Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/09
2001:4898:80E8:2:C27C:C7B3:7513:970E 07:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy close as vandalism (youtube links to a children's show) Renata3 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Spam. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Need to complete history of Castle Carey: To whom was Castle Carey immedialtely afterr the Norman invasion? 216.49.181.128 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- If it's not clear from en:Cary Castle, you might try asking at en:Talk:Cary Castle. This is just a category for images. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Category requires no discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a maintenance category from uploads to WLM 2018 using Monumental, now that the 2019 competition has begun, no more images should appear in this category. Smirkybec (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
bad redirect? To delete? See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/05/Category:Temp Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I should have deleted it when I moved it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Maintenance category from WLM IE in 2017, all images have been categorised, and no new images will be uploaded to it. Smirkybec (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Markthal (Rotterdam) ErickAgain 08:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Merged.
Thank you. --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Merged. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Not required Broichmore (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Nomination by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please delete this category. It was created with the wrong birth year (should have been 1955, not 1958). There is another NFL player by the same name born in 1958 (w:Mark Murphy (safety, born 1958)) so this shouldn't redirect to the 1955 player (w:Mark Murphy (safety, born 1955)). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please change the title so "Albania" has a capital "A". Thanks in advance. 51.37.104.208 12:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: moved. --Achim (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Empty and unused category. Solomon203 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Solomon203: Closed (speedy delete) Josh (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
microsoft.com 2001:4898:80E8:F:D088:20C2:40E7:E0D5 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination by anonip. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Category:Museum of Music and Folklore of the Yakutia People and place in Category:Sakha people ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
OK: sounds logical--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Museum of Music and Folklore of the Yakutia People. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please delete, category is named Category:Padottanasana, this one created in error. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Television hosts of the United States GRuban (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Close: redirected and contents moved. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
what is between the sun and the moon? 142.254.26.9 11:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Spam. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63LwtU2KMs 2001:4898:80E8:0:A6F:E516:178C:1A6E 12:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Spam. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate category created in error Smirkybec (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Smirkybec: If you know the name of the duplicate category, you can use the {{Bad name}} template to request deletion of this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its probably Category:Oldtown church, Dublin which has the same National Inventory of Architectural Heritage number but redirecting might be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: @Crouch, Swale: is right. I was going to redirect, but I literally just created it, so nothing should be pointing to it. Thanks for the tip, hopefully I won't need it too often! Smirkybec (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its probably Category:Oldtown church, Dublin which has the same National Inventory of Architectural Heritage number but redirecting might be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Oldtown church, Dublin. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Typo in title CeeGee (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Sikorsky S-70 Turkish Gendarmerie. @CeeGee: Next time, please use {{Bad name}} (e.g. {{Bad name|Sikorsky S-70 Turkish Gendarmerie}}.) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
cat:Cervo is not reserved, therefore it is bad solution to use cat:Cervo (disambiguation). Only admin can fix it Estopedist1 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move the dab page to Category:Cervo. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy move per w:WP:MALPLACED since there is no primary topic on Wikipedia either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Did you have some plan here? On 25 September, rather than moving Category:Cervo (disambiguation) as requested, you deleted, it and left Category:Cervo as a broken redirect, and then failed to even close discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
To be deleted, replaced by Category:Kolding Town Hall Beethoven9 (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- A redirect might be useful here. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. Redirected to Category:Kolding Town Hall by me. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- category:Antanas Smetona by period
- category:Antanas Smetona by decade
- category:Antanas Smetona in the 1940s
- category:Antanas Smetona in 1937
- category:Antanas Smetona in 1934
- category:Antanas Smetona in 1939
- category:Antanas Smetona in the 1930s
- category:Antanas Smetona in 1929
- category:Antanas Smetona in the 1920s
- category:Antanas Smetona in the 1910s
- category:Antanas Smetona in 1918
Not enough files (9 in total) to justify categorizing by year which makes it difficult to view and find the images (categories recently created by an IP) Renata3 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete and collapse into Category:Antanas Smetona. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)- Delete I agree with User:Jeff G.. People go overboard creating these types of categories, apparently just because they can. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The same apply to many date-based categories. I am not completely against them (have created many myself) but they should be used with consideration. ––Apalsola t • c 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Renata3, Jeff G., Auntof6, and Apalsola: Closed (no objections; upmerge all proposed into Category:Antanas Smetona) Josh (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
異議申立書 加害者が不起訴処分になって 納得がいかないので 2400:2651:9200:3400:E075:6225:591D:365C 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept the category cannot be deleted on that reason, because it is not empty. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)}}
Le Petit Chat (talk · contribs) has suggested (via move) that this category should be named Category:Marine nationale (Bénin) with the comment "If you want the proper name". I presume this is because this matches the article name on French wiki. However it is neither the proper name in English (Benin Naval Forces) or in French (Forces Navales Béninoises). I recommend we keep the current name per COM:CAT. Josh (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'm sorry, I checked and you are right, the name is Forces Navales Béninoises [1]. Please accept all my apologies, I am embarrassed.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Le Petit Chat: Absolutely no apology needed. I am always learning new things. That is why we have discussions. Josh (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Le Petit Chat: Closed (resolved; no action required) Josh (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
No images, empty category Boothsift 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Category is no longer empty --Boothsift 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: Closed (withdrawn by nominator) Josh (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Propose merge to Category:Hypervalent molecules, as the contents to not seem distinct. I chose ...molecules as the unified target because it is the term used in several wikipedias for this topic (en:Hypervalent molecule and other languages). DMacks (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- When I made that category this other category didn't exist. I would support this, it sounds reasonable.--Officer781 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Merged. Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:International Association of Fire Fighters for clarity Themightyquill (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; move Category:IAFF to Category:International Association of Fire Fighters) Josh (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
FAKE...¿ Meekrab2012 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Among the 54 refs on en:Chromium(III) picolinate, some that appear to be en:WP:MEDRS-level sources and use this term in their title. Care to explain the basis of your claim that this is "FAKE"? DMacks (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep An administrator is needed to place order. --Allforrous (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the reason why this category should be deleted or moved to another lemma! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 18:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept. No meaningful proposal has been made. Ed (Edgar181) 20:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This has the same problems as Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Education in the European Union by country, plus, it doesn't house categories for organizations of the european union. e.g. it has Category:Organizations of Poland not Category:European Union organizations of Poland. The same applies to Category:Symbols of the European Union by country, Category:Coats of arms of the European Union by country, and Category:Logos of political parties in the European Union by country Themightyquill (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Themightyquill. The category names are misleading, and the categories redundant to categories like Category:Organizations by country and Category:Organizations of Europe. ––Apalsola t • c 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The EU is more an economic entity than a geographic one, so we don't need to categorize stuff under the EU that isn't specifically related to being in the EU. I'm also seeing other stuff under Category:European Union that may not belong, such as society and nature. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as not really being organizations of the European Union, but instead organizations of countries that happen to be EU members. Category:Organizations of the European Union is for organizations directly pertaining to the multi-national EU entity, not specific to member states. The only regional grouping we currently do is by continent (which I find even that of dubious value). All other groupings, whether political, economic, geographic or otherwise, should not be used from grouping their member states in 'by country' indices on various topics. Josh (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The purpose (at the very least the name) of this category lacks clarity. What is it? A handful of personalities the creator of the category deems as "important"? In that case, I do not think the category abides by the rules regarding cateorgies on Commons. Or does it gather the personalities who has a (bronze ?) statue in the city? in that case what about Category:Sculptures in historic reserve (Prešov) or Category:Statues in Prešov, why that name, and why this category is not included in this set of cateogries? Rhadamante (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Merge contents into Category:People of Prešov and delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this category is beneficial beyond Category:Street photography or Category:Pedestrians. Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know, either. To me, "Man on the street" means a person stopping passersby to ask questions. I don't see that theme here. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the most part I would merge most of this content into Category:Pedestrians and its subcats, with a few odd ones needing to go somewhere else (e.g. Category:People with automobiles) Josh (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted.
Is Category:Tree charts redundant with Category:Tree diagrams ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: These is no real difference between the content of these two categories. Any objection to an upmerge into Category:Tree diagrams? Josh (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Tree diagrams. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
How is Category:Explanatory diagrams different from Category:Diagrams? Don't all diagrams explain? Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Agreed. Upmerge seems fine to me. Josh (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Deteled. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Isn't Category:Round charts redundant with Category:Round diagrams? Themightyquill (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Agreed, no difference, so let's upmerge charts into diagrams. Josh (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Round diagrams. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Port of Rotterdam, no reason to add this awkwardly named category fro the same content. ErickAgain 08:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, merge Category:Harbour, Rotterdam into Category:Port of Rotterdam. Josh (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Port of Rotterdam. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Is Category:Food product brands redundant with Category:Brand name food products? Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. It is pending to merge and redirect. Which name is appropriate?--Allforrous (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think Category:Food product brands matches better with the category tree, but if anyone has a strong argument in the other direction, I'm willing to listen. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think the same.--Allforrous (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think Category:Food product brands matches better with the category tree, but if anyone has a strong argument in the other direction, I'm willing to listen. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Food product brands. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
To delete. Dublicate Category:Wiki Loves Monuments exhibitions in Ukraine in 2019. Atoly (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Veterok and Ugolyok per en:Soviet space dogs. Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK done--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Rename Category:Phonetics and phonology of Russian dialects ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Phonetics and phonology of Russian dialects. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is "gangway" being used here, if gangways are meant for Category:Boarding (transport) ? en:Belém Tower says "The Belém Tower is (...) accessible at the western end of the Avenida de Brasília by a small bridge." Themightyquill (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bridge of Torre de Belém. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Baja, Hungary, along with subcategories. Baja is ambiguous, as demonstrated by the numerous incorrectly categorized files here. Category:Baja could be a disambiguation page. Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree; when I created the category in 2006, I was unaware of the other meanings of the word, but I see now that a rename is necessary. Thanks for pointing this out, renaming to "Baja, Hungary" will keep the category free of erroneously categorized stuff. Best, – Alensha msg 09:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename and making this a disambiguation page. It is rare that the name of a populated place isn't also used for other things, so most should be qualified. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Support given that w:Baja is already a DAB and the threshold for primary topics here is higher. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved content to Category:Baja, Hungary and converted to dab page. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Over disambiguation and use of acronym. Move to Category:Rio Dulce, La Romana or Category:Rio Dulce, Dominican Republic. Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I would favor Category:Rio Dulce, Dominican Republic as the broader option, unless there are multiple Rio Dulces in the Dominican Republic. Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rio Dulce, Dominican Republic. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a useful intersection of categories. If "Grilled sausages and tomatoes" was considered a standard dish or even a standard accompaninment somewhere, then maybe. But this category mostly shows these two items in combination with other foods. Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this a duplicate of Category:Cuisine of Nepal? Auntof6 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say. See Category:Mexican cuisine. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry about that! Feel free to merge/redirect away! Missvain (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Cuisine of Nepal. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Hydro has proposed a move from Category:Easter Bunny to Category:Easter Bunnies on the grounds that "Commons categorizes in plural". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per COMMONNAME and Santa Claus. This is practically a singulare tantum. Yes, we have managed to photograph many examples of easter bunnies. However, conceptually, there is only one single ur-bunny. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also oppose (and also thought of Category:Santa Claus) but I suppose Category:Chocolate Easter Bunny might be renamed Category:Chocolate Easter Bunnies. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Although there are many different variations and interpretations in depictions they are of a single fictional character "the Easter Bunny", so the name is singular in the same way as "Santa Claus", "Uncle Sam", "Smokey Bear", etc. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept as is. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Is Category:Native medicine redundant with Category:Traditional medicine? Themightyquill (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Merged content into Category:Traditional medicine. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Military uniforms of Slovakia to match peers in Category:Military uniforms by country? Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Military uniforms of Slovakia. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This could be deleted. It's redundant, because Category:Lac Blanc (Orbey) exists. Kulmalukko (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Turn into disambiguation page, with Category:Lac Blanc (Orbey), Category:Lac Blanc (Chamonix), Category:Lac-Blanc, Quebec. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, that's better. --Kulmalukko (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Umbenennung in „Brick stamps in Jerichower Land“ Georgfotoart (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ohne Umbenennung würden viele sehr kleine Unterkategorien entstehen.--Georgfotoart (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This category should be deleted, since it was created to house a single misidentified image of Cisticola juncidis (presumably because the photo had fan-tailed warbler - an alternate common name for this species - in the title, despite that Cisticola juncidis doesn't resemble Basileuterus lachrymosus at all and that Parulidae has an exclusively New World distribution). (There are only a handful of Spanish records of vagrant parulids, none of which have photos on Wikimedia Commons.) Spizaetus (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Besides, the category is empty, maybe JuTa wants to take care of it, when he’s done dealing with other empty cats such as Category:January 2019 in Africa. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
