuable to classify me as a Christian writer? But what if I am Muslim and write about Christianity, do we need to categorize me by one or the other faith? It is not important to answer these hypotheticals, but the point is to understand exactly why we would bother to sort writers by religion in the first place, whether that sorting is based on the authors' faith or the subject matter of their writings, and what the threshold is for whether or not a writer qualifies to be so categorized. I personally do not find value to this project in incorporating this religious division into our category structure. If one is looking for media depicting an author, the intersection of their faith and their occupation is in most cases incidental (excepting clergy and a few other jobs), thus not a useful basis for a category scheme. Josh (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Bravo Josh, if you stand for adminship one day, and if I am not still blocked by any, I will try to be the first to vote you support. --E4024 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I certainly understand your concerns and those of E4024, and I can't say I disagree in principle. But then what do we do with Category:Sufi poets? And if we're deleting Category:Christian writers, what do we do with Category:Christian hagiographers? It seems to be there could be a place for Category:Writers by religion for those who are writing about specific religions or, as you say, usings these themes in their writing... but it's liable to get messed up on commons because of how commons is. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: As I understand it, a hagiography is necessarily a religiously-themed work, and since the subject of one is a notable member of a particular religion, it makes sense to sort hagiographies by religion. It is a bit longer of a name, but Category:Writers of Christian hagiographies (or maybe Category:Hagiographers of Christian figures?) more clearly shows that the important differentiation is the religion of the subject, not the author. Unfortunately, Category:Christian hagiographers leaves open the possiblity of including the author of a hagriography on Muslim figures just because the author happens to identify themself as a Christian. As for Category:Sufi poets, perhaps Category:Writers of Sufi poetry would be more clear in the same manner as hagiographers. As for what counts as 'Sufi' or not, that is way beyond my expertise. Josh (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Joshbaumgartner That makes good sense. Would, correspondingly, a move to Category:Writers of Islamic literature (a sub-category of Category:Islamic literature) make sense? Same with moving Category:Christian writers to Category:Writers of Christian literature in Category:Christian literature? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: As I understand it, a hagiography is necessarily a religiously-themed work, and since the subject of one is a notable member of a particular religion, it makes sense to sort hagiographies by religion. It is a bit longer of a name, but Category:Writers of Christian hagiographies (or maybe Category:Hagiographers of Christian figures?) more clearly shows that the important differentiation is the religion of the subject, not the author. Unfortunately, Category:Christian hagiographers leaves open the possiblity of including the author of a hagriography on Muslim figures just because the author happens to identify themself as a Christian. As for Category:Sufi poets, perhaps Category:Writers of Sufi poetry would be more clear in the same manner as hagiographers. As for what counts as 'Sufi' or not, that is way beyond my expertise. Josh (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Thanks for the bravo, but I have more than enough on my plate as it is. Josh (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I certainly understand your concerns and those of E4024, and I can't say I disagree in principle. But then what do we do with Category:Sufi poets? And if we're deleting Category:Christian writers, what do we do with Category:Christian hagiographers? It seems to be there could be a place for Category:Writers by religion for those who are writing about specific religions or, as you say, usings these themes in their writing... but it's liable to get messed up on commons because of how commons is. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Bravo Josh, if you stand for adminship one day, and if I am not still blocked by any, I will try to be the first to vote you support. --E4024 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Something about Sufism for people who are not familiar with the term. BTW I have heard of people, not Muslims, considering themselves Sufis, especially in the last 100 years... --E4024 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Allforrous, and Themightyquill: Closed (merged into discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Writers by religion) Josh (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Islamic writers? Are they Islamists or what? E4024 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Islamic writers seems redundant with Category:Muslim writers. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (merged into discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Writers by religion) Josh (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Daniel King (engraver) Themightyquill (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: With five images now in this category, I don't see the case for disambiguation. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, given that w:Daniel King doesn't even list this Daniel King and that we already have Category:Daniel King (Schachspieler). @Charles Matthews: the question is if there is a case for a primary topic, primary topics here have a higher threshold than on WP and the default is to disambiguate. Category:Mississippi has lots more than 5 images yet we disambigauted that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Daniel King to Category:Daniel King (engraver). There are more than one Daniel King, so each should be distinguished and Category:Daniel King should be a dab. Josh (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale, and Charles Matthews: Closed (consensus to disambiguate) Josh (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
rename Category:People wearing fezzes, restrict to media acually depicting fezzes being worn, not categories for people who may at times wear one. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Westerner with Tarboosh. Josh (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:John King (bishop of London) for disambiguation Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, noting the DAB page at w:John King and that we already have Category:John King (printseller), Category:John King (tugboat, 1935), Category:John King (cricketer, born 1871) and Category:John King (journalist). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support There are multiple John Kings, so this should be a dab. I think "Bishop" should be capitalized as a proper title of the nominated John King (Bishop of London). Josh (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Crouch, Swale: Closed (no objections; move Category:John King to Category:John King (Bishop of London); dab Category:John King) Josh (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Hussein ibn Ali opened as a subcat of the same, with two files. I emptied it and will mark it for deletion. The reason I open this CfD is I have lost track of many similar cats that were speedied. I open these CfDs to keep records and make stats for users -like Pivox who left the place- for whom I am going to ask a ban for categorization initiatives. For the moment I am only referring the name of a "former" user. Soon we will be reviewing -I hope- cases of users from the Arctic to Antarctica, from the deserts of Northern Africa to the pampas of Argentina. Please be noted. E4024 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree to delete one of the categories. Al-Hussein is the correct name, with the "al". Suggest to delete the wrong name category. Thanks. Ashashyou
@E4024 and Ashashyou: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Hussein ibn Ali into Category:Al-Hussain) Josh (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be maps of various sea voyages, but is linked to Jimmy Cornell, founder of the World Cruising Club. It is orphaned but for the autocats from the template. Since we don't appear to have any images of Mr. Cornell here, I propose that we merge the content into Category:Maps of voyages and delete this cat. Josh (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional note: The category creator (Mcapdevila (talk · contribs)) noted the purpose for the page as "This category is intended to contain maps, with the traces of courses followed (or that could or were supposed to be followed) by a non determined type of boat.. and in a wide variety of circumstances (war, exploration, pleasure, etc". This would seem to be basically what Category:Maps of voyages does, hence why I recommend a merge. Josh (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree and support --E4024 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; merge Category:World cruising into Category:Maps of voyages) Josh (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
now empty category, content moved to more descriptive cat 'Category:Hieronymusgasse (Konstanz)' Waithamai (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Hieronymusgasse (Konstanz)--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Waithamai: Do not empty or orphan categories under discussion. Only complete edits once consensus has been reached and the discussion is closed. Josh (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Waithamai and Roland.h.bueb: Closed (no objections; move Category:Hieronymusgasse to Category:Hieronymusgasse (Konstanz)) Josh (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
now empty category; typo in cat name. now at 'Category:Bahnhofstraße (Konstanz)' Waithamai (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bahnhofstraße (Konstanz) is right (Source: Falk, Stadtplan Konstanz)--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Waithamai and Roland.h.bueb: Closed (no objections; speedy delete Category:Bahnhofsstraße (Konstanz)) Josh (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Should be upmerged into Category:Sephardi Jewish cuisine - deal with the same subject. DGtal (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@DGtal: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Sephardi food into Category:Sephardi Jewish cuisine) Josh (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
name should be plural, so rename to Category:Fezzes. Josh (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- No objection. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Closed (no objections; move Category:Fez to Category:Fezzes) Josh (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Should be plural, rename Category:Navies by country.
