Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/10
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive January 2020
We already have "Category:Sportspeople from Istanbul". Can you show me such a similar "double cat" for any other city? If not, I am merging it. E4024 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- We don't even have Category:Sportspeople of New York but somehow we do have Category:Sportspeople from New York City and Category:Sportspeople from New York (state). --E4024 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirected. --E4024 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Should be named Category:Wikimedia logo variants. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Done --E4024 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you please change the name of this category to "Category:Christiane Noll" as that is the correct spelling of her name. Thanks in advance. 51.37.64.140 23:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done E4024 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done and closed. --E4024 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:Rivesaltes Camp Memorial - Temporary exhibition - Treize Chibanis harkis - Serge Vollin - Fatima Besnaci-Lancou - Ahmed
[edit]à supprimer (catégorie vide) Faqscl (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:Rivesaltes Camp Memorial - Temporary exhibition - Treize Chibanis harkis - Serge Vollin - Fatima Besnaci-Lancou - Youssef
[edit]à supprimer ( catégorie vide) Faqscl (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Katuska27327 46.34.234.163 09:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
No files in this category now. Was named/created in error. There is an existing older category (Flora of the Anaimalai Hills). Commonly spelt either way. Shankar Raman (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Since both spellings are used, I've redirected this category. Closing. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not even sure what is going on where. We have a category (previously deleted) that contains sockpuppet categories? Someone should really fix this - by deleting what needs deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Uncategorized and broken category redirect. Leonel Sohns 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Cross-wiki spam Esteban16 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted 2nd time. --Achim (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
community Yoconda.102 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: nothing to do, obviously test edit. --Achim (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes! In the end! Other than fast turning into an amateur porn-site now we are becoming a marriage or date agency. Subjectivity apart... E4024 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Beauty is completely subjective. And kind of creepy this specific category in Wikimedia Commons. Delete this category as nonsense and out of scope (but not a single file). Tm (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete Unencyclopedic personal aesthetic taste categorization. Harmful, not helpful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, per unanimous opinions. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This category is no longer needed. /Leonel Sohns stop bugging me! 13:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Leonel Sohns: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Church registers 2.101.31.63 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to discuss. --Achim (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This category is no longer needed. /Leonel Sohns stop bugging me! 13:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Leonel Sohns: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This category is not needed. /Leonel Sohns stop bugging me! 13:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Leonel Sohns: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Please delete the category. I created the category incorrectly. Smarties (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G1/COM:CSD#G7. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Please delete the category. I created the category incorrectly. Smarties (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G1/COM:CSD#G7. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Es fehlen 2 Grabtafeln die im Vorraum links und rechts am Eingang in den 20 zigern Jahren angebracht wurden. Warum wurde diese Tafeln entfernt? 80.137.202.38 21:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. Dies dient der technischen Diskussion der Kategorie und nicht der Diskussion der Sache. Frag bitte jemanden, der eine Datei hochgeladen hat. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove this unused category, because 'Category:Balikpapan–Samarinda Toll Road' already to created Firzafp supports #SaveHTTP (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Makaylajohnson homebacke 75.110.62.12 22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Vandalism. --Achim (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggest decapitalising this to Category:D-subminiature to harmonise with the Wikipedia article. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Support its generic and given the WP article this probably isn't controversial, note that w:D-Subminiature doesn't even exist as a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Lina Linnea 2A02:AA1:1017:41D5:BC23:CED5:7064:5116 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is the proposal here? or is this a test? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Please delete the category. I created the category incorrectly. Smarties (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Only file (File:Effendy Rahmat Batubara.png) nominated for deletion as COM:SELFIE DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: by Krd. --Minoraxtalk 11:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Unuseful image per COM:SCOPE. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minoraxtalk 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