name error Maksim L. (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Maksim L.: What would be the correct name? Josh (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Vladimir Sedelnik, I assume. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Vladimir Sedelnik; correct category has been created. Maksim L. (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Vladimir Sedelnik. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this a category created in good intent? What is the purpose of this category? How will we decide whether a person has big nose hole or not? Sreejith K (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- By "nose holes", I assume the creator meant "nostrils", but what constitutes big nostrils? Anyone's nostrils can look big if they are photographed from the right angle. And what if a person has a big hole in the side of their nose from piercing, injury, cancer, etc. -- are those included? Besides that, this is categorized under medical conditions, and the size of any normal body part is not a medical condition. I'm willing to hear what the creator has to say, but I see little reason to keep a category as ill-defined as this. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete This ranks high among the funniest/worst subjective ideas for a commons category that I've seen. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, amusing as it is, this is not the stuff Commons categories are made of. Josh (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
maybe this should be under the name "Category:Pasha Technique", see, for example, https://musicbrainz.org/artist/623a2c66-ff79-4721-9ff0-891f3db67a3a Estopedist1 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- do what you want. That would be beautiful --Zelio007 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pasha is associated with the church from this Russian pronunciation
- Делай как считаешь нужным на качество фотографии это врятли отразится.Можешь создать 2 категории. русскую и англискую. Паша придёт спасибо скажет. уверяю --Zelio007 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pasha is associated with the church from this Russian pronunciation
- do what you want. That would be beautiful --Zelio007 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- not two categories. I did redirect. It is OK now--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
should be joined into Category:Mathematicians from the Ottoman Empire Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, Perfect. --Ashashyou (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Mathematicians from the Ottoman Empire. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
maybe we should use the name category:National Theatre Užice? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is ok. --Djordjes (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Rename category:National Theatre Uzice. It is rendered on their website as "Narodno pozorište Užice". Their artistic director lists it as "National Theatre Uzice" on their LinkedIn page. Josh (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Germany didn't adopt the FNC, so this category should be deleted. Sanandros (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
bad name. Category:Audio system is absent. Category:Audio systems is redirect to Category:Audio equipment Estopedist1 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: What do you propose to fix this? Josh (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- it is bot created cat. What system has been used? Logical cat name may be "Audio System (COMPANY/OTHER NAME)" or "(COMPANY/OTHER NAME) Audio System"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- These don't appear to all be of the same system (though that may be the initial intent), so just merge -> Category:Audio equipment? Josh (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- it is bot created cat. What system has been used? Logical cat name may be "Audio System (COMPANY/OTHER NAME)" or "(COMPANY/OTHER NAME) Audio System"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Content merged, category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The spelling of the name of the individual is wrong as well as the fact that they are not known as Princess ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ImperialArchivesRU: please provide the new category name you propose to fix this. Josh (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I propose the new name to be retitled as ‘Margareta of Romania’ which is the correct spelling of her name as is also shown on Wikipedia en:Margareta of Romania; as well as the individual no longer using the title of Princess since 1997. ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 07:15, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: The reason for having had remade another discussion was because there was no response to the initial discussion which I had made for the change of the name of Category:Princess Margarita of Romania to be renamed as ‘Margareta of Romania’ due to no such individual named ‘Princess Margarita of Romania’ existing, though the one being referred to has since her birth in 1949, known as ‘Princess Margareta of Romania’ until 1997 whereupon she was titled ‘Crown Princess Margareta of Romania’ and at present since 2017 ‘Margareta of Romania’ which her Wikipedia page is also named as. ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 15:47, 09 October 2019 (UTC)
- @ImperialArchivesRU: I understand wanting to move things forward quickly, but keep in mind most users are not constantly checking this list, and even those frequently engaged in discussions may go some time before coming across your proposal. Starting a duplicate discussion does nothing to improve the response. We hold discussions open for at least two weeks (more if there is real discussion going on) in order to allow users to participate. Once a CfD is open, please be patient and give time for comments and the due process of closing the discussion before enacting changes. If you feel a discussion is complete and just waiting to be closed, feel free to ping any regular CfD participant requesting they close the discussion. Josh (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: The reason for having had remade another discussion was because there was no response to the initial discussion which I had made for the change of the name of Category:Princess Margarita of Romania to be renamed as ‘Margareta of Romania’ due to no such individual named ‘Princess Margarita of Romania’ existing, though the one being referred to has since her birth in 1949, known as ‘Princess Margareta of Romania’ until 1997 whereupon she was titled ‘Crown Princess Margareta of Romania’ and at present since 2017 ‘Margareta of Romania’ which her Wikipedia page is also named as. ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 15:47, 09 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I propose the new name to be retitled as ‘Margareta of Romania’ which is the correct spelling of her name as is also shown on Wikipedia en:Margareta of Romania; as well as the individual no longer using the title of Princess since 1997. ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 07:15, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Margareta of Romania is fine with me - Themightyquill (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @ImperialArchivesRU, Joshbaumgartner, and Themightyquill: It’s been nearly a month and I believe all those interested on this subject agree that the name should be changed to :Category:Margareta of Romania; as I understand a new main category page has already been created with relevant categories tagged. Rereader1996 (talk) 22:23, 06 November 2019 (UTC)
@ImperialArchivesRU, Themightyquill, and Rereader1996: Closed (no objections; move Category:Princess Margarita of Romania to Category:Margareta of Romania) Josh (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Main category and subs should use the same name for the aircraft, either Category:F-15 Eagle (the official designation for the aircraft), Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (the original manufacturer), or Category:Boeing F-15 Eagle (the current manufacturer). The subs predominantly use the official designation "F-15 Eagle", but it is common for aircraft cats to include the manufacturer as well. There is no particular need for different to match the same pattern, but for each particular aircraft, the same name for that aircraft should be used across all categories. Josh (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
| Name | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| F-15 Eagle |
|
|
| McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle |
|
|
| Boeing F-15 Eagle |
|
|
| McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle (or reverse) |
|
|
Leaving it as-is is a non-starter as it poses significant problems for searches, templates, and other tools. Let's pick one and go with it. Josh (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 is by far the least problematic. Neither "named" solution is correct, and the dual-named solution is just really bad for the reasons pointed out. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I support Option 1 as well. It is clean, clear, and concise. Josh (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Huntster: Closed (no objection to option 1, change names throughout tree to consistently refer to the aircraft family as "F-15 Eagle") Josh (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Education in the Netherlands by municipality as "by municipality" and "by city and town" usually mean the same thing. Amersfoort is a city and so is Amsterdam, but each is in a different category. Also the Wikidata entries need to be merged WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. All cities in the category are also municipalitiés. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree --Stunteltje (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Havang(nl): When you say they are both cities and municipalities, does that mean the same entity is considered both a city and a municipality under Netherlands law, or there are two distinct entities or levels which share the same name (and maybe territory) but have their own identity? Josh (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Populated places in the Netherlands is the catch-all for cities, municipalities, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Netherlands also has Category:Categories of the Netherlands by location which might work as a format as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be only one category. However, "by city" could be a better choice due to the Universality principle. ––Apalsola t • c 17:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not so sure that principal overrides the importance of clarity. "City" and "municipality" have specific legal meanings in the Netherlands and so our use of them within Netherlands topics should reflect that. Josh (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I checked,
all the items in the category are names of cities as well as names of municipalities, therefore it should be merged. It is possible however, to adapt the subcategories : Education in Amsterdam (city), subcategory of Education in Amsterdam (municipality) , subcategory of Education in the Netherlands by municipality. This latter category is needed, if f.i,.municipalities like Category:Oss (municipality englobing about 22 villages/cities and the city of Oss) come into the category tree. It is the municipality, not the city which has gouvernmental responsibility for education. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)- Education in Sittard-Geleen : Sittard-Geleen is the name of a municipality, not of a city. I opt for Category:Education in the Netherlands by municipality --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: OK, in that case it is probably better to use the term municipality when referring to municipalities. ––Apalsola t • c 09:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Havang(nl) and Apalsola: Thanks for the clarification, and I agree, based on both statements, so let's merge both into Category:Education in the Netherlands by municipality for now since education is really a municipality issue it seems. Josh (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I checked,
- Not so sure that principal overrides the importance of clarity. "City" and "municipality" have specific legal meanings in the Netherlands and so our use of them within Netherlands topics should reflect that. Josh (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Great to see progress! Note that the Wikidata Q codes to be merged are 8407505 and 56751655 WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe, Havang(nl), Apalsola, and Joshbaumgartner: Is that consensus then? Are you ready to merge? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, merge--Havang(nl) (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please merge! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- No objections. ––Apalsola t • c 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe, Havang(nl), Apalsola, and Joshbaumgartner: Is that consensus then? Are you ready to merge? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Havang(nl), WhisperToMe, Apalsola, and Themightyquill: Closed (consensus reached; merge Category:Education in the Netherlands by city into Category:Education in the Netherlands by municipality) Josh (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe: post script note: I cleaned up the links in the Wikidata items, but they also link to other projects so can't simply be merged. That will need discussion and action on other projects, so is outside of the scope of this CfD. Thanks for being mindful of inter-project impacts! Josh (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Empty category Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't empty. It contains two categories: Category:Straits in art by country an Category:Straits in heraldry. Mindmatrix 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- These categories are empty too. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep This category and its subs contain files now. Josh (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Content added. Category kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
should be joined into Category:Scientists by field Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Merge, duplicate category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Scientists by field. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Navy of the Dominican Republic for clarity. Dominica currently has no standing military, but perhaps they once had a navy? Either way it's unnecessarily ambiguous. Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Surely. Pibwl (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep "Dominican Navy" is the official name of the Dominican Republic's navy.There is only one "Dominican Navy". Since Dominica does not have/has not had one, there is nothing to confuse it with. In the case where someone thinks the Dominican Navy belongs to Dominica, the {{Wikidata Infobox}} makes it clear. @Themightyquill and Pibwl: If Dominica ever does create a navy or we get material to that effect, we can worry about it then, but for now, there is not enough cause to use a neologism in place of the official title. Josh (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- In principle, that's fine, but where are you getting "Dominican Navy" as the official name? It seems to be "Armada de Republica Dominicana" not "Armada Dominicana". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support @Themightyquill: Excellent point. I have some books that refer to it as the "Dominican Navy" or "Marina de Guerra Dominicana" but these are dated. However, the official website is unambiguous in using "Armada de Republica Dominicana", at least now. I don't know if it changed recently or it is just a matter of smaller country, smaller navy, little hard data on 'official' designations. Either way it does not matter, we should use the current name, and that would definitely mean renaming to Category:Navy of the Dominican Republic. Thank you for prompting some more research. Josh (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Navy of the Dominican Republic. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistency problem:
- the entire tree is now using PLA.
- its chinese name 中國人民解放軍's literal translation is indeed Chinese PLA.
- ministry of defense's and PLA's websites are not consistent. we can see both PLA and Chinese PLA.