- Rename sub-cat "Navy of country" cats which cover multiple organizations (e.g. Germany) to "Navies of country"
- Rename sub-cat "Navy of country" cats which really refer to a single navy (e.g. Guatemala) to their proper name. Josh (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The parameter limiting GIFs is $wgMaxAnimatedGifArea and was increased from 50 to 100 megaPixel. see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dispenser/GIF_check https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=CommonSettings.php I moved all Images >100 MP into Category:Animated GIF files exceeding the 100 MP limit. All animations between 50 and 100 got a thumbnail-purge and are moving now. I do not really see the point of collecting >50PM animations anymore if is there is no technical problem. Jahobr (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would keep this Cat, it can be anyway useful in future in some cases or for somebody, but indeed, renaming would be required. -- User: Perhelion 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I gave it a look and saw that the category contains animated GIF files of any size, even of only a few KB. It can be done much better with replacing the [[Category:Animated GIF files]] by a template which checks the file size; this will also allow different limits, and changes of the value (or these values) come immediately in effect.
- BTW: As always, categorization by templates offer much more flexibility than "hard" categorization. -- sarang♥사랑 08:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Sarang, are you sure? The file size is not that relevant here, but the resolution * frames. I'm not a friend of a template for this. But yes, replacing with [[Category:Animated GIF files]] would be the minimum. -- User: Perhelion 09:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- We should at least rename it and get rid of the word "limit". Or maybe something like "Animated GIF files between 50 MP and 100 MP". Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hence there were no more contributions since one month, I went ahead and moved the Cat to Category:Animated GIF files between 50 MP and 100 MP. I hope this is fine for everyone. Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
empty category; no viable files on Commons to sort here Mindmatrix 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --JuTa 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This category was created to support a category about 3 paintings and a sketch by van Gogh about the watermill in Gennep Category:Watermills in Gennep by Vincent van Gogh. However the category was incorrectly named as there is only 1 watermill. Moreover the category contains the wrong information, since the mill isn't located in the modern day Gennep in the Dutch province of Limburg, but is located in modern day Gestel in the Dutch province of North Brabant. This watermill already has a category, namely Category:Genneper watermolen. I have moved the category about the paintings to the category about the watermill, making this category empty. As such, I propose deleting this category. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone delete please, typo Lotje (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this about "teachers" (educators)? E4024 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Educators of Ternopil regional state musical school to match Category:Music educators. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this proper English? Necessary? Would you prefer upmerging it? E4024 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Probably you are right. Yes, my english is very bad. Category:Janissary flags? --Иван Дулин (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of [:Category:Janissary flags]]. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge into Category:Munitionsschlepper I. Sufficient to categorize this single image. Josh (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: No opposition. Content upmerged and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
empty category (the subcat is also empty); no viable files on Commons to sort here Mindmatrix 17:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Still empty after a month. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Stops and stations have been confused. E4024 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- please check the fix. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks resolved to me... ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Move back to Category:Maghreb as standard name for the region? This isn't a category for a language/dialect. Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Reverted 2016 move. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Emirate of Sicily for clarity. This category isn't for imagines of Arabs on vacation in Sicily in 2019. Themightyquill (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Emirate of Sicily. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete this unnecessary cat. E4024 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Please delete this cat. One of the subcats is "Category:Girls' schools in Japan"! (Sorry for the exclamation mark.) E4024 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- How? Category:Female's objects by country - Category:Female's objects in Japan --Benzoyl (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Content sorted appropriately. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Please delete this cat. Not only wrongly named but IMHO unnecessary. Is there a special need to make certain cats only for Vietnam, Japan and Taiwan? E4024 (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Together with Category:Atypism (people) both are made for only one person. I would simply delete (or merge?) them. Categorization means classification. You cannot make a class (and less two classes) with one child... E4024 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No clear purpose. No objection to proposed deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This should be merged to Category:Historical images of the United States. There's no category tree for history images, but there's one for historical images by country. Both categories refer to the identical concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- This category does not help with categorisation. Leave it as it is for now. Once all files are moved out, delete it. User:Tris T7, please stop adding files to this category or creating similar categories. Roy17 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hello User:Roy17 How are you ? This is Tris T7. I have created Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 because there are many of file such as .jpeg, .gif, .tif, .svg, .pdf, .png, mixing up in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. So i believed to selected JPEG and group in one category would be helpful and easier for user who going to modify them in category that they belong. But if we find consensus that what i did are not helpful then as i want to learn and have knowledge about it so please kindly allow me to organize them back to Category:All media needing categories as of 2018 and remove Category out of system. But yes until then i will wait for others opinion on this issue. Anyway thank you for letting me know your opinion. Until then enjoy and happy and thank you for your contributions. ..--Tris T7 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely don't think it's helpful to have media needing categories sorted by file extention. I could maybe imagine separating out videos or audio, as the task of sorting them might have different requirements than images, but there's no functional difference between an uncategorized jpg and an uncategorized png. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Then why do we need Category:JPEG files, Category:PNG files, Category:SVG files, Category:PDF files for ? and without Category:SVG files needing categories as of 2018 then how do i manage them to existing Category:SVGs by subject? Please kindly let me know? I also invite you to have a look at Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 you would see the group of the same source arrange in the group of page in category. and by separations video and audio out of images at the end person who looking for useful SVG files that still somewhere in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. That maybe an answer for some change that we could make because we still have almost two hundred thousand file in Category:All media needing categories as of 2017 and over 1xx,xxx in 2016 and 1xx,xxx in 2015 if you look for over all images at the end logo files in each year need to separating to SVG and JPEG for subcategories for each category anyway. And for people who seeking for .gif files which are some where in this group of 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015 that me and more people who i am going to invite to join to support for organize this huge group of files. That way we will never get more people to join community as we still have over 4 years delayed of work that will never categorize. So please allow me to continue and at the end you will see significant improve to categorize uncategory files up to date. Thank you and await for your reply.--Tris T7 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely don't think it's helpful to have media needing categories sorted by file extention. I could maybe imagine separating out videos or audio, as the task of sorting them might have different requirements than images, but there's no functional difference between an uncategorized jpg and an uncategorized png. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hello User:Roy17 How are you ? This is Tris T7. I have created Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 because there are many of file such as .jpeg, .gif, .tif, .svg, .pdf, .png, mixing up in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. So i believed to selected JPEG and group in one category would be helpful and easier for user who going to modify them in category that they belong. But if we find consensus that what i did are not helpful then as i want to learn and have knowledge about it so please kindly allow me to organize them back to Category:All media needing categories as of 2018 and remove Category out of system. But yes until then i will wait for others opinion on this issue. Anyway thank you for letting me know your opinion. Until then enjoy and happy and thank you for your contributions. ..--Tris T7 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm generally not in favour of mixing what are essentially maintenance categories like (Category:PNG files) and subject categories Category:Buildings). SVGs are perhaps an exception because of their particular usefulness in terms of translation and resizing. I consider Category:SVGs by subject to be shorthand for Category:Vector images by subject (when we only allow one vector image format). It rarely makes any difference to someone looking for an image of a building if it's a JPG, GIF or PNG. That's why we don't have Category:JPEG files by subject, and why 99.999% of jpg images on commons are not in a sub-category of Category:JPEG files. Proper categorization rarely depends on file format, so while there are many files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2017 in need of proper categorizing, sorting them between PNG and JPG is not helpful in getting them properly categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: Category deleted. There is no benefit to split uncat files by file extension and there is no consenus to do so.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