speedy was declined with the reason of "I know that the uploader sent OTRS permission for all the deleted files; they must be in process right now. No need to delete the cat." But let's not let this empty category fall through the cracks. This is currently empty, and if those images don't come back it will remain empty. If they do come back, then it won't be empty and it doesn't need deleted and the nomination is moot. Quakewoody (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eventually the owner of works sent the OTRS permission emails and I couldn't follow up the process because I'm new here. I'm trying to correct the issue. Also even if the deleted media do not come back sooner, I'm already uploading new media next week with a better OTRS handling. Thanks for your kind support. --Palaangelino (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The thanks go to me, I suppose; not at all. :) --E4024 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your kindness again, E4024! :) I'm going to fix this huge misunderstanding about the empty category. --Palaangelino (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The thanks go to me, I suppose; not at all. :) --E4024 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep the cat; move the OTRS agents. --E4024 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another 2 weeks have gone by. Still no update. July to November. I think it is time to say goodbye. Quakewoody (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed updates here. I've been talking with an OTRS agent about the issue and we're both trying to fix it at the moment. Also I uploaded new media a minute ago, so the category is not empty anymore and I'll continue improving the cat. Thank you for your understanding and patience. --Palaangelino (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now there is a file with OTRS permission in the cat. Please an uninvolved user close this discussion ASAP. If no-one takes the initiative within 24 hours I will close it myself. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Knowing full well that no one is going to see it, perhaps instead of making a random comment like "if someone doesn't close this in 24 hours, I will do it myself", maybe it would be better to ping a couple people? You know, just to ensure that someone sees it. Quakewoody (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. First of all, there CFD discussions open for years so two weeks is nothing. Second, don't close discussions you are in as it is just dumb. Third, I feel there is a clear conflict of interest here but either way, there is no need for a category for a single picture. Every category can be put onto the image itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- OIC - (Oh, I see). I answered you in another forum and saw this now. Firstly explain me the "clear conflict of interest" thingy please: What kind of conflict of interest? Do you think I'm the manager of this artist? I have defended many young artists here (and in WPs) because people attack them as bulls do with the red cloth. I, for my part, believe in helping young people. (There are several examples here, begin to follow me and you will see. For example the case of Tankurt Manas, another rapper, and you know what? I hate rap!) Secondly as you know very well (our other conversation) I did not close nor I will close this CfD. So what is "dumb"? Thirdly, this discussion was opened to "delete" an empty cat and the cat is not empty now. IOW, this is not a "discussion" but something else: It exists because when you try to ask the deletion of a cat, the gadget forwards you to open a CfD. Now, having answered the three numerical points, it looks like you have missed the discussions about one-file-only cats that have already been done. These cats respond to a structural need between WP/WD/Commons. I hope now you may say weak keep or strike your weak delete or whatever you wish to do. I am out of here. I have to go to categorize uncategorized pages. Bye. E4024 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- It may not be empty but it is now a one-image category that is for an artist found on one wiki with one wikidata entry. The category seems inefficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry for the late response. First of all, I want to recap the discussion one more time. The discussion started because Quake wanted to speedy delete this cat which was empty 'cause of my lacking OTRS handling. And E4024 kindly responded him/her with the media being on OTRS process and no need for a speedy deletion, better we discuss why it was empty. Then after, Quakewoody simply started this discussion for 'the deletion request of an empty cat.' Many thanks to E4024 again, I was learning how to actually process OTRS back in the day. Days have gone, and I've learned a lot to contribute good. Finally, I correctly processed an image, and this cat is not empty anymore. And so, I can provide more media in a day to enrich the cat since we're all here, being volunteer contributors, to collect and store the existing earthly data. And following that, I saw you're interested in English Wikipedia and working hard to enrich the overall existence, which is really cool. I thought maybe you can contribute to the cat for more articles and rich context in English. I'm also adding this constructive idea to your talk page with the title 'AYDEED EN WP', so we can continue there, and I hope our friend, diligent E4024, will join us in that collective piece of work. Thanks for your interest in the discussion. Love and light. --Palaangelino (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- It may not be empty but it is now a one-image category that is for an artist found on one wiki with one wikidata entry. The category seems inefficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- OIC - (Oh, I see). I answered you in another forum and saw this now. Firstly explain me the "clear conflict of interest" thingy please: What kind of conflict of interest? Do you think I'm the manager of this artist? I have defended many young artists here (and in