- People’s Liberation Army (Q200106) many non-east-asian langs use PLA, whereas east-asian langs use Chinese PLA.
Questions:
- Which should the overall cat use?
- If Chinese PLA is used, should we rename the whole tree?
Roy17 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
personally i prefer simply PLA.--Roy17 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)- article 2 of Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Garrisoning of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (an official English version of a Chinese law) uses "Chinese People’s Liberation Army". I think it's better to keep the tree consistent.--Roy17 (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Given en:People's Liberation Army (disambiguation), I think it makese sense to use "Chinese People's Liberation Army" for everything. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rename subcats of Category:Chinese People's Liberation Army from "People's Liberation Army" to "Chinese People's Liberation Army". Josh (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Use "Chinese People's Liberation Army" per Roy17 and Joshbaumgartner. Tibet Nation (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Given en:People's Liberation Army (disambiguation), I think it makese sense to use "Chinese People's Liberation Army" for everything. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17: That looks like consensus to me. Would you like to handle to moves? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: sure. I can move all to the new positions. This can be closed now or until I finish moving.--Roy17 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Renamed subcategories to follow style Category:Chinese People's Liberation Army - Themightyquill (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This category is definitely not named appropriately, but I expect it's also redundant with Category:Americans of Slovak descent and Category:Slovak diaspora in the United States. Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorted content into categories listed above. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Lab and Category:LAB should be redirect to the disambiguation page Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Which disambiguation page? One or both of these should probably be disambiguation pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- in other Wikipedias we usually reserve it to the capitalized form: LAB; and Lab should rediret to LAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support Lab per w:Lab but it doesn't matter that much anyway but indeed the other case should be a redirect to the chosen case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like Category:Lab was only created in error when someone (since blocked) added "Category:Lab #4: KIA & First Aid" to the bottom of a bunch of military images. Anyone know how to remove those quickly and easily? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- category:Lab removed from images in question as requested by user:Themightyquill. I used AutoWikiBrowser--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like Category:Lab was only created in error when someone (since blocked) added "Category:Lab #4: KIA & First Aid" to the bottom of a bunch of military images. Anyone know how to remove those quickly and easily? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dab at Category:Lab with a redirect from Category:Labs. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
why disambiguation? In enwiki reserved to bats as animals Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- We don't need to follow what enwiki does. On commons, categories are frequently added blind during the upload process or using hotcat, so an ambiguous title leads to miscategorization. Bats is undoubtedly ambiguous, so it makes sense to disambiguate it. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose 1 because here primary topics for categories have a higher threshold than for articles (and even categories) on Wikipedia (such as Category:Perth, Western Australia/w:Perth, Category:Brighton, East Sussex/w:Brighton, Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire/w:Castleford and Category:Cleveland, Ohio/w:Cleveland), 2 because category redirects still require readers to click on the link anyway so are far less useful than standard redirects and, 3 because "bat(s)" also commonly refers to the thing you hit a ball with probably as often even if people often make reference to specific types of bats such as cricket bats, "bats"alone can collectively refer to them, 4 I have added 2 more entries anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 07:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
what's historical? a speech today can be historical tomorrow, and will definitely be one in 100 years. i think all should be merged to simply speeches.
i think Category:Historical images has the same problem. Roy17 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Perhaps Category:Political speeches or Category:Speeches by politicians might be more useful. Let's leave Category:Historical images for its own discussion. Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17 and Themightyquill: I agree with upmerging Category:Historical speeches into Category:Speeches. From there they can be sorted into the various sub-cats as appropriate. Certainly, Category:Speeches by subject might be warranted here. Josh (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 12:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
in reality, who calls it by this name??? i suggest moving and renaming all subcats back to Tiananmen, and not leaving a redirect behind when it's done. @Gryffindor: Roy17 (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's no clear indication of why it was moved back in 2008. Perhaps Gryffindor can recall, but it was over a decade ago... - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- His/her edits on 28 Sep 2008 show that s/he worked on a number of cats and galleries related to the Forbidden City. While Tiananmen and other palaces and gates do have translated names, Gate of Heavenly Peace is far less popular than Tiananmen. Look at youtube results for common usage.--Roy17 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Both parent and sub categories should be named either Category:A-10 Thunderbolt II (official designation) or Category:Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II (with manufacturer name added in). This is similar to Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, but I wanted to raise a separate CfD because some of the particulars are different. In this case, there is really only one manufacturer name thruoghout its production so that issue is moot, and Fairchild can be used without confusion if desired. Also, in this case, the subs are more evenly split between the two names. The basic requirement that we use the same name to refer to the same aircraft in all categories is just as true. My recommendation in this case is a slight lean towards "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II". Josh (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Closed. With no further comments, will proceed with recommendation of nominator to standardise "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II" throughout. Joshbaumgartner, I'll work on this tomorrow. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Лишняя категория Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Not sure why this is extra? This seems to be a valid class of vessel with valid contents. Josh (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Almost no include files, no wikidata item. Category:Steam frigates. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds fine. For future CfD's it is helpful if you suggest the both categories at the start so people know what you are suggesting be done. Josh (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Almost no include files, no wikidata item. Category:Steam frigates. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Closed (no objections; merge) Josh (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Either "Saint Julian church" or "Igreja de São Julião" — instead of this illiterate, exotificating, unreadable mess! (Ditto for Category:Church of São Julião (Figueira da Foz) and maybe such others.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Concordo. Ou tudo em inglês, ou tudo em português. Preferentemente tudo em português, ou seja o nome oficial ou corrente da "coisa", como o nome de uma pessoa (que não se traduz). Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- GualdimG — Sim mas não neste caso, já que tanto "São Julião" como "Saint Julian" são ambos traduções do mesmo nome original (qq coisa como "Beatus Julianus Antiochii" ou "Beatus Julianus Tarsii"). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's fine the way it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, now (since 25 september) is Category:Igreja de São Julião (Setúbal), which seems good. Greetings, GualdimG (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Both fixed by Tm. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin, GualdimG, Themightyquill, and Tm: Closed (rename) Josh (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
here was an image (file:Centork-1.jpg). Now empty cat. Is it useful info for the Ukrainian Wikipedia? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Should be named Category:Electric actuator armatures if retained, but not sure what the correct description for the original image is. Josh (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Closed (still empty; delete) Josh (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
bitte löschen, es gibt schon die Category:Puts Marie - ich hatte das überehen Nadi2018 (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nadi2018: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
misleading and not English redirect. Bomberos can be place also, see members in this cat Estopedist1 (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Closed (dab) Josh (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge both files to Category:Military of Uganda. The en:Unganda People's Defence Force does not maintain a navy or an identifiable naval force within its structure. The vessel pictured in this category is actually of the Djiboutian Navy, with Ugandan soldiers on board. The Ugandan troops present are members of the UPDF, but not any naval organization within the UPDF. Josh (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
TV should redirect to cat:Television. Same solution, for example, in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose category redirects don't make it that much easier to find the target since you still have to click through, in addition the threshold for primacy is higher here and other languages might have other uses of "TV". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe, but consider this: dab pages in Wikipedia are in articlespace, but on Commons they're in categoryspace. When things get categorized on Commons, it's sometimes based on what keywords are attached to the file. Keywords can include all kinds of things, including abbreviations of things (such as TV for Treviso). If something gets put in an incorrect category because of such keywords, it may stay there for a long time and never get into the right category. Therefore, for Commons purposes, I think this is better as a disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale and Auntof6: OK, let it be disambiguation. This discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Estopedist1: , I'll add to the above that Commons:Category redirects#Inappropriate uses#2 specifies when a disambiguation would be more appropriate. In addition I'll convert the WP category into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale and Auntof6: OK, let it be disambiguation. This discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was kept as a DAB since nom has withdrawn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
An unnecessary level of subcategorization from Category:Education in Europe by country, resulting in overcategorization. Same for Category:Culture of the European Union by country. Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's no "overcategorization at all" in medias when the categories are correctly crossed (meaning that no medias have to be sorted directly there, but they can be found from various axis to finally reach the relevant country). Only the categories per member country are listed there and this allows subcategorizing correctly the contents related to the European Union when they can fall down into one of their country. The same applies also to cultural topics. verdy_p (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that all the categories in Category:Education in the European Union by country should be removed from Category:Education in Europe by country, leaving only education in non-eu european countries? Because otherwise, they have parent category that is also a grandparent category, the definition of overcategorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: This necessarily only covers items which are country-specific and not general to the EU. Thus grouping them within the EU is pointless. Themightyquill (talk · contribs) is correct that this is a textbook case of COM:OVERCAT as well. We do not need to categorize all country-specific categories by regional groupings or alliances ('Education in the United Nations by country', 'Education in the Balkans by country', 'Education in the Warsaw Pact by country'?) Category:Education in the European Union is fine, but is only for items which depict education across the EU, not within specific countries. Josh (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the reasons given by others. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Verdy p, and Auntof6: Closed (delete per discussion and previous related discussion) Josh (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Cyrillic characters. Created by admin user:Butko. Do we really accept these cat? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unless there is some special connotation here, I would suggest a redirect a redirect to Category:Automobiles, as was done in previous discussions (linked above). - Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- it is very bad if admins really accept such practices. All Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese etc words may then be redirects. Very bad precedent!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Even if in latin script, if the name is just a non-English word for which there is an English word, the English word should be used. Proper names may be an exception, but certainly not normal concepts such as 'automobiles'. Redirect to Category:Automobiles is correct. Josh (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- it is very bad if admins really accept such practices. All Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese etc words may then be redirects. Very bad precedent!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Overflow category Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please explain a little more? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep @Вадзім Медзяноўскі and Themightyquill: no explanations given hence keep?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please explain a little more? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept. No explanation given for deleting/moving.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Apalsola has suggested a move to Category:Transport infrastructure in the United States on the grounds that ""Transport" is used instead of "transportation" in Commons. According to the category policy, "[c]ategorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible." The category was moved to its current name on 2019-04-29 without any discussion. There are some subcategories to be moved as well." There has already been some discussion at Category talk:Transportation infrastructure in the United States. Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Transportation infrastructure in the United States to Category:Transport infrastructure in the United States, it allows for a consistent Commons name for the topic of "transport" across categories and is consistent with COM:CAT. Note also that the United States parent is Category:Transport in the United States. However, I would like to give the participants in the category talk (@Hmains, Roy17, Apalsola, and Mjrmtg: ) a chance to comment here on the matter before concluding. Josh (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Transportation infrastructure in the United States to Category:Transport infrastructure in the United States. I have already stated most of my arguments in the original move request and at Category talk:Transportation infrastructure in the United States#Proposed move: Transportation → Transport. However, here are my arguments once again:
- Commons is an international project and according to COM:CAT, "local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible". This is particularly true with generic categories like "<Something> in <Country>"; there may be exceptions with proper nouns.
- The argument that "Transportation" is more familiar among American users is invalid. Since (almost) all category names are and should be in English, both the terms "transport" and "transportation" are unfamiliar for any user not speaking English as his/her native language, but that is still not a reason to use non-English words in generic category names. Why should we make an exception for American users only?
- Inconsistent naming is very confusing when doing categorisation work. It also breaks templates like {{Countries of North America}}. (Whether this kind of templates are a good idea or not may be a topic for another discussion.)
- This issue was already discussed back in 2007.
- The category name was "Category:Transport infrastructure in the United States" over 11 years. Then it was changed to its current name without any discussion and thus violating Commons:Rename a category#Types of renames. Since the current name is a result of such violation, the move back to the original name should be a no-brainer. After that we could have discussion whether to move the category to some other name. Leaving the category to its current name would create a dangerous precedent: the easiest way to get the category named the way one likes would be to just move it without any discussion.