10-year-old women? I have been saying "prohibit opening cats to IP"s; now I add "block this person's IP range". E4024 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge content. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)- Delete, this is an arbitrary range of ages, no reason to group them. Josh (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have added a link to another discussion related to categorizing people by age. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024, Joshbaumgartner, and Auntof6: I feel I may have missed some broader context here before suggesting delete above. Just to clarify, are we okay with keeping Category:Humans age by decade or proposing that should be deleted? Or just Category:Category:Human females age by decade? Or just rename to Category:10-19-year-old human females (to match subcategories like Category:11-year-old human females) or to Category:Category:10s human female (to match parent categories like Category:10s humans)? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I do not see any real value to a decade grouping of ages. Just having Category:Human females by age with some 120 or so sub-cats seems sufficient. Adding the extra break down along the way just is more sorting and clicking to do in my opinion. There does leave the question of how to categorize images of subjects whose age is defined with less accuracy than 1 year, but I don't see that as worth adding these extra levels. I would actually recommend deleting all of the decades of ages, just have 'by age' with 1-year ages as sub-cats. Josh (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with previous comments, delete.Desyman (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I do not see any real value to a decade grouping of ages. Just having Category:Human females by age with some 120 or so sub-cats seems sufficient. Adding the extra break down along the way just is more sorting and clicking to do in my opinion. There does leave the question of how to categorize images of subjects whose age is defined with less accuracy than 1 year, but I don't see that as worth adding these extra levels. I would actually recommend deleting all of the decades of ages, just have 'by age' with 1-year ages as sub-cats. Josh (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024, Joshbaumgartner, and Auntof6: I feel I may have missed some broader context here before suggesting delete above. Just to clarify, are we okay with keeping Category:Humans age by decade or proposing that should be deleted? Or just Category:Category:Human females age by decade? Or just rename to Category:10-19-year-old human females (to match subcategories like Category:11-year-old human females) or to Category:Category:10s human female (to match parent categories like Category:10s humans)? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've just tagged Category:Humans age by decade and Category:Human females age by decade for discussion if they (and all their sub-categories) are to be deleted as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as per discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
"Chador" singular wrong, "Chador" with capital c wrong, the files (almost none are chador for me) wrong. Cat opener: Banned. E4024 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: What do you think about a move from Category:Chadors by color to Category:Headscarves by color (in Category:Headgear by color), from Category:Black Chador to Category:Black headscarves (in Category:Black headwear, and from Category:Colorful Chador to Category:Colorful headscarves (in Category:Colorful clothing, and subject to this discussion)? Once again, this is not the appropriate place to suggest user bans. Please stop. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved category tree to Category:Headscarves by color. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Teapots in white and general usage throughout 'by color' categories, the form Category:"color" "object" is preferred. Recommend not only teapots, but everything under Category:Tableware by color change to this format (the majority of categories already are). Here are ones I found that need to be renamed:
- Category:Cups in yellow to Category:Yellow cups
- Category:Tableware in black to Category:Black tableware
- Category:Tableware in blue to Category:Blue tableware
- Category:Tableware in brown to Category:Brown tableware
- Category:Tableware in green to Category:Green tableware
- Category:Tableware in orange to Category:Orange tableware
- Category:Tableware in pink to Category:Pink tableware
- Category:Tableware in red to Category:Red tableware
- Category:Tableware in white to Category:White tableware
- Category:Tableware in yellow to Category:Yellow tableware
Josh (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: the code for the navbox on Category:Tableware by color would need to be changed, or maybe just deleted because one can just look at the category content farther down the page to see what colors have categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved as per nomination, template fixed. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This category seems unlikely to be useful to me. How can you know something is a photo of a world heritage site, but not know what country it's in? Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete I expect that most World Heritage Sites will be well known where they are, however its possible that we may not know where/which WHS an image is of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A Google search for the term "step-wise building" reveals basically zero results for these structures, far as I can tell. The correct name seems to be "stepped buildings." Gsearch results for the latter are abundant. I have never heard the term "step-wise" building and it appears to be something made up? I believe the entire category tree should be renamed to Category:Stepped buildings, sub-categories included. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree I think you're right. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved by Benzoyl. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this redundant with Category:Works by topic ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The category tree is at "by subject" so I merged to Category:Works by subject. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason to separate these out from Category:Images that should use vector graphics ? Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Category:Images that should use vector graphics has many subcategories. What in particular do you want to discuss about Category:Space images that should use vector graphics, in contrast to those other subcategories? -Apocheir (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Apocheir: Sorry, my mistake. I clicked on Category:Physics images that should use vector graphics (which only has this one sub-category) but thought I was looking at Category:Images that should use vector graphics. I don't actually think sub-categorizing Category:Images that should use vector graphics by subject is particularly helpful, but it's obviously a much bigger discussion than I initiated. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't Category:Scholars by subfield redundant with Category:Scholars by specialty or field of research? Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Merge. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems redundant with that, and also with Category:Scholars by subject. In addition to that, do all the entries here belong under scholars? Architects don't seem like scholars to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I agree with you that architects doesn't belong, but there is surely a need for the subcategories of Category:Scholars by specialty or field of research, no? We could put Category:Historians by field of study right in Category:Scholars by subject, if you want, but separating these out doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Maybe I've misunderstood your comment.- Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just wasn't sure whether philologists and philosophers are considered scholars. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, by the broadest definition - they study and think about something. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I just wasn't sure whether philologists and philosophers are considered scholars. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I agree with you that architects doesn't belong, but there is surely a need for the subcategories of Category:Scholars by specialty or field of research, no? We could put Category:Historians by field of study right in Category:Scholars by subject, if you want, but separating these out doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Maybe I've misunderstood your comment.- Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Controlled talk) I am hushed from expressing all my thoughts, therefore I can only say that I agree with the above observations of Aunt and also add the fact that not only here but also around other academics, scientists ets categorization schemes of Commons there are mistakes, duplications and other redundancies; some of them quite recently created. --E4024 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Scholars by specialty or field of research. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This category is being populated by a bot that mistakenly adds images from STF series cameras instead of just STL cameras like the name of the category suggests. The bot is being run by a something named BotAdventures. I use an STF camera and end up having to manually remove the photos I upload from this category since they don't belong in it. So the bot should either be fixed so that it puts the images in the correct category or the bot should perhaps be deleted. Either way, the bot seems to have been abandoned by it's author and nobody is actually using this category. Dritter wiki (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, it's a typo. I'll rename the category and fix the bot configuration. --ghouston (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed by Ghouston. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that the focus seems to be video games, can we move to Category:Video game researchers? We're not talking about board games or wild game here. Themightyquill (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moved to Category:Video game researchers. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge into parent Category:Flakpanzer V, rename to Category:Flakpanzer Coelian. Coelian was the only anti-aircraft Panther design to get close to realization, and even that one was never produced. One category is sufficient to hold the two images we currently have. Josh (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No opposition in mmonths. Please make the change as you see fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Flakpanzer V Coelian and Category:Flakpanzer V into Category:Flakpanzer Coelian) Josh (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we need this cat and its subcats, created by an ip? Images seem to have been added by hand. There are already User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot and Special:ListFiles/SteinsplitterBot. Achim (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