WPs) because people attack them as bulls do with the red cloth. I, for my part, believe in helping young people. (There are several examples here, begin to follow me and you will see. For example the case of Tankurt Manas, another rapper, and you know what? I hate rap!) Secondly as you know very well (our other conversation) I did not close nor I will close this CfD. So what is "dumb"? Thirdly, this discussion was opened to "delete" an empty cat and the cat is not empty now. IOW, this is not a "discussion" but something else: It exists because when you try to ask the deletion of a cat, the gadget forwards you to open a CfD. Now, having answered the three numerical points, it looks like you have missed the discussions about one-file-only cats that have already been done. These cats respond to a structural need between WP/WD/Commons. I hope now you may say weak keep or strike your weak delete or whatever you wish to do. I am out of here. I have to go to categorize uncategorized pages. Bye. E4024 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
As this cat contain 1 OTRS-approved image and 2 in OTRS evaluation, deletion of this cat would be without rationale; so it's kept. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Sawol initially tagged this category for speedy deletion citing “C2”. Starting a regular deletion process instead, as the category is a useful redirect as English-language media commonly used the European naming convention for the subject of this category, a Korean Sport climber. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have it your way. Sawol (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no valid reason for deletion. --ƏXPLICIT 03:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Je souhaite supprimer cette catégorie créé au début du mois dans le but d'illustrer une page qui finalement ne présentait pas encore assez de sources fiables lui permettant d'exister. En attendant, je souhaiterais supprimer ces images. Merci d'avance. Lemondethemyscira (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem with that. However, deletion of cat should come after deletion of its content. --Túrelio (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both this category and its images. Commons is not just a Wikipedia image host. The fact that a given page was deleted in any Wikipedia is not a reason to delete the images that were uploaded to illustrate it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nominate the files for deletion, even if the article has been deleted on Wikipedia a category with 5 images is likely acceptable on Commons but if the images are out of scope and are deleted, this can be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, how can I delete the content (the 4 pictures) though?
Done: out of scope images; resulting clean up. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As with many other "Americas" categories that have been deleted following previous discussions, there's no need to have this if the only content is subcategories for North and South America. Auntof6 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What about Central America? --E4024 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- What about it? There's no agriculture category for Central America. If there were, it would go under North America. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Greenland? Cannot they grow anything there? --E4024 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Greenland and Central America (and the Caribbean islands) are in North America, see w:en:North America. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I never informed myself by EN:WP, even before they threw me out. --E4024 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Greenland is politically part of Europe (because it belongs to Denmark) but geographically part of North America (not sure of the exact reason, maybe because it's right next to the northern part of Canada, or maybe it shares a tectonic plate?). As a result, it is under the agriculture categories for both. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Auntof, I am not sure what tectonic plate is, but I know from the case of the Island of Cyprus; it is considered Asia because sits on the "continental shelf" of Anatolia/Asia Minor/Asian Turkey. I hope I am not saying something stupid as I know almost nothing on earth sciences. E4024 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: A tectonic plate is a piece of the surface of the Earth. File:NorthAmericanPlate.png shows that Greenland is indeed on the same tectonic as the larger landmass of North America. As for Cyprus, different sources consider it to belong to either Asia or Europe. Commons categorizes it under both. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Auntof, I am not sure what tectonic plate is, but I know from the case of the Island of Cyprus; it is considered Asia because sits on the "continental shelf" of Anatolia/Asia Minor/Asian Turkey. I hope I am not saying something stupid as I know almost nothing on earth sciences. E4024 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Greenland and Central America (and the Caribbean islands) are in North America, see w:en:North America. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, this category should be deleted. The content categories are sufficiently categorized under Category:Agriculture by continent, no need for super-continent groupings. Josh (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
poverty threshold 180.190.66.182 03:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. This is a valid category for the city in Negros Oriental province, Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep unless the nom is suggesting a change to the category it clearly meets our inclusion criteria (not really that there is much of one for categories anyway) and if the files need deleting then that's something for DR not CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Accidental CFD. --rimshottalk 00:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. The person is actually born in 1988; the category has been moved to the correct title. Nehme1499 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, born 1987, apparently. --rimshottalk 00:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