- Best regards, ––Apalsola t • c 23:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Done by User:Born2bgratis. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Móric Góth and Category:Moritz Goth are redundant. Anyone have a reason to use one over the other? Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
To me it seems Category:Móric Góth is used more than Category:Moritz Goth. I've redirected that way. Feel free to change this! --Marsupium (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there another way to phrase this? Dominicans could mean monks of the Dominican Order (as it is currently used), or Category:People of the Dominican Republic or Category:People of Dominica. The same for Category:Dominican schools, Category:Dominican publications, Category:Statues of Dominicans, Category:Sculptures of Dominicans, and Category:Paintings of Dominicans. Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- You can create a disambiguation page.--Allforrous (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Allforrous: Well, maybe if it's necessary, but my question is, what do we name the categories for the order? Category:Scholars from the Dominican Order, Category:Schools of the Dominican Order, Category:Publications of the Dominican Order, Category:Statues of members of the Dominican order etc, as per Category:Dominican Order? Or instead, from/of "the Order of Dominicans" per Category:Organisation of the Order of Dominicans or something else? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is appropriate to rename: Category: ... of the Dominican Order and Category: ... of the Dominican Republic, to avoid disambiguation.--Allforrous (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please pay attention, there is a general category: see= Category:Catholic clergy scientists and Category:Roman Catholic monks in art by order.--Carolus (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Dominican" is not specific enough for use as an adjective to combine with a common noun. In these cases, it should be made clear whether one is refering to Dominica, the Dominican Republic or the Dominican Order if there is any chance that more than one could apply. Note, this only applies for use with common nouns. Use in proper nouns should remain (see below about the Dominican Navy for a case of this) the correct proper noun, not made into a neologism. Josh (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Let me be very clear: the only correct cat is Category:Scholars of the Dominican Order, so i do not see why User:Allforrous created a double category? If there is no reason, please delete and only keep Category:Scholars of the Dominican Order, kr.--Carolus (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Dominican" is not specific enough for use as an adjective to combine with a common noun. In these cases, it should be made clear whether one is refering to Dominica, the Dominican Republic or the Dominican Order if there is any chance that more than one could apply. Note, this only applies for use with common nouns. Use in proper nouns should remain (see below about the Dominican Navy for a case of this) the correct proper noun, not made into a neologism. Josh (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please pay attention, there is a general category: see= Category:Catholic clergy scientists and Category:Roman Catholic monks in art by order.--Carolus (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is appropriate to rename: Category: ... of the Dominican Order and Category: ... of the Dominican Republic, to avoid disambiguation.--Allforrous (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Allforrous: Well, maybe if it's necessary, but my question is, what do we name the categories for the order? Category:Scholars from the Dominican Order, Category:Schools of the Dominican Order, Category:Publications of the Dominican Order, Category:Statues of members of the Dominican order etc, as per Category:Dominican Order? Or instead, from/of "the Order of Dominicans" per Category:Organisation of the Order of Dominicans or something else? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Carolus: Would you be okay with a move to Category:Scholars from the Dominican Order? We don't want to end up with ley scholars who study the dominican order here. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --JuTa 17:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Eucalyptus tetragona is a synonym of Eucalyptus pleurocarpa. The name Eucalyptus × tetragona is listed as a pro parte synonym of Eucalyptus pleurocarpa by the Australian Plant Census. Both names - Eucalyptus × tetragona and Eucalyptus pleurocarpa are accepted by the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Neither authority accepts Eucalyptus tetragona. Gderrin (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Gderrin: - go ahead and reclassify as per current taxonomy: no real need to have taken it to Categories for discussion (and it definitely shouldn't have to have waited over a year for any response!) - MPF (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably needs to be moved and redirected to Category:Tarik Biberovic (notice the dotless "i" in the current name) (or maybe deleted altogether as too specific). See en:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_27#Tarık_Biberovic for context on the page move in en-wp; basically, the only source for the name with a dotless i is his (Turkish) club's page, whereas other sources have it with a dot; plus, he comes from Bosnia, where the dotless i is not in use. Tigraan (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Stale. Renamed per nomination and per enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:Władysław Seyda is redundant with Category:Wladislaus Seyda. Anyone have a good reason to choose one spelling over the other? Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: in the meantime, one category is deleted. Plwiki article's title is pl:Władysław Seyda. I think we can close this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:Wladislaus Seyda deleted by Wdwd -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Seemingly redundant with Category:Locator maps of Nice Quarters ? Themightyquill (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
| Proposal |  union
|
Category: Maps of Nice–logo | → | Category: Locator maps of Nice Quarters |
|---|
Two variations on a theme. Josh (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner@Themightyquill Agree. After the upmerging, the nominated category should be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged and deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I find this tree pretty problematic. cats are named in LNY XXXX, but XXXX CNY. subcats of XXXX CNY are not uniform again. some are XXXX CNY in 'place xyz', some CNY XXXX in 'place xyz', and some in other random formats.
Should we unify the format?
If yes, I suggest LNY/CNY XXXX, and LNY/CNY XXXX in 'place xyz'. Roy17 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do you want to do the same with Tết? ie, move Category:Tết in 2010 to Category:Tết 2010? I guess Category:Lunar New Year 2019 at NTID would be an exception where "at" rather than "in" is most appropriate. Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think your suggestion is reasonable. FYI, I created some "Lunar New Year XXXX" categories (maybe first, in 2016). At that time, I also found similar inconsistency between "XXXX Chinese New Year" and "New Year XXXX" categories. Then, I tried to keep consistency with the parent categories ("New Year XXXX") to the "Lunar New Year" categories. Perhaps I should have fixed all at once at that time.--Morio (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have no opinion with regard to Tết, but looking at Category:Tết_in_Ho_Chi_Minh_City_by_year, it does seem to look better to have Tết 2019 in Ho Chi Minh City than Tết in Ho Chi Minh City in 2019. Googling "Tết 2019" seems to show this expression is commonly used. I added CfD notices to some Tết cats to invite Vietnamese users (Category:Tết Category:Tết in Ho Chi Minh City in 2020 Category:Tết in 2020 Category:Tết in 2019).
- Of course grammar rules apply and we should use at for small places like NTID.--Roy17 (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. Definitely we must be consistent, but what is the most proper format here? Calling help from @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's that important to be consistent across all grandchild categories. Everything in this category is internally consistent. Everything in the Chinese New Year by year is internally consistent. We have Category:New Year's Eve 2011 but Category:2011 New Year's Eve concerts. You would spend a long time trying to make all of commons dates perfectly consistent. I'd just leave it alone. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- 2018 Chinese New Year in Madrid
- Chinese New Year 2018 in New York City
- Chinese New Year, Seattle, 2018
- speechless... to navigate thru commons is often a nightmare... Roy17 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest "XXXX Lunar New Year" for all levels of LNY/CNY. Numbers in front for easier sorting.- Leave the tree of Tết at where it is. Roy17 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- LNY XXXX, since cat:New Year also uses this structure. Everything will be harmonised if no new opinions are raised in a month.--Roy17 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Example of the new format:
- Lunar New Year 2020
- Chinese New Year 2020
- Chinese New Year 2020 by country
- Chinese New Year 2020 in Canada
- Chinese New Year 2020 in China
- Chinese New Year 2020 by country
- Chinese New Year 2020
No changes were made to The cat tree of Tết.--Roy17 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: This discussion is not about the political status of the Republic of China/Taiwan or an attempt to debate greater China/Taiwan issues. It is merely about how to clean up the mess of categories related to it so we can consistently categorize media related to it.
There is a lot of material for the country categorized under Category:Republic of China and plenty more under Category:Taiwan. Both cover the current limited-recognition state. Additionally there is Category:Republic of China (1912–1949), though at least this seems to consistently refer to the country during its pre-1950 period. Finally, there is Category:Taiwan Island for the geography feature, but this has apparently been mixed up with the political entity in a variety of ways. A look across Commons, enWiki, and Wikidata reveal a cat's cradle of links amongst these:
Several issues jump out. Right away, you can see that the main topic "Taiwan" uses Taiwan as the article and item name, but Republic of China for a category name. On enwiki, "Republic of China" is a redirect to "Taiwan". They have a category "Taiwan" which is not clear on what it covers , but it does say that government matters are in Category:Republic of Taiwan, yet has its own Category:Government of Taiwan under it (it is linked to "Taiwan Island" but . Enwiki does not seem as clear with their categorization as Commons is, so this is not unusual and can't be our guide, but it illustrates the confusion. On Commons, we have Category:Republic of China linked to en:Taiwan but also have a subcat Category:Taiwan. Both have lots of categories and media for the current state of Republic of China/Taiwan as well as some historical (pre-1950) items. Meanwhile in our scheme, Category:Taiwan Island finds itself buried in a tree of political status categories...and not even under Category:Islands!
| Current structure | |
|---|---|
| Proposal A | |
| Proposal B | |
| Proposal C |
I have listed a couple of proposals, the main difference being whether to use the name "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" for the country. I would lean to "Taiwan". While "Republic of China" is still the official long form name of the country, "Taiwan" is the short form name and most widely used name in recent times in English, hence its use on en:Taiwan. However, "Republic of China" also is workable, so long as it is consistent and we get rid of the duplication between the two. Josh (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd certainly ask what specifically should go in the island's category since Category:Eastern Taiwan is also in Category:Regions of Taiwan as well as the island. Maybe it should be restricted to things specifically to the island its self such as maps of it specifically. Category:Great Britain is another similar example although the parts of the UK that aren't part of Great Britain (such as Northern Ireland, Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Hebrides, and the Orkney/Shetland Islands are much greater than the island/country difference. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: That's a good question. The island is a geographical entity, while Republic of China/Taiwan is a political-territorial one. There would be some overlap I would imagine, but Taiwan holds and claims territory beyond Taiwan Island, while Taiwan Island is claimed by China as well. This is why I've proposed it be under Category:Geography of Taiwan (or RoC if preferred). Josh (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes the others are in Category:Islands of Taiwan. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Thanks for adding Taiwan Island to Category:Islands of Taiwan the day of your comment. Seems someone removed it from that category a year ago, hence the curious situation. Josh (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes the others are in Category:Islands of Taiwan. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: That's a good question. The island is a geographical entity, while Republic of China/Taiwan is a political-territorial one. There would be some overlap I would imagine, but Taiwan holds and claims territory beyond Taiwan Island, while Taiwan Island is claimed by China as well. This is why I've proposed it be under Category:Geography of Taiwan (or RoC if preferred). Josh (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Neither.
- My proposal:
- Category:China
- PRC
- subcategories would be XX of China, except those that must be distinguished with those of ROC, then they would be XX of PRC. For example, President of China should either be a DAB or catcat that contains P of PRC and P of ROC.
- ROC (a catcat that contains only ROC (1912-1949) and Taiwan)
- ROC (1912-1949)
- subcategories would be XX of ROC (1912-1949), except those in continuity with taiwan, then they would be simply XX of ROC, e.g. Category:Presidents of the Republic of China
- Taiwan
- subcategories would be XX of Taiwan, except those in continuity with ROC (1912-1949)
- ROC (1912-1949)
- PRC
- Taiwan Island is a geographical concept. It goes under Geography of Taiwan.
- In a nutshell, my idea is about the same as the current structure, except that I think everything related to ROC (1912-1949) should not be mixed with ROC after 1949 aka Taiwan. They should be singled out on every level and put under the corresponding level of ROC (if exists) or China, rather than under Taiwan. Any substrcutre of ROC should only contain XX of ROC (1912-1949) and XX of Taiwan, except a few concepts that continue from before 1949 till after. For these continuous stuff, XX of Taiwan redirect to XX of ROC. Examples are the President, VP, the army, the five Yuans (that's all I can think of, anything else should be split).
- So, expect either one of the three following scenarios:
- 1 (examples: politicians, history)
- XX by country
- XX of China
- XX of PRC
- XX of ROC (1912-1949)
- XX of Taiwan
- XX of China
- 2 (things that can be distinguished easily between China and Taiwan, e.g. Internet, geographical concepts/locations)
- YY by country
- YY of China
- YY of Taiwan
- 3 (President, VP, army, five Yuans etc.)