{{Delete |reason= Sorry, I didn't know those pages existed |subpage=Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Images rotated by Rotatebot |day=20 |month=April |year=2019}} — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.193.238 (talk)
@Achim55: Looks like you have support from the creator if you want to go about emptying and deleting these. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Another mistake in a Montreal university name. The previous move was in error. "Montreal" in this case is a disambiguator. It is not part of the proper name, as reflected by the enwiki main article en:Concordia University and its enwiki category. So rename to Category:Concordia University, Montreal or return it to its previous form without a disambiguator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll just add the enwiki article was moved back to its current form after multiple discussions, per the banner on en:Talk:Concordia University. I'm alerting @Steinsplitter: , who moved the Commons cat to its current location in 2014. Again, "Concordia University Montreal" is neither the official nor commonly used name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Shawn in Montreal: Hi, This was deleted/moved because of this. Feel free to revert the move yourself or file a request here if multiple pages have to be moved. Best. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know about User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category_moves. Let me try that. Looking at other cases of Category:Concordia University here at the Commons there's a good number in various places and they mostly seem to use (City) as the disambiguator. Even though enwiki seems to have settled on Montreal's Concordia University as the primary topic, we don't go by notability here for images that we archive, so the discussions there, over the years, are really besides the point, for our purposes. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing please @Steinsplitter: . I've read Commons:Categories and I'm not sure if we should work to match the wikipedias in naming. Again, enwiki, fr:Université Concordia, de:Concordia University, etc. all without disambiguation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know about User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category_moves. Let me try that. Looking at other cases of Category:Concordia University here at the Commons there's a good number in various places and they mostly seem to use (City) as the disambiguator. Even though enwiki seems to have settled on Montreal's Concordia University as the primary topic, we don't go by notability here for images that we archive, so the discussions there, over the years, are really besides the point, for our purposes. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've turned Category:Concordia University into a disambiguation page. I like your original suggestion of Category:Concordia University, Montreal. I recognize that some of the others use parentheses, but those are all branches of the same organization. I think that's perhaps slightly different. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Concordia University, Montreal. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This could be renamed "Golden Age of Islam" for harmonization with similar cats. BTW some say "Age" others "age". E4024 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which similar cats? Though not definitive, English wikipedia uses en:Islamic Golden Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I double checked, and we currently have no categories containing the words "Golden Age of Islam" so I'm not sure what kind of harmonization you are talking about. - 07:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 03:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Unidentified locations in Strasbourg ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's the other way round. This category was created more than five years ago, while the other one was created less than a year ago.--Edelseider (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Edelseider: Saying that category A is redundant with category B just means that they are for the same thing. It doesn't say which one should be kept. The one that should be kept is the one with the better name.
- Just looking at the nanes, I don't think these are redundant because one specifies location and the other doesn't. Most of the images currently in Category:Pictures of Strasbourg to be categorized could be tied to a location, but some, such as this one, this one, and this one, probably can't (or at least it wouldn't be meaningful. We could just redirect or merge this to Category:Strasbourg. And by the way, why do images in need of better categorization get put under a WikiProject category for the location but not under the location directly? I've seen this with another location, too (Paris). You don't have to be working for the WikiProject to work on these files, and putting them under the WikiProject hides them from general view. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess. But then Category:Unidentified locations in Strasbourg should be a sub-category of the broader Category:Pictures of Strasbourg to be categorized, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it should. :) --Edelseider (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess. But then Category:Unidentified locations in Strasbourg should be a sub-category of the broader Category:Pictures of Strasbourg to be categorized, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Edelseider, Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Butko: we do not need Category:Pictures of Strasbourg to be categorized. Just to be upmerged to category:Strasbourg. Category:Unidentified locations in Strasbourg is necessary maintenance category.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- empty. To be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
_de_Catherine_Zell.jpg){kind=link}
closed. 2 weeks no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
empty overly-specific category with little hope of populating: only file was File:McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15, Ozark Air Lines JP6837547.jpg, now categorized into parent categories Closeapple (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The file belongs in this category so long as the category exists. Emptying the category should only be done after concluding the CfD. I have restored it for the time being until this CfD is closed and consensus is to upmerge. Josh (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you think it "overly-specific"? "Year at Location" are commonly used, so it seems a normal level of specificity for an image. Josh (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you think there is "little hope of populating"? New images and collections are submitted constantly, including historical photograph collections. Josh (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Given that there are few images in Category:1967 in Illinois, few images in Category:Peoria International Airport, few images in Category:1967 in aviation in the United States and no other Category:Peoria International Airport in year x categories, I also find this particulary category rather unnecessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure? I see no "professors", "associate professors", "assistant professors", etc in this university... E4024 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are several images in this category. I'm not sure what the problem is. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oleh Herman - professor, Petro Yasniy - professor, Roman Rogatynskyi - professor, Viktoria Kukharska - professor. The category is supplemented. To be continued. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
No explanation for nomination Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ich halte es für sinnvoll, eine Unterkategorie für meine Fotos "Graffiti-Galerie Niddapark" einzurichten, weiß aber nicht wie. Habe schon versucht, es rauszufinden, wie kann ich die Seite bearbeiten? Nadi2018 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hallo User:Nadi2018, hier ging es nicht darum, eine Seite zu bearbeiten, sondern darum, Bildern eine neue (noch nicht vorhandene) Kategorie zu geben und diese Kategorie zu kategorisieren. Die Graffiti-Bilder gehören dabei nicht in eine Unterkategorie von Category:Murals in Frankfurt am Main, sondern unter Category:Graffiti in Frankfurt am Main. Und die offizielle Bezeichnung für den Niddapark ist "Volkspark Niddatal". Ich habe deshalb die Bilder nach Category:Graffiti-Galerie Volkspark Niddatal verschoben. Beste Grüße, -- Ies (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hallo Ies! Vielen Dank. War ich wenigstens mit meiner Anfrage hier richtig? Ist es grundsätzlich möglich, Änderungen an Seiten durchzuführen (z.B. bei Schreibfehlern in der Infobox)? Kann ich selbst Unter-Kategorien erstellen? Ich habe gestern stundenlang gesucht und kam nicht zurecht. Kannst Du mir bitte noch einen Hinweis geben, wo ich da schnelle Antworten und Anleitung finde? Grüße--Nadi2018 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hallo User:Nadi2018, hier bist Du nicht wirklich richtig. "Categories for discussion" ist eigentlich für Diskussionen zur Richtigkeit von Kategorien gedacht. Z.B. wenn man Inhalte von Kategorien oder Kategorienamen bezweifelt und vor einer evtl. Änderung diskutieren möchte. Eine ausführlichere Antwort schreibe ich deshalb auf Deine Diskussionsseite - sobald ich denn Zeit habe. -- Ies (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hallo Ies! Vielen Dank. War ich wenigstens mit meiner Anfrage hier richtig? Ist es grundsätzlich möglich, Änderungen an Seiten durchzuführen (z.B. bei Schreibfehlern in der Infobox)? Kann ich selbst Unter-Kategorien erstellen? Ich habe gestern stundenlang gesucht und kam nicht zurecht. Kannst Du mir bitte noch einen Hinweis geben, wo ich da schnelle Antworten und Anleitung finde? Grüße--Nadi2018 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong place, closed. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Panzerkampfwagen VI is a designation used for a series of different heavy tank designs which are not sub-sets of each other. This should be a dab or parent category pointing to each of the separate design categories. Josh (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Panzerkampfwagen VI