A highly redundant and superfluous category to Category:Rizal Avenue Extension (Caloocan City) Category:Rizal Avenue Extension (now renamed). It depicts the same subject as that of the parent category: Rizal Avenue Extension. All files have been moved there. Uploader should not over-categorize and should be more selective in uploading photos, as many seem redundant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; actually, I learned that Rizal Avenue Extension starts from Monument in front of Victory Liner and the burnt Mall; than Rizal Avenue starts from LRT Carriedo and ends up to about La Loma Cemetery when it meets the Extension; as I moved my camera - the photos would take Light Rails along this Extension hence I admit it is being confusing which is which for LRT Monument to LRT Abad Santos are diversing R A Extension; please allow me to remember lest I forget the moments of my depression: a) about 10:00 a.m. of September 23, 1972, Saturday I was in ROTC uniform at Blue Eagle's Gym, when we heard the Radio Proclamation of Martial Law; I hurriedly packed up from Katipunan apartment where I stay and rode a jeep to Meycauayan, Bulacan my home then; as I passed the being built LRT at Rizal Avenue not yet extension at that time Category:Rizal Avenue Extension (Light Rail Transit Authority, Caloocan City) I heard Tony Trinidad announcing Rose In May leading the horse pack; hence my depression was gone like the one who has been following my Mass Deletions since October 9 from 2 September 2020; and I bet on races that day; I was the only Bulakeno who passed the Ateneo Fape entrance Exam and on October 1974 , I was the only Bulakeno who graduated Ateneo Q. C., but I did not ascend the stage as my Father was so angry; I told him that as I passed Category:Rizal Avenue Extension (Light Rail Transit Authority, Caloocan City) during that Martial Law Day, I did prophecy that my classmates and many would take away all from me, my Gavel, Robes and Golden Throne within a Republic, Br. 73, RTC, Malabon; I lost all as the Lady said : “I do not promise you happiness in this world but in the next”; this is the Definition of Via Crucis that Way of the Cross which summed up the entire New and Old Testament, and all of Eastern and Western Though, Philosophy and Theology; she contracted bone cancer and was often in pain. She was confined to a wheelchair due to a tumor on her knee respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of Commons; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Rizal Avenue Extension (Light Rail Transit Authority, Caloocan City-Tondo, Manila section)
[edit]A highly redundant and superfluous category to Category:Rizal Avenue Extension. It depicts the same subject as that of the parent category: Rizal Avenue Extension. All files have been moved there. Uploader should not over-categorize and should be more selective in uploading photos, as many seem redundant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; thanks for your hard works in making better the Categories so that readers may easily find our photos respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of Commons; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I opened this cat because I could not find it anywhere. I am still suspecting that it must be somewhere that I could not see. I see colleagues from Argentina or Chile working on "Middle East categories" and always thought "they have done everything in their neighborhood already"... Don't we really have an agriculture cat for a subcontinent that has, for example Argentina, one of the largest agricultural economies of the world? E4024 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you looking for input as to whether this category should exist? I think this is a perfectly fine category. There are other categories for agriculture in a continent: see the subcats of Category:Agriculture by continent. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem I have with continent categories is when they are merely another way to group country categories. I know there have been several such categories deleted in the past when they were not items in them that couldn't be reasonably sorted by country. The category is not a problem in and of itself, provided there are contents that are truly pan-South American in it. Josh (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Then I guess we have different tolerances for that kind of thing. I think it's standard here to group things up to and including the continent level. I'm OK with that, but not with that kind of grouping for supercontinents. One issue with grouping only by country is that in some cases there's a dispute as to what constitutes a country -- there are disputed territories that claim to be countries, but which are also claimed as part of one or more other countries. Including those under the continent can be meaningful. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: You are probably right, continents are a pretty well fixed quantity so even if it is just grouping countries, it is probably okay. I definitely would not want super and sub continents to be done though. Josh (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Then I guess we have different tolerances for that kind of thing. I think it's standard here to group things up to and including the continent level. I'm OK with that, but not with that kind of grouping for supercontinents. One issue with grouping only by country is that in some cases there's a dispute as to what constitutes a country -- there are disputed territories that claim to be countries, but which are also claimed as part of one or more other countries. Including those under the continent can be meaningful. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem I have with continent categories is when they are merely another way to group country categories. I know there have been several such categories deleted in the past when they were not items in them that couldn't be reasonably sorted by country. The category is not a problem in and of itself, provided there are contents that are truly pan-South American in it. Josh (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: On a side note, I don't think it is right to think someone should focus on a specific region just because that is where they are from. A Chilean user should be as free to work on a Russian topic as one related to Chile, and shouldn't be even be expected to prioritize Chilean topics over those of other regions. Josh (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Did that come up as an issue related to this discussion? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just a reply to the earlier statement, 'I see colleagues from Argentina or Chile working on "Middle East categories" and...'. Josh (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Did that come up as an issue related to this discussion? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems like there is consensus to keep this category with no changes. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Downmerge into Category:Photographs by David Holt. I have no idea what is supposed to be the difference. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I merged and marked it as {{Badname}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There is already "The AfroCine Project" category HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Requested by creator, merged. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this different from Sherbet? E4024 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Its actually Sherbet (beverage). I will move to correct name. --Omer123hussain (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Done by Omer123hussain – BMacZero (🗩) 02:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary category. There is only one file in the category that can be recategorized to Category:Aircraft of Vayudoot. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, not unnecessary. Firstly, it is not the only aircraft of Vayadoot. Secondly if you make this change it means that the aircraft will no longer be listed in the cats Fokker F27 and Fokker aircraft by airline rendering those cats incomplete. Thirdly it is against the principles of the categorisation of aircraft and airlines. Ardfern (talk)
- Oppose, the type categories within an airline are needed to be able to group them within all the wider categories in Category:Aircraft by airline by aircraft type and others. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus to keep. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Original uploader’s request Pseudo Classes (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pseudo Classes: In the future, just tag the file with {{SD|G7}}. CfD should only be used if discussion is needed. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm only minimally familiar with Commons procedures, so forgive me if this is not the correct place.This category seems to duplicate Category:John James Wilson (artist), and therefore a merge seems in order. Although this is the older category, the "artist" category, besides being more concise, is what's given as the Commons link in the Wikidata item for the man; merging to that will obviate the need for a change in Wikidata. Deor (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- (creator) Either way works for me. I believe at the time I was just sorting through a few thousand images and trying to sort them as best I can. GMGtalk 19:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I merged into Category:John James Wilson (artist) as further disambiguation beyond that is not needed. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Film posters? Almost all/all the categories in Category:Films outside of this category and its subcategories use the term film instead of movie. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DemonDays64: I agree. -- Iketsi (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. BTW I found this page looking for the appropriate cat for a magazine/review about cinema (movies/films). Can you tell me where to find that? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Done as specified. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This author died in 1951. Copyright in Poland and Ukraine is valid for his works until 2022. Mista for 4 (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then you need to nominate the pages in the category, if it is emptied then it will be deleted as empty, if not this topic has several articles on Wikipedias so is not otherwise likely to be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Closing per Crouch, Swale and as the category now contains images of gravestones of the subject. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Suggest renaming to Category:Photos taken with webcams analogously to other subcategories of Category:Photographs by camera. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done as specified. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Propose merge to Category:Hantzsch dihydropyridine synthesis. The "dihydropyridine" is an intermediate that seems to be usually then converted to the "pyridine". No wikipedia seems to have separate articles for "the whole process" vs "the main stage of it", and most images are the whole thing but with inclusion of the separate stages. I think it would be most useful for navigation and content-finding to have them all together. Uncertain which is the best name. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The original name of the reaction mentioned above is "Hantzsch Dihydropyridin Synthese", the "dihydropyridine" ist not a intermediate but a stable endproduct.
- In case you have two hydrogens in the molecule at 1- and 4-position, this stable endproduct can be very easily oxidized to a "pyridine". This may be the reason, why this reaction is sometimes called "Hantzsch pyridine synthesis".
- for reaction see you-tube video [[1]], for discussion of the mechanism see Emil Knoevenagel [[2]] at the time around 1900.