- ZZ by country
- ZZ of PRC
- ZZ of ROC
- In a nutshell, treat most categories of ROC (1912-1949) as categories of a former country, except those that Taiwan inherits.--Roy17 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- The idea is, ROC is an existing state which is now commonly known as Taiwan. It could be divided into two sections: ROC (1912-1949) and ROC after 1949 (aka Taiwan).
- As such, most concepts of the current ROC should be categorised as XX of Taiwan, but some must be separated into two, e.g. the history.
- And when those things are separated, XX of ROC (1912-1949) should not be put under XX of Taiwan because it's just wrong. For example, those ROC politicians who never set foot on Taiwan.
- When such separation is needed, an overall cat XX of ROC is needed to unite the two.
- But when we put cats into by-country metacats, we should put China/Taiwan or PRC/ROC straight. Which pair to choose would depend. For example, politicians by country should contain China/Taiwan, whereby China contains PRC and ROC(1912-1949) (scenario 1 above). Culture by country should contain China/Taiwan, whereby China is not subdivided into PRC/ROC(1912-1949) because culture is an eternal concept usually not affected by a political state (scenario 2).--Roy17 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17:
Question Your proposal for Category:China to have subs for PRC and ROC/Taiwan is fine, but that is already the current structure, and none of the proposals aim to alter that. This discussion is solely related to the ROC/Taiwan branch. To help understand your proposal, a few questions: Josh (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Are "Republic of China/Taiwan" and "Republic of China (1912-1949)" the same country (as with Japan since 1945 and Japan up to then), or two distinct and different countries (as with the Federal Republic of Germany and Nazi Germany)?
- What is the preferred name for the modern country, "Republic of China", "Taiwan" or something else?
- What is the preferred name for the geographic entity, the actual island of Taiwan?
- Where would the category for the island of Taiwan reside in your proposed structure?
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'll do a timeline of China and another of Taiwan.
- China
- before 1911, Qing dynasty, aka China.
- 1912-1949 Republic of China (colloquially China, nothing confusing at this point)
- 1949-10-01 PRC established, and it captured almost the entire mainland China by the end of this year.
- Therefore, 1949-now, PRC and ROC coexist.
- When people refer to China nowadays, they usually refer to PRC and rarely to ROC/Taiwan.
- Taiwan
- before 1895, part of China
- 1895-1945, colony of Japan
- 1945-1949, part of the much larger ROC.
- 1950-now, Taiwan is the whole of ROC.
- It's always correct to refer to the island and the (regional) political entity occupying it as Taiwan (just like California before incorporated into US is still simply known as and on Commons categorised under California Category:California by decade).
- @Roy17:
- The complicated naming problem arises when we talk about the political entity Republic of China (ROC). It is equivalent to China from 1912 to 1949, but to Taiwan from 1949 onwards. For contemporary usage, people generally consider Taiwan=ROC. But for Commons categorisation, it is problematic to do so, because stuff related to ROC 1912-1949 is largely unrelated to Taiwan. So a cat and a wikidata item exist for ROC 1912-1949. It can be called a historical period, or a country, but this country is the exact same country as what the wikidata item ROC/Taiwan represents (which is an uninterrupted continuation of the ROC 1912-1949 but lost the mainland). (In a way it's similar to those European governments in exile during WWII, except ROC has de facto and de jure control of an island.)
- The official name for the modern country is Republic of China. The colloquial name, or the name most people use, is Taiwan.
- The island is "Taiwan Island". Cat structure should be Taiwan -> Geography of Taiwan -> Landforms of " -> Islands of " -> Taiwan Island.--Roy17 (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking about how to properly categorise ROC and Taiwan.
- Logically and ideally speaking, the cat structure should be
- ROC
- ROC 1912-1949
- Taiwan
- XYZ of Taiwan
- In this method, ROC=Taiwan, but one wikidata item can only take one cat. So what if we do
- Taiwan
- ROC 1912-1949
- XYZ of Taiwan
- This is wrong because ROC 1912-1949 cannot be logically a subset of Taiwan. Then what if
- ROC
- ROC 1912-1949
- XYZ of Taiwan
- This is still problematic because ROC is not just about Taiwan but actually China from 1912 to 1949.
- So now I think, we could try instead
- Make Category:Republic of China a DAB that says For categorisation on Wikimedia Commons, topics related to China from 1912 to 1949 are categorised under Category:Republic of China (1912-1949) or Category:China, and topics related to Taiwan or the Republic of China after 1949 are categorised under Category:Taiwan. This way we get rid of the union cat of ROC 1912-1949 and Taiwan, because it could not be linked to a wikidata item.
- For some of the things that exist in both ROC 1912-1949 and Taiwan (presidents, govt, army, etc.), put them under both. For example, Presidents of Republic of China will be a subcat of both Politicians of ROC 1912-1949 and Politicians of Taiwan. (This produces logically false structure as en:Tsai Ing-wen is not a politician of ROC 1912-1949 and en:Yuan Shih-kai was not a politician of Taiwan, but this kind of bizarre structure is just like Cat:California in 1700s under Cat:United States.)--Roy17 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- And put a hatnote on Category:Taiwan, saying Republic of China is now colloquially known as Taiwan. For topics related to the Republic of China from 1912 to 1949, see Category:Republic of China (1912-1949). For topics related to China or the People's Republic of China, see Category:China and Category:People's Republic of China.
- @Roy17: I appreciate the thought and effort that went into your response. Unfortunately, I was not able to divine from it what your answers to the four questions I posed were, except perhaps #3 (as being simply "Taiwan") but even there, I am not certain whether that I am reading you correctly due to the voluminous nature of your post. For the sake of clarity, could you possibly provide concise, direct answers to the four questions I posed so I can better understand your proposal? Thanks! Josh (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Are "Republic of China/Taiwan" and "Republic of China (1912-1949)" the same country (as with Japan since 1945 and Japan up to then), or two distinct and different countries (as with the Federal Republic of Germany and Nazi Germany)? (note, I am asking about "country" here, not "nation")
- What is the preferred name for the modern country? ("Republic of China", "Taiwan" or something else)
- What is the preferred name for the geographic entity, the actual island of Taiwan? ("Taiwan Island", "Taiwan" or something else)
- Where would the category for the island of Taiwan reside in your proposed structure?
- special:diff/374261014.--Roy17 (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17: So then you appear to be in agreement with proposal 'C' above, no? Josh (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- no. my suggestion is to make Category:Republic of China a disambiguation page special:diff/374281498.--Roy17 (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Roy17: So then you appear to be in agreement with proposal 'C' above, no? Josh (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- special:diff/374261014.--Roy17 (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17: I appreciate the thought and effort that went into your response. Unfortunately, I was not able to divine from it what your answers to the four questions I posed were, except perhaps #3 (as being simply "Taiwan") but even there, I am not certain whether that I am reading you correctly due to the voluminous nature of your post. For the sake of clarity, could you possibly provide concise, direct answers to the four questions I posed so I can better understand your proposal? Thanks! Josh (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The result is Proposal A. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974: proposal A is definitely wrong.
- Taiwan is for sure the entity that consists of Taiwan island. This entity was ruled by Qing China before 1895, Japan from 1895 to 1945, and ROC from 1945 to present.
- ROC (1912-1949) was mostly unrelated to Taiwan at all.
- To highlight the absurdity of this proposal: this proposal would create a tree like this:
- Taiwan -> History of Taiwan -> Republic of China (1912–1949) -> Warlords of China -> Category:Xinjiang clique. Xinjiang could in no way be a subordinate concept of Taiwan.--Roy17 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- If you feel that the above decisions are not fair for you, feel free to re-nominate this category, under a PURELY NEW section, if you just want to know where we can place files about geographical Taiwan, you may have a look at Category:Taiwan Island, Category:Penghu Islands, Category:Kinmen Islands and Category:Matsu Islands. Yes, "Taiwan" in English world is really confusing for several centuries, but that's not the reason you or anyone else want to open this CFD page forever. PS: I oppose your "1912-1949 Republic of China (colloquially China, nothing confusing at this point)" statement above, because of which during 1932-1945, a pro-Japan puppet country exists. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226 and JopkeB: In general, I think it is best practice to avoid reopening discussions and instead open a new discussion and linking the closed one for reference. However, I also do not necessarily agree with closing it under the idea of a consensus for 'option A', even though I have no problem with that solution. Roy17 (talk · contribs) has expressed strong disagreement with some of the proposals, and while they have been very unclear about exactly what they would support, I don't think it is fair to discount their opposition without a more clear consensus amongst others. That said, since discussion had clearly died off, it would have been perfectly in order to close this discussion as "no consensus", and for Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs) to make a separate new proposal specific to proposal A. Josh (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This question is reserved for Roy17, as I still have no idea which god name let them re-open this CFD page. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Waiting for a response from User:Soumya-8974 here Category talk:China.