- Category:Durchbruchswagen 1 (no media at this time, create if it is added)
- Category:Durchbruchswagen 2 (early heavy tank development)
- Category:VK 30.01 (H) (30 ton-class development design by Henschel)
- Category:Sturer Emil (SPG on VK 30.01 (H) chassis)
- Category:VK 30.01 (P) (30 ton-class development design by Porsche)
- Category:Tiger I (Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. E) (the classic Henschel design)
- Category:VK 36.01 (H) (36 ton-class development chassis for the Tiger I)
- Category:Sturmtiger (Sturmmorser Tiger) (assault mortar on Tiger I chassis)
- Category:Bergetiger (Bergepanzer Tiger) (engineering vehicle using Tiger I chassis)
- Category:Tiger (P) (heavier Porsche design to rival Tiger I, but not put in production)
- Category:Panzerjäger Tiger (P) (Ferdinand/Elefant) (heavy tank destroyer based on Tiger (P))
- Category:Bergepanzer Tiger (P) (engineering vehicle using Tiger (P) chassis)
- Category:Tiger II (Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B/Konigstiger) (an even heavier design by Henschel)
- Category:Jagdtiger (tank destroyer based on Tiger II)
- Category:Geschützwagen Tiger (artillery carrier based on Tiger II)
Josh (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No opposition, if you want to go ahead with this. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Well, I've started on sorting them out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GraemeLeggett: Thanks, I must have missed the ping back in 2019 for some reason. Josh (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Well, I've started on sorting them out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and GraemeLeggett: Closed (no objections; re-align per proposal) Josh (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong name for Category:Langeslund Kirke Beethoven9 (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- No opposition, Beethoven9. If it is possible that someone else might make the same mistake, we can redirect. Otherwise, we will delete. Let me know. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
категория пуста Леонид Макаров (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Kim-Putin meetings (2019) -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If it's for churches named "Santo Cristo" there's no need to translate. Rename Category:Santo Cristo churches. Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. --Jonund (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Santo Cristo churches. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, wrongly made unnecessary cat. Look at the EN description and the subcats of "Majlis" and you immediately see that we have a confusion around Iranian parliament(s), the various institutions (and also as a building). E4024 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I looked and I didn't immediately see the problem. Can you please explain? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Unclear nomination, stale discussion Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
水防碑のある通称瓢箪池近くの水道が止められています水の都の大阪で飲料水として唯一ここだけ桜ノ宮公園でのぞを潤す場所として水道を開栓してください９０歳の爺さんより。 61.245.74.127 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Google translate: "The water supply near the so-called Konoike with the flood control monument is stopped. Please open the water supply as a place that only waters here in Sakuranomiya Park as drinking water in Osaka, the city of water."
- I'm afraid I don't understand. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Unclear nomination, stale discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
We have only those scholars from Japan or 2 (two) nationalities for Buddhism scholars. Therefore Scholars of Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc do not make "religious studies" but those scholars who study Buddhism or come from Japan yes, they do. I am not going to make any policy proposals, simply opening into discussion this cat. E4024 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand your concern with this category except that you feel there should be more subcategories, which you are welcome to create. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Any development here? Or is the situation OK, and we just hope the get here more subcategories?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
No problem with the category itself. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
This category should be written as Category:1989 Tiananmen Square protests for consistency, there is a consensus about it in enwiki: see here. Hddty. (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's no expectation of consistency between English Wikipedia and Commons. There was consensus at the linked talk page, but it was based on the wikipedia manual of style. I don't think our manual of style has any such guideline, nor is there any consistent structure about where to put a date in our categories. If, however, you feel strongly about it and no one else is opposed, I don't have any particular problem with a move. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I second Themightyquill's view. Both names are equivalent in its meaning. Commons doesnt have a strict style guide for this kind of word choice. Many subcats have been named as this, so no point moving it for aesthetic purposes.--Roy17 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- A redirect, however, seems quite reasonable so I've made one. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. No consensus to move. However, the redirect is done Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Muslim and missionary look strange. In the "Muslim neighbourhoods", "missionary" is a Christian who has come to make them Christians. They know no Muslim missionaries. There is only one person inside whose files are not PD. I could simply take him out and propose the empty cat for deletion but I hate imposing. That is why I invite you here to defend or reject the cat. E4024 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: what you would prefer to call people involved in the activities described at en:Islamic missionary activity? Is there perhaps an agent-noun derived from dawah that’s used in English? I do think some such category is wanted, under whatever name.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- English wikipedia's en:Category:Muslim missionaries is long established and far from empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was keep. Enwiki has well-established en:Category:Muslim missionaries Estopedist1 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
There were no city pavilions at Expo 67. Rename without leaving a redirect to something like Category:Pavilions of Expo 67 (Canadian provinces and U.S. states) per en:Expo_67_pavilions#Provincial_and_state_pavilions or anything else that sounds reasonable. I just don't think we need to leave behind a redirect in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- We have more of Canada: Category:Indians of Canada Pavilion. This should be turned into a country cat, US States have their own cat. --E4024 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- By "This should be turned into a country cat" I think you're saying a category that includes Category:Canada Pavilion, Category:Indians of Canada Pavilion and the provinces. If so, I've no objection to that, I suppose. It's not how the pavilions are grouped in the enwiki main article, but that's not an argument against it here. But you'd need to come up with a name because the Canada pavilion, provincial pavilions and a privately sponsored pavilion by Indigenous peoples are rather different things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let's find a Canadian Commoner who can baptise the new cat. --E4024 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am such a person -- I live in Montreal, heavily attended Expo 67, and have even worked on Expo 67-related historical materials professionally as an adult for a Canadian gov't agency. I think I'm as qualified a person as you're going to find. But I'm not sold enough on your suggestion to propose such a name, because I'm leery about attempting to bundle Canada's national pavilion, provincial pavilions and a privately sponsored pavilion by Indigenous people in this way. Here is a link to a no-longer-fully functional official Library and Archives Canada website that speaks of "national" pavilions (which include Canada of course) and then "regional" pavilions -- which lump together provinces and Indians of Canada, interestingly. I suppose that could serve as one guide. But the best source is the original Expo 67 official guide, which I have: It speaks of Theme pavilions (of which Habitat 67 is not officially a member, despite a claim I've seen from Icarusgeek), National pavilions, Provincial pavilions and Private pavilions (where Indians of Canada is found). As for the US states (for which we have no images to date) they are sub-grouped as American state pavilions within national pavilions. So that would be my choice if this Cfd was to rename pavilion categories more broadly than I had suggested. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- But certainly it's simplest to just rename to Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces)
or perhaps forgo the parenthetical thing and create Category:Canadian provincial pavilions at Expo 1967. And worry about the two US state pavilions if we ever get any images. Thanks again. If this Cfd closes no consensus I may just do that, via a move and speedy delete. if that's OK. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- But certainly it's simplest to just rename to Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces)