- so the correct name must be "Hantzsch dihydropyridine synthesis", this is the fundamental reaction of ringclosure. mfg --Drdoht (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Do you agree with that proposal? --Leyo 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Drdoht's proposal, which seems to be saying that "Category:Hantzsch dihydropyridine synthesis" is the one to use for the merged cats. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Do you agree with that proposal? --Leyo 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Hantzsch pyridine synthesis per discussion. --Leyo 21:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand JopkeB has some doubts on the cat title. Clamps or piles? I have no preferences. What do other people think? E4024 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
See Common:Village pump for an explanation of my confusion. JopkeB (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- BTW we must integrate Category:Charbonnière here, with an English title; we cannot have a French name for a universal concept. This is not NATO, that you may choose to participate "partially". No monsieur. --E4024 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: I support merging Category:Charbonnière into Category:Charcoal piles or Category:Charcoal clamps (whichever we go with). Josh (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is a lack of clarity about these terms. Charcoal pile is the most common term in English sources. Way behind are charcoal heap and charcoal clamp in that order. Whether they are the same thing or whether e.g. a charcoal clamp is a type of charcoal pile is uncertain. There is a discussion about this on the talk page of the English Wiki article "charcoal pile". Bermicourt (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this category was moved from Category:Charcoal piles without discussion with this edit. Given the discussion both on enwiki and here at VP, this was clearly not a non-controversial move and thus should be reverted. "Charcoal piles" does appear to be the most commonly used term in English currently. While there is clearly documentation supporting the validity of other terms, this doesn't mean that 'piles' should not be retained, but instead that there should be redirects from these other valid terms to "charcoal piles". Josh (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I give you power of attorney to decide also for me in this case, J.B. E4024 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, E4024, I see you give the same kind of inflammatory replies to other people. You've given me almost identical inflammatory replies. Could you please make a greater effort to be civil? Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I see that you are wrong again. If you have a look at my interactions with Josh you will see that I agree with him in many CfDs and I have given him power of attorney for me in other discussions also. Maybe you should review your prejudices. E4024 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Inflammatory language is inflammatory language. I suggest that language that gives the appearance of animosity and disrespect should be avoided, even if, for the sake of argument, Joshbaumgartner were to concur that the two of you are friends, and he personally doesn't mind. Other people, not in on your friendship, also read these comments. So, I repeat my request you make an effort to avoid this kind of comment. Geo Swan (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Geo Swan I'm sorry, I must have missed the 'inflammatory' comment that preceded your post, but at any rate, CfD is not the forum for discussing user conduct. I look forward to seeing the on-topic discussion continue below so we can perhaps close this topic. Josh (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I give you power of attorney to decide also for me in this case, J.B. E4024 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this category was moved from Category:Charcoal piles without discussion with this edit. Given the discussion both on enwiki and here at VP, this was clearly not a non-controversial move and thus should be reverted. "Charcoal piles" does appear to be the most commonly used term in English currently. While there is clearly documentation supporting the validity of other terms, this doesn't mean that 'piles' should not be retained, but instead that there should be redirects from these other valid terms to "charcoal piles". Josh (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've never heard the term "charcoal clamp". Are there any RS that use this term? Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- JopkeB, could you please not refer to the venue(s) where earlier related discussion(s) occurred, without providing a diff or other useful link to those previous discussion(s)? For the record, were you referring to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/10#Category:Charcoal_clamps_<->_Category:Charcoal_piles? Geo Swan (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- At the time I used it, the link was correct. I now have changed it to the Archive link you mentioned. JopkeB (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Conclusions so far:
- There still is discussion about what term should be used: charcoal pile or charcoal clamp.