- Busybody Liuxinyu970226 already knows the RFC. Roy17 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226 and JopkeB: In general, I think it is best practice to avoid reopening discussions and instead open a new discussion and linking the closed one for reference. However, I also do not necessarily agree with closing it under the idea of a consensus for 'option A', even though I have no problem with that solution. Roy17 (talk · contribs) has expressed strong disagreement with some of the proposals, and while they have been very unclear about exactly what they would support, I don't think it is fair to discount their opposition without a more clear consensus amongst others. That said, since discussion had clearly died off, it would have been perfectly in order to close this discussion as "no consensus", and for Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs) to make a separate new proposal specific to proposal A. Josh (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Such a simple task is forever waiting for sysops who are just fiddling around. If it's not moved at the end, I give up. Commons busybodies can do whatever the f they want and keep this whole mess about China and Taiwan. I dont care anymore. Roy17 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- So can this CFD be re-closed or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Use Category:Taiwan for the country (aka ROC). Explanations added to the cat: special:permalink/663184260.--Roy17 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
How do we deal with Category:Taxis vs Category:Taxi automobiles. I recognize that "Taxis" includes the broader scope of the business, including offices, drivers, stands, and the various types of Category:Taxi vehicles (water taxis, etc) but it's also a sub-category of "road vehicles" which seems to suggest it's synonymous with Category:Taxi automobiles. Maybe Category:Taxis should be renamed Category:Taxi industry or something similar. Themightyquill (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are quite right, I'd support that. There seems to be no link to road vehicles now. My 'English' speaking culture would say that a vehicle may not require a road to run on but would be reasonably classifiable as a road vehicle (e.g. agricultural tractor) but I am told that in parts of North America vehicles sail across whole oceans (though the USN may not agree with that and like me speak of vessels not vehicles). I don't immediately see a way out of this. Eddaido (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Other names they sometimes go by in English speaking countries "Vehicles for hire" or "Private hire vehicles" (or old fashion a "Hackney carriage"). CaribDigita (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The consensus points at the ambiguity of the word "taxi", and the nominator proposed to rename the main category into Taxi industry or similar. However, due to the presence of Taxi service, I'll therefore upmerge the main category to Taxi service instead. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The UK does not have college rowing, it is purely an American phrase Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Aloneinthewild: please provide a proposed alternative phrasing. Also, is it merely a difference in terminology, or are there practical differences between US and UK versions? Josh (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. The comparable level in the UK is University rowing, as degree awarding institutions in the UK are commonly referred to as universities not colleges. Whereas outside the US college can refer to a lot of different higher education schools (probably best explained here). I wouldn't oppose renaming this category "University rowing in the United Kingdom"--Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- stale discussion. Enwiki has already done (see en:Category:College rowing) as proposed by @Aloneinthewild. I guess we can follow enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. The comparable level in the UK is University rowing, as degree awarding institutions in the UK are commonly referred to as universities not colleges. Whereas outside the US college can refer to a lot of different higher education schools (probably best explained here). I wouldn't oppose renaming this category "University rowing in the United Kingdom"--Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted no longer needed per discussion Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Change of name of article as she was never a Swedish Princess and had she have been, she would have lost the title after her divorce ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ImperialArchivesRU: Please propose a correct alternative name for this category. Josh (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I propose it to be titled ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890)’ or even ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958)’ as her Wikipedia page is also titled as en:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958). ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 07:08, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
- all the Russian princesses with their hard big names are listed in Commons categories simply by their names, see Category:Grand Duchesses of Russia, without that "Grand Duchess". She could be renamed as Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) or, like her aunt Category:Maria Pavlovna (Grand Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach) -- Maria Pavovna (Duchess of Södermanland) . --Shakko (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Shakko: Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna was only The Duchess of Södermanland for six years of her life as she was no longer a Swedish Royal, member of the Swedish Royal Family or held a Swedish title after her divorce so its only appropriate that the category title is as: ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890)’, ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958)’ as using just her name does not give the reader the impression of whether she is a Princess or Grand Duchess ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:17, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
- all the Russian princesses with their hard big names are listed in Commons categories simply by their names, see Category:Grand Duchesses of Russia, without that "Grand Duchess". She could be renamed as Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) or, like her aunt Category:Maria Pavlovna (Grand Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach) -- Maria Pavovna (Duchess of Södermanland) . --Shakko (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna was only The Duchess of Södermanland for six years of her life as she was no longer a Swedish Royal, member of the Swedish Royal Family or held a Swedish title after her divorce so its only appropriate that the category title is as: ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890)’, ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958)’ as using just her name does not give the reader the impression of whether she is a Princess or Grand Duchess. ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 15:46, 09 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I propose it to be titled ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890)’ or even ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958)’ as her Wikipedia page is also titled as en:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958). ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 07:08, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958). - Themightyquill (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @ImperialArchivesRU, Shakko, and SergeWoodzing: Any objections to the proposal by Themightyquill (talk · contribs)? Josh (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Another unnecessary category move. Solve by redirect rather than move! After 1918, Maria's imperial title was no longer legally valid. Claiming that she never was a princess of Sweden, though she married a prince of that kingdom, is just not accurate. That kingdom still exists legally today. Her highest title as still a legal title today, was Princess of Sweden while she was married to Wilhelm. That - the still legally valid title - is more noteworthy than anything else her name ever has been given as. That, and her title as Duchess of Södermanland, are what she gave up to divorce the prince due to the me-too-like sleaziness of Dr. Munthe against her. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
- If you are okay with a redirect to Category:Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958), that's fine me. Themightyquill (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Support @SergeWoodzing: Regardless of whether it was legally valid or not, you will find that throughout her life in most sources (official and news) she was referred to as Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna which regardless of being in exile from Russia after the abolishment of monarchy there, she did not cease to be a Russian Grand Duchess and nor was she a member of the Swedish Royal Family holding any Swedish titles from the moment she divorced, I understand you want to to take control of everything related to the Swedish Royal Family, however rather than making it complicated, I’d suggest to leave them with the name/title they are known as. You will also find her Wikipedia Pages named en:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) etc..., which pretty much makes sense when connected to the commons wiki rather than a whole new title which she only held for a few years. @Themightyquill: I’ve created the Category (Category:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958)) including her title so as to differentiate between the Russian Grand Duchesses and the Russian Princesses. Rereader1996 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Rereader1996: Are you okay with moving content to the neutral Category:Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) but leaving redirects from all the other titles above? I'd generally prefer that commons categories not use honorifics - it's not about this person in particular. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue to respond to input by any user who resorts to rude and unfair accusations like "I understand you want to to take control of everything related to the Swedish Royal Family". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: Just to be clear, it was Rereader1996 who said that, not me. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: I believe that the suggestion for redirecting to Category:Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) was originally made by Shakko (talk · contribs) and Themightyquill (talk · contribs). I agree that the move by Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) of the nominated category to their desired name while in the middle of this discussion was completely inappopriate and it is going to take a bit of work to restore without losing the page history. However, it would be good to consider the suggestion of Shakko and Themightyquill independent of the tactics employed by Rereader1996. Josh (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you both! I agree on the principle: no title. I also stand by my opppose above because it is not necessary to move any category that has a justifiable name. That too is principally important. Redirects will suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Themightyquill (talk · contribs) is absolutely correct that this is not an issue about one individual, but a general approach to how we name categories for individuals on Commons. We use Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom instead of "Queen Elizabeth II", Category:Barack Obama instead of "President Barack Obama", and Category:Norman Schwarzkopf instead of "General Norman Schwarzkopf", to illustrate a few. If disambiguation is needed, we add the dab info in () after the name. Adding honorifics, titles, styles, orders, etc. before or after the name clutters the category structure and serves little valuable purpose for the project. It simply is not needed and causes problems, so should be avoided. Josh (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Sure, I have no issue with that as long as it’s changed considering she ceased to be a Princess of Sweden by marriage after her divorce in addition to being known as ‘Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia’. Rereader1996 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: In what sense is it rude though? Especially when you’re evidently trying to remove factual edits based on official statements correlating with the page names of the individual’s Wikipedia Pages too, as we have a also seen regarding ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ whom you’re adamant to refer to as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or whatever you’re assuming she’s titled, though I’ll just leave that for the discussion page. Rereader1996 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: The Category names of most monarchs (Emperors/Empresses and Kings/Queens) generally don’t have their titles included as per the example you have included with Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, other exmamples being Category:Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, Category:Michael I of Romania or Category:Margrethe II of Denmark: however ordinary members of the Imperial/Royal families are named both on Wikipedia and Commons with their official and most senior title including the title which precedes their name (Prince or Princess/Duke or Duchess/Count or Countess) followed by either the family name or the place of territorial designation, unless they have a royal title of nobility, such as Category:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge which is why for junior members of an Imperial/royal family who are not a monarch we should at least have the same names/titles of individuals correlating to their Wikipedia name; for instance on the subject who was a Russian Grand Duchess by birth: en:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) whereas your example of the category name of former President ‘Barack Obama’s or General ‘Norman Schwarzkopf’ not including their titles being because the individuals held a title which was granted by their office and not by birth, which also ceased when they were out of office; you will also find that ‘honorifics, titles, styles, orders, etc.’ have not been mentioned and nor have been included so you won’t find the “problems” within the category names arising. Rereader1996 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue to respond to input by any user who resorts to rude and unfair accusations like "I understand you want to to take control of everything related to the Swedish Royal Family". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I object to the move because it is not necessary, as clarified above. No further comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Support As already stated, I completely agree with this move and propose this CFD to have come to a conclusion. Rereader1996 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
More than three years have passed since the last comments were made, and I am making an executive decision here. The category was summarily renamed by Rereader1996 to Category:Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958). However, this user was perma-blocked for being a sockpuppet of ImperialArchivesRU, who started this request, so that should never have happened. On the other hand, as such a long time has passed and no one has moved the category to something else, that can be construed as consensus that the new name is acceptable. As such, I am closing this request. If there are any objections, please feel free to start a new CFD. —holly {chat} 22:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this category, and it doesn't seem to fit with our category tree. Themightyquill (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of cycletracks do not serve comfort and sureness of the cyclists. They delay cycle traffic and lead it through avoidable dangerous spots. They merely have been built to get the cyclists off the carriageway, to provide a "road" without cyclists, for the car drivers.--Ulamm (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like rather subjective to me. Why decides what's "against" cyclists or not? We don't have Category:Particularly good cycletracks either. I propose deletion, though the contents could be moved to a gallery if someone wants to make this point. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, merge to Category:Bikeways and sub-sort media as appropriate there. This is a clearly NPOV category unless there is some sort of official designation or recognition that can be sourced for this. Even then, it is dubious if such a category would be warranted. Josh (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- There are also categories of disasters. The images are not simply categorizied to the sites of these disasters.--Ulamm (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ulamm: Could you elaborate on this point? I don't understand what you meant here. Category:Bikeways is subcategorized in a number of objective ways beyond location. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- There are also categories of disasters. The images are not simply categorizied to the sites of these disasters.--Ulamm (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, merge to Category:Bikeways and sub-sort media as appropriate there. This is a clearly NPOV category unless there is some sort of official designation or recognition that can be sourced for this. Even then, it is dubious if such a category would be warranted. Josh (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like rather subjective to me. Why decides what's "against" cyclists or not? We don't have Category:Particularly good cycletracks either. I propose deletion, though the contents could be moved to a gallery if someone wants to make this point. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Joshbaumgartner and User:Themightyquill. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Merge to Category:Bikeways | |||
| Actions | Recategorize as necessary, add redirect | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Must we? This is entirely unsubstantiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe right. The whole subject is contentious and I myself don't believe in this stuff. But it has higher relevant cats in the tree, which would also have to be removed, I suggest right up to and including Folklore/Mysteries/Mysticism. Significantly it has a Wikipedia list article of the same name here, with many reliable sources (Wikipedia has a higher threshold of reliabilty, Wikimedia lower), and people could legitimately search for these cats to make use of the files, just as they might search out myths and legends, which generally have no basis in reality. Unsubstantiated maybe, reported yes. There are reports and articles (hence 'reportedly') in reputable sources, often for entertainment no doubt. There are often TV programs on these cat subjects... but we have cats and Wikipedia articles on many unsubstantiated fictional subjects. Acabashi (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- At least it says "reportedly" - but I'd !vote delete regardless as I can't see a good reason for categorising them based on this supposed criterion here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It's not unsubstantiated that there are reports of such things, these are likely to be given citations at Wikipedia. If there is a demand for this stuff I don't see the problem, it's as valid as say Category:Harry Potter or any number of fictional subjects. Oxyman (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- en:Steelhouse Lane police station, for example, has no mention of being haunted, or anything like it, much less a citation for that. Category:Smethwick Baths, on the other hand, has no Wikipedia equivalent at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find citations for those link link and even if there is a member of the category that has no place being there it does not follow that the whole category should be deleted. There will be examples of sites with a long history of media coverage which is part of our collective history. We also have Category:Holy Spirit do you propose to delete that? or is that the right kind of entirely unsubstantiated or contentious content? Oxyman (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find "citations", certainly; but it seems that you cannot find citations that substantiate the claim made; your former, for example, includes the statements that (my emphasis] "[a TV company] are trying to find out whether any spirits are still serving time" and "rumoured to haunt ". The second source is clearly a work of fiction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find citations for those link link and even if there is a member of the category that has no place being there it does not follow that the whole category should be deleted. There will be examples of sites with a long history of media coverage which is part of our collective history. We also have Category:Holy Spirit do you propose to delete that? or is that the right kind of entirely unsubstantiated or contentious content? Oxyman (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- en:Steelhouse Lane police station, for example, has no mention of being haunted, or anything like it, much less a citation for that. Category:Smethwick Baths, on the other hand, has no Wikipedia equivalent at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Question Is the "Reportedly" portion needed? Would we have any "Unreported haunted locations". I would think Category:Haunted locations in the United Kingdom would be sufficient, given that it would have to be reported to be considered in the tree at all. Josh (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting point. Perhaps the 'Reportedly' here is reflecting Wikipedia where there are 50 countries with 'Reportedly haunted locations' under a list, each with multiple locations and/or their own main cat. It might be that the word is an attempt at neutrality. Calling them just 'Haunted' might be seen as acknowledging such phenomena exists, which could be contentious, and words such as 'Claimed' are loaded in the other direction. I suspect that 'Reportedly' was ruminated over there to achieve the best neutral balance. However, you may be right, if we here think just having 'Haunted' is so obvious to most people that the whole subject is debatable anyway. I would say that what is not contentious is the fact that such paranormal phenomena is reported, whether or not they are, or we believe, genuine and believable, or fraudulent. If there is a change here, categories in this whole part the tree would have to be changed, and would need a more inclusive debate elsewhere. Acabashi (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The status of a location in folklore is a relevant feature. I appreciate the inclusion of "reportedly"; I feel that Category:Haunted locations in the United Kingdom is really just incorrect (according to the general consensus). – BMacZero (🗩) 04:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment the outcome of this discussion will certainly affect all similarly-themed categories, like Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the Philippines and Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States. If we must eliminate all categories that are about paranormal places, then those and other similarly-named categories must be nominated too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Closed, Kept. Matches en:w; category tree standardized. Used, no alternative categorization offered, no new discussion for a year. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is vague, and entirerly unsubstantiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed that this may be vague, but why is it unsubstantiated? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not one of these places has reliable source that says it is "Paranormal". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean reliable source in Wikipedia or in Commons? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Neither. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean reliable source in Wikipedia or in Commons? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not one of these places has reliable source that says it is "Paranormal". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Changed the description slightly. Any further recommendations on changing the description or the cat name to make the category more clear? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment part repeat from a sub cat: see here. It is vague... should be 'Reportedly paranormal places'. Unsubstantiated maybe, reported yes. Significantly Wikipedia has cats on the subject, see Paranormal places. Wikipedia has a higher threshold of reliability, Wikimedia lower. So I don't think it matters whether or not the cat/sub-cats are substantiated. If this cat is badly named on Wikipedia, we need to change it there too. Acabashi (talk)
- Good point. I put "claims". Maybe "reported" would be better? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment part repeat from a sub cat: see here. It is vague... should be 'Reportedly paranormal places'. Unsubstantiated maybe, reported yes. Significantly Wikipedia has cats on the subject, see Paranormal places. Wikipedia has a higher threshold of reliability, Wikimedia lower. So I don't think it matters whether or not the cat/sub-cats are substantiated. If this cat is badly named on Wikipedia, we need to change it there too. Acabashi (talk)
- I oppose deletion, but don't oppose a rename to clarify the unsubstantiated nature of the claims. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed Kept, no consensus to make a particular change, in use, no new discussion in 4 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
as Pretzels and Kringles are difficult to differ, lets rename to Category:Pretzels and kringles in art Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- What's a kringle? I've never heard of it. Is that an English word or some other language? Is it regional? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Now this is weird. Here Category:Pretzels in art is categorized under Category:Kringle (not the plural form), as though pretzels are a subset of kringle. However, Category:Kringle is under Category:Pretzel-shaped food, implying that they share a shape but are different things. English Wikipedia says that kringle is a type of pretzel, and describes them as being made in various shapes. File:Kringle.jpeg and File:Roscon de Reyes.jpg, both in the Kringle category, show food that is not pretzel-shaped.