- I am such a person -- I live in Montreal, heavily attended Expo 67, and have even worked on Expo 67-related historical materials professionally as an adult for a Canadian gov't agency. I think I'm as qualified a person as you're going to find. But I'm not sold enough on your suggestion to propose such a name, because I'm leery about attempting to bundle Canada's national pavilion, provincial pavilions and a privately sponsored pavilion by Indigenous people in this way. Here is a link to a no-longer-fully functional official Library and Archives Canada website that speaks of "national" pavilions (which include Canada of course) and then "regional" pavilions -- which lump together provinces and Indians of Canada, interestingly. I suppose that could serve as one guide. But the best source is the original Expo 67 official guide, which I have: It speaks of Theme pavilions (of which Habitat 67 is not officially a member, despite a claim I've seen from Icarusgeek), National pavilions, Provincial pavilions and Private pavilions (where Indians of Canada is found). As for the US states (for which we have no images to date) they are sub-grouped as American state pavilions within national pavilions. So that would be my choice if this Cfd was to rename pavilion categories more broadly than I had suggested. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let's find a Canadian Commoner who can baptise the new cat. --E4024 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- By "This should be turned into a country cat" I think you're saying a category that includes Category:Canada Pavilion, Category:Indians of Canada Pavilion and the provinces. If so, I've no objection to that, I suppose. It's not how the pavilions are grouped in the enwiki main article, but that's not an argument against it here. But you'd need to come up with a name because the Canada pavilion, provincial pavilions and a privately sponsored pavilion by Indigenous peoples are rather different things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I like the Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces) - obviously better than my original foolery and it covers the current ground. And it's handy to be able to click on top level country division pavilions in each expo Icarusgeek (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Icarusgeek and I see that you were following previous examples by other editors when you used the parentheticals so I'm fine with Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I subsribe to this excellent idea as Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces).Laubel (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Icarusgeek and I see that you were following previous examples by other editors when you used the parentheticals so I'm fine with Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I like the Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces) - obviously better than my original foolery and it covers the current ground. And it's handy to be able to click on top level country division pavilions in each expo Icarusgeek (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was move to Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (Canadian provinces) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is the need for religion? Do we have a "Category:Christian feminists"? Why should we be separating people by religion? How do we know their inner world? Why do we need to make this classification? E4024 (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral comment: We don't have Category:Christian feminists but we do have Category:Jewish feminists and Category:Buddhist feminists. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is useful to identify women who take a feminist stance in regard to their religion of birth (or adoption). This would be parallel to categories that identify people by their stance on a belief system, such as Creationists or Rationalists. These categories are useful to readers who are looking for representatives of the belief system. (The category "Christian feminists" has value, and would include Mary Daly, among others.) The problem, however, is that the same category, "Muslim feminists," also applies to feminists who are born Muslim but either don't practice the religion or whose feminism is expressed for entirely secular goals. The same is true for feminists born into other traditions. Perhaps the category page could include a description at the top stating that it should include only women who take a feminist stance in regard to their religion of birth (or adoption). Downtowngal (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Downtowngal@Themightyquill: the nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Feminists by religion (although scarcely populated). Closest enwiki entry is en:List of Muslim feminists, which also explains the content of the list Estopedist1 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is useful to identify women who take a feminist stance in regard to their religion of birth (or adoption). This would be parallel to categories that identify people by their stance on a belief system, such as Creationists or Rationalists. These categories are useful to readers who are looking for representatives of the belief system. (The category "Christian feminists" has value, and would include Mary Daly, among others.) The problem, however, is that the same category, "Muslim feminists," also applies to feminists who are born Muslim but either don't practice the religion or whose feminism is expressed for entirely secular goals. The same is true for feminists born into other traditions. Perhaps the category page could include a description at the top stating that it should include only women who take a feminist stance in regard to their religion of birth (or adoption). Downtowngal (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to fit the category tree. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Cumbria wasn't created until 1974. This category is nonsense. There are a number of related categories with the same problem.
- Category:Cumbria in the 1970s keep - just listed here as a container
- Category:Cumbria in the 1960s
- Category:Cumbria in the 1950s
- Category:Cumbria in the 1930s
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- as you hinted at there are large numbers of categories like this, including ones pertaining to countries. Making a decision just covering this category would not be smart, there needs to be a more centraliaed and visible discussion on this matter so that we don't all end up pushing in different directions Oxyman (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- So what are you suggesting? Do nothing? Delete the correct categories instead, like Category:1969 in Cumberland as "long term empty categories with little chance to ever get meaningfull content" Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No county = no category. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fine if that's an official policy, do you fancy applying it to all the other Categories pertaining to a not yet existing entity? Or is it just a random action on this category? Too many people here only see what is happening in front of them and forget about the project wide issues, which overall is not too helpful. Oxyman (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- If Cumbria existed before as geographical and cultural entity (i.e.: Italy. A thing named "Italy" existed way before being administatively and politically a sovereign country in 1861) I could concede that it might be used. Otherwise is like Merseyside in 1855 or Vatican City in 1910: simply there was nothing that could be called "Merseyside" nor "Vatican City". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever, You still haven't grasped the point being made, do you fancy applying it to all the other Categories pertaining to a not yet existing entity? Or is it just a random action on this category? Pretty pointless just making up a decision just for this category. Also irrelevant smilies are irrelevant and add nothing to the discussion. Oxyman (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you able to provide a link to an official policy on this matter? If so please do anything else is just extemporaneous guff Oxyman (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- So what are you suggesting? Are you intending to start such a broader discussion? Or are you just stonewalling here because it's a category that you created? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- In creating this category I was just following the format already used by others such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1972_in_Cumbria&action=history . Not really bothered about about what happens about this particular category. I can just see forward far enough to see that a unique decision made here will not help much, just add to confusion and inevitably won't be respected by all editors over the long term. Oxyman (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- So what are you suggesting? Are you intending to start such a broader discussion? Or are you just stonewalling here because it's a category that you created? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you able to provide a link to an official policy on this matter? If so please do anything else is just extemporaneous guff Oxyman (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever, You still haven't grasped the point being made, do you fancy applying it to all the other Categories pertaining to a not yet existing entity? Or is it just a random action on this category? Pretty pointless just making up a decision just for this category. Also irrelevant smilies are irrelevant and add nothing to the discussion. Oxyman (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it should be applied wherever this issue exists. There are at least a couple of flavors of it. One is the type being discussed here, where an entity was created in a certain year but the area involved had a different name before that. The other is where there was no past defined name for the area, and we get categories like Category:United States in the 8th century. For the former, we have the older name to use. For the latter, we might have to use the continent name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- What about cases where special pleading exists such as the special pleading about Italy seen above in this discussion? Oxyman (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- For Italy, we could qualify it as they do on English Wikipedia (see en:Italy (disambiguation)). I don't know if the entries there include the older "Italy" that Blackcat had in mind. For other places, we might have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Say 13th-14th century, when our language became widespread with Dante and Petrarca. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- A case-by-case basis sounds awfully like inconsistent decisions and fudging will happen. I foresee many difficulties in seriously applying this as a general policy such as what will happen to demolished structures and closed railway stations categories and no one can tell what unforeseen difficulties it will lead to. The matter needs far greater looking at then making thoughtless blanket statements such as "No county = no category." Oxyman (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- In an ideal world, I'd agree with you, but the realities of how names get assigned and changed, and how political geography changes, could make it difficult to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- For Italy, we could qualify it as they do on English Wikipedia (see en:Italy (disambiguation)). I don't know if the entries there include the older "Italy" that Blackcat had in mind. For other places, we might have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- What about cases where special pleading exists such as the special pleading about Italy seen above in this discussion? Oxyman (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- If Cumbria existed before as geographical and cultural entity (i.e.: Italy. A thing named "Italy" existed way before being administatively and politically a sovereign country in 1861) I could concede that it might be used. Otherwise is like Merseyside in 1855 or Vatican City in 1910: simply there was nothing that could be called "Merseyside" nor "Vatican City". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Gentlemen, so what are we going to do? That's clearly a category about a non-existent entity. I don't care for broader discussion, the case in exam is rather sheer. I guess that after 2 and half months we can decide. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't care for the discussion then why comment on it? No point in making a random and inconsistent decision for this category only. As we can see above there is no clear policy for decision on cases like this. Oxyman (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Retroactively extend modern political borders to the past is the easiest, clearest, and most useful for the average reader, way of drawing lines around areas in the past. Italy, which is supposedly so easy, has been trading chunks of land with Austria and Switzerland and France and Croatia for centuries. Is Nice part of France (in which case we're using modern borders) or is it part of Italy when it was part of an Italian state (which is not going to be clear in the general sense)? Or are we going to have no general category for the Italian area, and expect that readers looking for images of Italy before unification know all the little country names?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The name "Italy" has always existed as geographical area since the Roman Empire. Could you say the same for "Cumbria"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, but "the term Cumbria was in use in the 10th century AD" (w:History of Cumbria). And as I said, Italy is too vague to form a good category unless you're referring to the modern country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is about accessibleing of media files. Categorizing media files by year is very useful and it is widely in use her. Those categorys may include media files that may refer to the entity. easier to find media files by year. If someone so much bothers about establishment date, we can add small version of Wikidata Infobox that include the name of the entity and the "Inception" date. This is definitely wider discussion, see Category:1964 in Saint Petersburg, Category:1375 in Russia, Category:1375 in Azerbaijan, Category:1750 in Croatia, Category:1475 in Spain' Category:1476 in India, Category:1476 in Italy, Category:1799 in Poland, Category:1576 in Slovenia, Category:1576 in China, Category:1576 in Peru or Category:1576 in Japan etc.. -- Geagea (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Since we seem to be voting on it. It seems that these retrospective categories are inline with normal practice here and we need to be consistent with ourselves on this matter, not just act on whims. Oxyman (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The concept of Cumbria as a region appears to be longstanding, as far as I can tell, and it doesn't look like an anachronism to say that something happened in Cumbria in 1973. This doesn't appear to be like categories for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 1485" or "Roman Empire in 1973". Rather, let's treat this like East Anglia or Wessex, both well-known regions that don't have governmental existence today. Would it be useful to have categories for 1973 in either of them? If having categories-by-year is not done for informal regions of this sort (i.e. it's done exclusively by jurisdictions), I can see myself switching to delete, but without evidence for such a situation, and without evidence that these are outright bad categories (e.g. the code's hopelessly broken, or there aren't any files to put in them), I have to default to keep. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- PS, most of the items on Geagea's list are fine. I don't know about the history of Azerbaijan (did it exist as a separate concept in the 14th century), and I'm doubtful about Slovenia in 1576, but most of them make sense: Peru was created in 1542, China has been a distinct region of the world since before the Christian era, Japan is a well-defined collection of islands if nothing else, Poland was a recognised region in 1799 even after the partitions, and so on. At worst, some of them (e.g. 1964 in St Petersburg) need to be renamed, but not deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not necessarily because it should be removed but because it should be empty and ergo removed. 1973 in Cumbria doesn't exist because the images within this category should be in either Category:1973 in Cumberland or Category:1973 in Westmorland. Same for every image that existed before it. Those are in areas which can be identified by their current counties. It could contain those other categories and nothing more but the 1973 and 1974 categories need a lot of reorganization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: as to the empty ones, Not done as to the ones with content without prejudice to a new discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Female diplomats of Turkey
- Category:Female diplomats of Gambia & Category:Male diplomats of Gambia
- Category:Female diplomats of Hungary & Category:Male diplomats of Hungary
- Category:Female diplomats of Australia
- Category:Female diplomats of India
Is it correct to have a Category:Female diplomats of the United States when no equivalent exists for males (such as: Category:Male diplomats of the United States)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Recommendations: Delete this category as a violation of the Universality principle. No such distinct category exists for Category:Diplomats of France or any other Category:Diplomats by country (from what I have checked). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. All new cats begin with a few subcats; and get developed. Look around and you will see that most "female cats" began without the "male counterparts" and then rather quickly the "male cats" were added. I am even supporting "male actors" against "actresses". Please instead of doing this go create "male diplomats" cats. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I do stand corrected in the one regard that two actually do have male counterparts. However, counting the 167 subcats of Category:Diplomats by country shows that only these 6 countries even bother separating by gender. It's useless considering Category:Female diplomats independently exists, and this will just lead to over categorization. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with E4024. Besides, if you want to achieve the universality principle, you are welcome to creating Category:Male diplomats as you like, deleting Category:Female diplomats still won't solve anything. --Howard61313 (talk) 10 April 2019 (Wed) 07:22 (UTC)
- Keep but agree that Category:Male diplomats of the United States should be created parallel to it. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Why does it matter for diplomats? Why not "Blonde diplomats of the United States" or "Brown-eyed diplomats of the United States"? It can be a meaningful classification for sportsmen, but meaningless one for diplomats. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point. If we go that route, though, we have to recognize that Category:Women by occupation and Category:Men by occupation will be missing some occupations. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Both Auntie and Sneeuwschaap sound right, although I opined sharply at the beginning. Civilized discussions help me to understand everybody's concerns. I will follow this discussion with interest. --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: As I previously explained, we have Category:Female diplomats. It would not be affected by this deletion. I just find the redundancy of sorting them twice silly into Category:Female diplomats and a subcategory of a subcategory of Category:Diplomats by country. We don't have Category:Female diplomats by country, so why should have Category:Female diplomats of Turkey? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sneeuwschaap, Auntof6, MJL, and E4024: Eliminating gendered categories for occupations is a valid point, but a much larger discussion than this CfD. I suggest opening a CfD for Category:People by occupation by gender. I would be inclined to listen to such a case, but for the time being we do have gendered occupation categories, so my only point is that so long as this is the case, they should be parallel, and 'female' should not be structured as a sub-cat of 'male'. This is why I suggest keeping the existing category and putting male diplomats in their own category alongside it. If we later eliminate gendered occupation categories, great, they can go away along with the hundreds of others. Josh (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Josh, I would be okay with withdrawing this to start an Request for Comment on all intersections of categories containing people factored out by gender, country, and/or occupation (Assuming there was consensus for such). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is fine. When that CfD is started, I would agree with subsuming this one into that. Josh (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Josh, I would be okay with withdrawing this to start an Request for Comment on all intersections of categories containing people factored out by gender, country, and/or occupation (Assuming there was consensus for such). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point. If we go that route, though, we have to recognize that Category:Women by occupation and Category:Men by occupation will be missing some occupations. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- A personal note: When I began discussing male-female categorization, I do not remember if it was here or in some WP, it was over sportsmen and sportswomen (nowadays strangely called "male sportspeople and female sportspeople"). I was very sure of my case due to the "segregation" sort of to say it, in most sports which is due to known factors. If we had different categories in real life, we had to have them in WPs and Commons. Thereafter I also began to show an interest in "female pioneers". For me it was important to separate -alright maybe also give some visibility too- to women who have achieved to break several walls -ehem, before other women- in a men-dominated era. Say the first female doctors, governors, pilots (when I was a kid it was rare to see a female driver at the small city I grew up). Therefore, as a women's rights champ, I saw it necessary to make these separations and still incline to do so. However, I am all ears to listen to suggestions about lack of need for gender categorization in certain professions. Let me tell you something: I remember when a woman was the first Turkish Ambassador (not so long ago) and today the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs have a 50-50 men-women situation in career diplomats. Not only in comfortable cities of "the West" but also in Subsaharan Africa Turkish embassies are headed by career women. One of our two military air acrobat teams is commanded by a female officer-pilot. Today maybe it is not so necessary to have a cat for female pilots, or maybe it is... I will listen. --E4024 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: it is obvious that male/female categorization is excess in this topic, because diplomats are not divided into male diplomats and female diplomats. Also it's true for most occupations, as example physicists, economists etc (except sport, where is official gender division).