- I think I favor keeping them separate, and in separate branches of the category tree. If anything under Category:Pretzels in art is actually a kringle, move it up to Category:Bread in art. Add Category:Pretzel-shaped food to any pretzel-shaped kringle, and remove Category:Kringle from Category:Pretzel-shaped food. Otherwise, if you want to combine pretzels and kringle, combine all the categories, not just this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki and EncycloPetey: Any objection to the suggestion by Auntof6 (talk · contribs)? As I understand it, this would leave the nominated category as is (except to remove it from Category:Kringle). Josh (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- "As is" sounds fine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anything needs to change. In paintings, signs, and other images from Category:Pretzels in art, pretzel and kringle often look exactly the same. Yzarg (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support "as is"; kringle appears to be either a subcategory of pretzel and/or a different variant of baked good, but pretzel seems to be the dominant one, and for simplicity-sake they should not be combined in the category name. If it is shown to be distinct enough, a new "Kringles in art" category may be warranted, with some maintenance required. Morgan Riley (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki and EncycloPetey: Any objection to the suggestion by Auntof6 (talk · contribs)? As I understand it, this would leave the nominated category as is (except to remove it from Category:Kringle). Josh (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed, Kept. In use, no consensus for a particular change, no new discussion in 4 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an odd one. It was created a few days ago as a redirect to Category:Orders, but it was then tagged for speedy deletion with the rationale bad redirect. Decoracion implies to decorations also. See also members in this cat. The current contents are File:Cortina con Presilla.jpg, File:Cremallera oculta.jpg, and File:Decoración de la Graduacion.jpg.
I'm not sure what to think. The target category covers en:Award or decoration and es:Orden (distinción), but the current contents of this redirect are en:Decorative arts and es:Artes decorativas. The ambiguity of English "decoration" apparently appears in Spanish too; es:Decoración is an eleven-entry disambiguation page.
So...what should be done here? Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Recategorize the files. Turn Category:Decorations into a dab page. Then either redirect this category there or delete it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Auntof6. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. I changed Category:Decoration to DAB. The nominated category is now also redirected to there. We probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that while "decoración" is Spanish for "decoration" (in either meaning), "decoracion" doesn’t seem to be a valid word in any language. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I added a couple of entries to the dab. I agree that this can close. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed per discussion. Category has been a redirect to a disambiguation since 2021. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Dumped category. Schooner have not straight sails. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please look at Wikipedia. Some schooners do have square sails (if that is what you mean). Please look at topsail schooners and schooner-brigs. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Shooner-brigs are named brigantines. Àlso are barqentines. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Вадзім Медзяноўскі and Rsteen: This seems to be a matter relating to all Category:Schooners, not just Category:Schooners in art, so I have added a CfD notice there. The description on Category:Schooners seems in line what Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk · contribs) is suggesting, though I would suggest that a 'schooner-brig' should be under both Category:Schooners and Category:Brigantines (pending creation of Category:Schooner-brigs). Category:Schooners in art should follow the same definition as the parent Category:Schooners. Josh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, brigantines and barkentines may have their own categories, but topsail schooners are still schooners - or do you wish to make a category for them too? Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Rsteen: I don't necessarily see a need for a new sub-cat, but I would not oppose it either, so long as it was properly set up. The point of my comments is that there is no reason to remove a file from Category:Schooners or Category:Schooners in art just because it also a brigantine. Do you think the wording of the description on Category:Schooners is in need of a change? Josh (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Have done some elaboration on the description of schooners - in line with Wikipedia. I see no need to keep brigantine and barkentine illustrations in this category - as they have their own - but topsail schooners should stay. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Rsteen: I don't necessarily see a need for a new sub-cat, but I would not oppose it either, so long as it was properly set up. The point of my comments is that there is no reason to remove a file from Category:Schooners or Category:Schooners in art just because it also a brigantine. Do you think the wording of the description on Category:Schooners is in need of a change? Josh (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed, categories kept; seem legitimate categories, (that some media may be or may have been miscategorized does not change that and is not a cfd issue), used, stale discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose the whole tree be renamed according to names used by the Registration and Electoral Office (REO), with some tweaks. English is an official lang of HK. The names used by REO are quite neat too. Motivation is that the current names use words like local/municipal, which might be confusing for people unfamiliar with hk politics (hk is a city, so why is there local vs municipal? actually, they refer to district councils and the now disbanded municipal councils elections.) Roy17 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposed tree (incomplete):
elections in hk
- elections in hk by type
- Hong Kong Legislative Council elections
- YYYY Hong Kong Legislative Council election https://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2016/eng/index.html
- (if necessary, could be broken down to for example 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Council Hong Kong Island election)
- Hong Kong Legislative Council by-elections
- YYYY Hong Kong Legislative Council election https://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2016/eng/index.html
- Hong Kong District Councils elections
- YYYY Hong Kong District Councils election https://www.elections.gov.hk/dc2015/eng/index.html (district boards before 1999)
- Hong Kong Chief Executive elections
- YYYY hkce election https://www.elections.gov.hk/ce2017/eng/index.html
- Hong Kong Election Committee Subsector elections
- YYYY hkecs election https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/index.html
- Hong Kong Rural Representative elections https://www.had.gov.hk/rre/eng/home/index.html
- YYYY hkrr election
- National People's Congress elections in Hong Kong (exception because Hong Kong National People's Congress would sound odd)
- YYYY National People's Congress election in Hong Kong
- (most cats should follow HK + the name of the body/post elected + elections or name of the body/post + of HK +elections)
- (YYYY + parent cat name + election)
- (by elections for a constituency, a group or a subsector would be YYYY
+ parent cat name+ constituency/group name + by-election, e.g. 2018 Hong Kong Legislative Council Kowloon West by-election https://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2018kwby/eng/index.html. if multiple by-elections were bundled and held on the same day, then there would be an extra cat inbetween like 2018 Hong Kong Legislative Council by-elections. if multiple by-elections in the same constituency were held in the same year, then month is added before YYYY, e.g. January YYYY ... by-election(s))
- Hong Kong Legislative Council elections
- elections in hk by year
- YYYY elections in HK
- by-elections in hk
- (same sub-structure as elections in hk)
- elections in hk by type
--Roy17 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- For by elections, I think YYYY + constituency/sector name + by-election(s) is good enough. I dont think this could ever be confusing.--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Roy17: Sorry that I had not found this discussion page before I moved categories "District Council Election in Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong local elections" for 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2019. I think that the name "local elections" is acceptable because Hong Kong is not an ordinary city, but a special administrative region that has powers of legislation, final adjudication, issuing currency and passports, etc.. It has bigger power than other provincial-level division of China (except Macau), and to some extent, even than a U.S. state. Since U.S. local governments only include governments below a U.S. state, I think we can call a district-level election in Hong Kong as "local election". The name you proposed, "YYYY Hong Kong District Councils election", may be controversial because it's not clear whether uppercase/lowercase and singular/plural should be used here. The Hong Kong government's link you provided above uses "District Council Election" (all uppercase and all singular, different from your proposal), while English Wikipedia uses lowercase and plural "elections" for these Hong Kong elections in a specific year (e.g., 2019 Hong Kong local elections). And it is also controversial whether a "district council" (generic term, not for a specific council in a specific district) should be lowercase or uppercase (see, e.g., moves 1, 2, 3). So I suggest using "YYYY Hong Kong local elections", not "YYYY Hong Kong D(d)istrict C(c)ouncil(s) E(e)lection(s)", to avoid controversies. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- With regard to the district councils:
- it is known as local elections in Hong Kong, but as I said, it's not obvious for users who's not familiar with HK politics. If we could use the name of the body elected, why not? And the govt and media have been using the term DCE.
- councils should be plural since 18 of them are elected. The 18 councils are independent of each other and are not collectively known as a single DC. The govt's choice in this case is not very good.
- election should be singular because it's one election.
- election should not be capitalised as it is consistent with the whole election cat tree on Commons.--Roy17 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Each election is comparable to a GE, so why enwp chose an awkward phrasing local elections is beyond me. Commons has its own cat tree and should be followed and not affected by a wiki's style.--Roy17 (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's also important to maintain some consistency within the cat. If a colloquial term local election is used, then it seems odd if other elections use the name of the body elected. But if all election cats are renamed using colloquial terms—legislative, local, municipal and rural—it would be even more difficult for non HK users to navigate through the cat tree.--Roy17 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- While you said you "propose the whole tree be renamed according to names used by the Registration and Electoral Office", you acknowledge that the official name "is not very good". So, let's focus on common name, not the official name, which is also not obvious for uses who are not familiar with HK politics. I don't think "election" should be singular. The fact that these elections were held in a same day does not mean that they were one election. The US House of representatives elections and Senate elections were also held in a same day, but their articles use plural titles (e.g., 2016 United States House of Representatives elections and 2016 United States Senate elections). And although there are more than one district council, it can still be singular when it is used as an adjective before "election" (as the current version of 2019 Hong Kong local elections). And it is still controversial whether "district council(s)" should be lowercase or uppercase. And what do you mean by "[e]ach election is comparable to a GE"? Does "GE" mean "general election"? Then why is each election comparable to a general election? Could you please clarify that? --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I said in my first sentence on this page there would be some tweaks, which are necessary to comply with Commons' cat tree and style.
- The official name is far better than the colloquial name as the title tells users exactly what is elected in that election.
- en:Noun adjuncts can be plural. I prefer plural in this case for the aforementioned consideration.