About diplomats, there is no difference between male and female diplomats. If someone search diplomats of USA, it's not important for him, is it male or female. By this reason, excess categorization is incorrect and uncomfortable. Categorization based on insignificant attributes is not needing.
Otherwise, we can create categories based on all possible attributes, like height, hair, eye, skin color, etc (e.g. Economists from the United States with brown hair); but in this case categories will be not usable. Лапоть (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC). - Opinion: While here please keep in mind that we have categories for "Women of (any country) by occupation"; it is not like Category:Blond people from Sweden by occupation. Attention! E4024 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? Imho it's same case. Gender is same insignificant in relation to diplomats, as hair color, etc. Has you seen some catalogs, encyclopedias or other sources where diplomats are separated by male and female diplomats? Лапоть (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- Keep. I think that separating such categories by gender is useful. I would support either splitting the category entirely into male and female subcategories, or categorizing files both into the master and gendered categories. My reasoning is that if I were a reuser, I might very well be looking specifically for images of female diplomats (or females of other occupations), perhaps to illustrate some article on the advancement of women in that occupation. While possible, it seems much less likely that I would specifically be looking for an image of a blonde diplomat or a tall diplomat or whatever else. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
kept all "Female / Male diplomats of xx". this topic has been discussed many times. because there're many jobs in Category:Women by occupation, we cannot stop people from creating the equivalent cats for diplomats or any occupation that exists in the world.--RZuo (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- trop longue (1183 fichiers) Io Herodotus (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- This category is too long with 1183 files. Also a question :What is the difference between "Automobiles at GIMS 2019" and
"Automobiles at GIMS 2019""Geneva International Motor Show 2019" ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Io Herodotus: there is no maximum file number per category. But you are welcome to help disperse the category. Furthermore "Automobiles at GIMS 2019" and "Automobiles at GIMS 2019" is exactly the same thing, so I don't get the question.
- Cheers --MB-one (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for our answer.
- Wrong copy-paste. I meant "Geneva International Motor Show 2019".
- Or for instance would "Rolls-Royce at the Motorshow Geneva 2019" and "Rolls-Royce at GIMS 2019" be the same thing ?
- I have seen long categories with a banner telling to split it off, but I couldn't find that banner. --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Io Herodotus: Geneva International Motor Show 2019 is the general category for all aspects of the event, while Automobiles at GIMS 2019 is only for images of the cars. Also, I inserted the requested banner to the category. --MB-one (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexander-93: @MB-one: There is a need for the 2019 Rolls-Royce (cars only) at GIM 2019.
- Category:Rolls-Royce at the Motorshow Geneva 2019 already exists, but it includes people. User:Alexander-93 (the creator) says it's not called "Rolls-Royce vehicles" therefore it may have people on it (see his talk page). What would be the correct category?
- Rolls-Royce vehicles at the Motorshow Geneva 2019" or "Rolls-Royce at GIMS 2019" ?
- Let's have a look at the categories; for instance (I take the first of the list) "Category:Abarth at the Motorshow Geneva 2019" could be called "Category:Abarth at the GIM 2019".
- I'm confused.
- --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Motorshow Geneva" and "GIMS" are identical. The former is a common name, while the latter is the abbreviation of the official name.--MB-one (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is what I thought, but I wasn't sure. In that case why both categories exist? Also there is a need to have a category for cars and another one for people.--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- The terms "Motorshow Geneva" and "Geneva International Motor Show" are currently used interchangeably here on Commons. I prefer the official name for the main category of each edition and the abbreviation for subcategories of these. However, apart from the Rolls-Royce example (which is fixed now), I am not aware of the existence of a completely redundant category pair with both names used. --MB-one (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is what I thought, but I wasn't sure. In that case why both categories exist? Also there is a need to have a category for cars and another one for people.--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Motorshow Geneva" and "GIMS" are identical. The former is a common name, while the latter is the abbreviation of the official name.--MB-one (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Io Herodotus: Geneva International Motor Show 2019 is the general category for all aspects of the event, while Automobiles at GIMS 2019 is only for images of the cars. Also, I inserted the requested banner to the category. --MB-one (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. We definitely should use one term for this show. In general, abbreviations in category names should be avoided (especially if parent category name is not in abbreviated form). Unfortunately enwiki article is under the name en:Geneva Motor Show, but its first sentence and logo show "Geneva International Motor Show". Currently our parent category name is Category:Geneva International Motor Show. I guess we can use this longer name (with the word "international") in all our subcategories as well--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Estopedist1. --MB-one (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Most churches in Colombia are named in Spanish. Besides, St. Anthony may be various saints, the full name of the category should be Iglesia de San Antonio de Padua, Arma instead. ·×ald·es 19:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- if there is no widely known name in English, then solution per user:XalD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Iglesia de San Antonio de Padua, Arma per discussion here and similar categories in Category:Saint Anthony of Padua churches in Colombia. GeorgHH • talk 22:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete it please. E4024 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- We don't even have such a "personal" diplomacy cat for Talleyrand, considered to be one of the founding fathers of modern diplomacy nor for anyone else. Please note that this is not about "other stuff exists or does not exist" but about NPOV within the general structure of Commons. --E4024 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be unique diplomacy category for a concrete person. Any objections against deleting?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Category deleted. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No category description and no link to any wikipedia article. No other references found on google. What is this category about, please? Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- can the creator (user:Ashashyou) explains the situation? If not, then subcategories to be upmerged and this category to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)