- Again, enwp's awkward phrasing on US Congress is their business. They could harmonise it as per en:Category:General elections by country.
- Words that are part of proper nouns are capitalised. DC is a proper noun.
- Each DC election is comparable to a general election (which elects the LegCo) in HK. A single GE is not pluralised, it's perplexing enwp chooses to pluralise the DC election called in one go.--Roy17 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Americans probably consider election in each state as one on its own and so the national elections is a sum of them. That's certainly not the case for a HK DC election as no one thinks it's a sum of 18 small elections.--Roy17 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- en:Noun adjuncts can be plural, but not should be, and "were traditionally mostly singular". That's why, I guess, the Hong Kong government prefers singular "District Council Election", not plural "District Councils Election".
- You and I are not native speakers of English. I don't think that we can assert that English Wikipedia's phrasing on US Congress is awkward since these English Wikipedia articles have been edited and accepted by plenty of native speakers of English. And Commons categories also use plural for US Congress elections (e.g., Category:United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 and Category:United States Senate elections, 2016). So this is also our business.
- A specific district council in Hong Kong is a proper noun (e.g., Wan Chai District Council), but a generic term district council in Hong Kong may not be a proper noun (just as Governor of California is a proper noun, wile governor in the United States is not a proper noun). At lease English Wikipedia does not take it as a proper noun (see en:District councils of Hong Kong).
- I don't think that each DC election is comparable to a general election. They are not like LegCo election, which elects members of a single organization. DC elections in a specific year generate members of 18 organizations independent of each other. The elections in different districts can be seen as different ones, and the whole elections are a sum of them (see, e.g., en:Category:2015 Hong Kong local elections). English news media also take the 2019 DC elections as plural (see, e.g., CNN: "...officials will suspend polling or postpone the elections entirely...", "Should the elections go ahead this week..."). Why don't we, non-native speakers of English, follow English Wikipedia and news media? --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Picking cherries to argue for one side is not very convincing. See en:Category:California State Assembly elections en:Category:New_York_State_Legislature_elections for counter examples of a US election which uses singular titles. If User:Neo-Jay insists on drawing comparison between the US and HK, maybe these state level examples are more suitable. The same goes for news media. Would Neo-Jay please cite some sources that use the singular form? And preferably some HK sources?
- This cfd is to harmonise the elections in HK structure, so it is beyond scope to discuss why enwp and Commons use plural titles for US federal elections. Argument about that does not help this cfd either since if comparison is to be drawn many more countries' elections in one setting are cat-ed with singular titles.--Roy17 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- California State Assembly or New York State Senate or New York State Assembly is a single organization, while Hong Kong district councils are not. As you said above, the "18 councils are independent of each other and are not collectively known as a single DC". Again, the district elections in Hong Kong in a specific year are not comparable to a general election. They are comparable to local elections under the state level (e.g., mayoral elections held on a same day in a state), or, they are local elections. You call my argument as "picking cherries". So what about you? Are you picking cherries?
- The reason why I discuss the fact that English Wikipedia and Commons use plural titles for some US elections and Hong Kong local elections (clearly English Wikipedia also uses plural for these Hong Kong DC elections) is to discuss what decent English is. Commons categories should of course use decent English. Discussion about that does help this cfd.--Neo-Jay (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Then Neo-Jay's argument would backfire since US House of Representatives (or the Senate) is a single entity but the decent English wiki uses plural titles for its election.--Roy17 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- We can find plural title for a single entity election(s). But can you find singular title for multi-entity elections? My argument is to use plural title for this Hong Kong multi-entity elections. You said "no one thinks it's a sum of 18 small elections". This is not true. English-speaking world does think it is a sum of small elections. Your proposal does not conform to the common practice of English-speaking community. For more English news, see, e.g, ABCNews Pro-democracy candidates advance in key Hong Kong elections.--Neo-Jay (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I dont know what common practice Neo-Jay refers to. At the very least that common practice is not shared by the HK Govt itself: He stressed the Government attaches great importance to the upcoming election... This election will be the largest ever... see a proper, a safe, a fair, honest and particularly impartial election this Sunday... it will be very difficult for people to go to the election and feeling unsafe, then it will really ruin this election.
- And I could list as many sources that use the singular form as there are plural ones, https://www.hongkongfp.com/tag/2019-district-council-election/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/world/asia/hong-kong-election-protests-district-council.html , but it's really pointless.--Roy17 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- We can find plural title for a single entity election(s). But can you find singular title for multi-entity elections? My argument is to use plural title for this Hong Kong multi-entity elections. You said "no one thinks it's a sum of 18 small elections". This is not true. English-speaking world does think it is a sum of small elections. Your proposal does not conform to the common practice of English-speaking community. For more English news, see, e.g, ABCNews Pro-democracy candidates advance in key Hong Kong elections.--Neo-Jay (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Then Neo-Jay's argument would backfire since US House of Representatives (or the Senate) is a single entity but the decent English wiki uses plural titles for its election.--Roy17 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- With regard to the district councils:
- @Roy17: Sorry that I had not found this discussion page before I moved categories "District Council Election in Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong local elections" for 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2019. I think that the name "local elections" is acceptable because Hong Kong is not an ordinary city, but a special administrative region that has powers of legislation, final adjudication, issuing currency and passports, etc.. It has bigger power than other provincial-level division of China (except Macau), and to some extent, even than a U.S. state. Since U.S. local governments only include governments below a U.S. state, I think we can call a district-level election in Hong Kong as "local election". The name you proposed, "YYYY Hong Kong District Councils election", may be controversial because it's not clear whether uppercase/lowercase and singular/plural should be used here. The Hong Kong government's link you provided above uses "District Council Election" (all uppercase and all singular, different from your proposal), while English Wikipedia uses lowercase and plural "elections" for these Hong Kong elections in a specific year (e.g., 2019 Hong Kong local elections). And it is also controversial whether a "district council" (generic term, not for a specific council in a specific district) should be lowercase or uppercase (see, e.g., moves 1, 2, 3). So I suggest using "YYYY Hong Kong local elections", not "YYYY Hong Kong D(d)istrict C(c)ouncil(s) E(e)lection(s)", to avoid controversies. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The case is simple. English is an official language of HK. These elections have their official English names.
- My suggestion is to use these names for commons cats, since they are indeed widely used by media and citizens, whereas other names are not intuitive.
- To use other names some very compelling reason would have to be shown.--Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I cannot open the hongkongfp and nytimes links for I am in China and blocked by the Great Firewall. If both singular and plural are used, what we need to decide is which one is the common name. Among the 25 English references in en:2019 Hong Kong local elections, six (all from South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong source) call the elections "district council elections" (lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections") in titles, and one (The Washington Post) calls them "local elections" in title. None of the references (except one government's webpage) uses singular "election" in title (except that Joshua Wong's case should of course use singular "election" since it only refers to a specific district election in these elections). If you insist on using the entity's name rather than "local elections", at least whether "District Councils" should be capitalized and plural, as you propose, is still not clear. And the plural "elections" is the common name.
- Yes, these elections' official English names should be considered when we decide Commons category titles. But you have acknowledged that the official name "District Council Election" should not be used, because it "is not very good". We both agree that "election" should be lowercased. You support plural "District Councils" and I disagree. I support lowercase "district council" and plural "elections" and you disagree. It seems that we cannot convince each other (just because I had known that the uppercase-lowercase and singular-plural issues are controversial, I changed "District Council" to "local" in category titles to avoid controversies. see my edit summaries in this, this, this, and this). Hope that someone else may participate in this discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Stop putting words in my mouth. I have no choice but to repeat what I said—I prefer District Councils election and consider the govt's choice of District Council election not very good because the 18 councils are independent of each other and are not collectively known as a single District Council.
- There's nothing controversial about capitalising proper nouns. I dont see the merit of arguing that a territory wide election could be considered as multiple elections either. The term local elections is, however, not used by either the electoral commission or the govt. Not much HK media use the term either.
- Hong Kong District Council elections
- 2019 Hong Kong District Council election
- Please argue against these names without pointlessly citing newspapers, since there're equally many for usage of singular and plural forms. That someone uses elections can be simply rebuffed by the fact that other people use election.--Roy17 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Your proposal is "Hong Kong District Councils elections / 2019 Hong Kong District Councils election" (plural "District Councils"), isn't it? Neither you nor I support the HK government's choice: "Hong Kong District Council elections / 2019 Hong Kong District Council election". Your argument is that the HK government's choice (singular "District Council") "is not very good". I think that your proposal is also not very good.
- If "there're equally many for usage of singular and plural forms", why should we use your own preference (uppercase and plural "District Councils" + singular "election")? We should use the common name. And the fact is that the majority English sources use lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections". And the reasons are:
- 1. When we generally talk about a district council in Hong Kong, it is not a proper noun, and should be lowercase. Only when we specifically mention the name of one of the 18 district councils (e.g. Wan Chai District Council), it is a proper noun and should be capitalized.
- 2. When "district council" is used as an adjective before a noun, it is usually written as singular, not plural.
- 3. The elections in a specific year consist of 18 district council elections (see the 18 elections in, e.g., en:Category:2015 Hong Kong local elections). So "elections" here should be plural.
- Therefore, if not using "YYYY Hong Kong local elections", the categories should be named as:
- Local elections in Hong Kong (including district council elections and district board elections)
- Hong Kong district council elections (local elections after 1997, lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections")
- YYYY Hong Kong district council elections (lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections")
- YYYY Wan Chai District Council election, etc. (capitalized the name of the district council + singular "election")
- YYYY Hong Kong district council elections (lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections")
- Hong Kong district board elections (local elections before 1997, lowercase and singular "district board" + plural "elections")
- YYYY Hong Kong district board elections (lowercase and singular "district board" + plural "elections")
- YYYY Wan Chai District Board election, etc. (capitalized the name of the district board + singular "election")
- YYYY Hong Kong district board elections (lowercase and singular "district board" + plural "elections")
- Hong Kong district council elections (local elections after 1997, lowercase and singular "district council" + plural "elections")
- Local elections in Hong Kong (including district council elections and district board elections)
- I do not support your proposal regarding the district council elections. To avoid these plural/singular and uppercase/lowercase controversies, I propose the following simpler category tree:
- Local elections in Hong Kong
- YYYY Hong Kong local elections
- YYYY Wan Chai District Council election, etc. (for elections after 1997)
- YYYY Wan Chai District Board election, etc. (for elections before 1997) --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Local news media rarely use the term local election. The election is not split up into each DC either. This entire alternative proposal is not realistic at all.--Roy17 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- YYYY Hong Kong local elections
- Local elections in Hong Kong
- The principle behind these cat names is simply the following:
- Because it's not common and could be confusing to call HK elections general/parliamentary/legislative/municipal/local/rural... elections, it's better to use the format name of the body/post elected + elections, which happens to be the same as the official names.
- But these HK elected bodies have pretty common names that other places also use, e.g. Legislative Council, District Council, it's necessary to add HK in front or in the middle, hence the format should be either
- HK + the name of the body/post elected + elections
- or
- name of the body/post + of HK +elections
- For example, it should be either Hong Kong Legislative Council elections or Legislative Council of Hong Kong elections. To me the former is neater.
- This format largely follows the offcial names and would be internally consistent for this commons cat tree. It would be easy to understand and navigate even for users who have no prior knowledge of HK politics.--Roy17 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Roy17 and Neo-Jay: I haven't read this massive text, but I guess that enwiki equivalent en:Category:Elections in Hong Kong may help here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Thanks for your message. I have fully expressed my opinion and will not participate in this discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This discussion has been stale for at least a couple of years now and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change things. So I'm closing it as "stale with no consensus." I think there could possibly be another discussion about the particulars of how to name the sub-categories, but they probably deserve separate, individual CfDs depending on the particular circumstances. Anyone is free to do that if they want to. I'm not seeing a consensus to change anything here though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||