My suggestion would be to use the definitions of HLHJ: A charcoal pile is [just] a pile of charcoal [so of the end product] and a charcoal clamp is a structure for making charcoal. This would make sense to me. These are two different things, clearly distinctive.It looks like both terms are being used for the same concept. We should make a choice wich of the two we use on Commons and make a redirect for the other one. I suggest on Commons we use Charcoal piles because En-Wikipedia uses the same term: Wikipedia:Charcoal pile. For this reasonI still think there should be two categories in Commons: (1) one for structures for making charcoal and (2) one for piles of the end product; this last one could be named Category:Charcoal heaps.one for each concept, andI suggest there would be two different pages in Wikidata, with clear definitions on all these pages.- How should the structure be? I think the same way as many other end products and their production methods are related. So they should both be subcats of Category:Charcoal:
- Charcoal
clampspiles = Charcoal burning + Artificial hills (the two current parent categories) + Energy production (my suggestion) - Charcoal
pilesheaps = Charcoal + Heaps (the two current parent categories)
- Charcoal
- There is no agreement on whether The subcategories should reflect this conclusion,
sowhether they might need to be renamed. Is there a Commons policy about this matter? - There are two different views about whether We must integrate Category:Charbonnière here, with an English title or not. Is there a Commons policy about this matter? 15-5-2021: Yes, I (JopkeB) found Commons:Language policy, which says: "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." Conclusion: we should rename Category:Charbonnière.
- The English Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Charcoal pile might need to be adjusted to this conclusion.
- Please supplement, correct and/or agree with these conclusions. JopkeB (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I draw your attention to the first nuclear reactors, used not to produce energy, but rather to take non-weapons-grade Uranium, and use it to produce weapons-grade Plutonium. These early reactors were called an ATOMIC PILE. Note the similarities between the charcoal pile and the atomic pile, both used to transform one fuel into a more concentrated useful fuel. I suggest the name atomic pile was chosen specifically because Szilard and Fermi recognized the common elements to the charcoal pile. I suggest this refutes your assertion that a pile is nothing more than a synonym for heap.
- The scholar search for charcoal pile produces 208 hits, while scholar search for charcoal clamp produced just 51 hits.
- maybe...
- Yeah, if there is a need for a category for heaps or berms of charcoal it should be something like Category:Charcoal berms or Category:Charcoal heaps
- At some point in the distant past it seems to have been decided that categories should have names for subcategories that echoes the name of the parent category - without any accommodation for local languages. And yet exceptions are made.
- There is a technology called, variously a boatlift, or a shiplift, or, here in Canada, a liftlock, in German this technology is called a "Schiffshebewerk".
- It is the same situation with trams, streetcars, trolleys.
- Personally, I have no problem having Category:Charbonnière be a subcategory, of the category for the technology of making charcoal from temporary kilns.
- Rewrite Charcoal pile? Shouldn't you show that the term "charcoal clamp" is widely used, widely understood, before you call for a rewrite of an article on another project? Geo Swan (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I draw your attention to the first nuclear reactors, used not to produce energy, but rather to take non-weapons-grade Uranium, and use it to produce weapons-grade Plutonium. These early reactors were called an ATOMIC PILE. Note the similarities between the charcoal pile and the atomic pile, both used to transform one fuel into a more concentrated useful fuel. I suggest the name atomic pile was chosen specifically because Szilard and Fermi recognized the common elements to the charcoal pile. I suggest this refutes your assertion that a pile is nothing more than a synonym for heap.
- I am going to ping HLHJ, the individual who used {{Move}} to suggest renaming Category:Charcoal piles to Category:Charcoal clamps. His or her justification was
{{move | Charcoal clamps | reason=Technical term, less ambiguous; a clamp is for making charcoal, a charcoal pile might just be a heap of the finished product.}}
- I have problems with this justification.
- Who says "charcoal clamp" is the recognized technical term?
- Ambiguous? Both shiplift and boatlift are highly ambiguous, as they also refer to cranes used to haul boats and ships out of the water, for maintenance, or storage. The more obscure term liftlock is not ambiguous, but I got zero agreement to my suggestion we use it in place of shiplift or boatlift.
- As I believed I showed with my example of the atomic pile, HLHJ is incorrect to claim a pile is just a pile.
- HLHJ seems to have assumed that his or her suggestion would find universal agreement, and so the use of {{Move}} was appropriate. I think they were wrong to make this assumption, and should have initiated a discussion, back in 2019. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I made some changes in the Conclusions so far to reflect the extra information. Please comment on them. JopkeB (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, just saw this. I certainly had no idea this move would cause this much controversy, I just nominated it because I found the status quo confusing and thought, incorrectly, that "charcoasl piles" might be plain wrong. I'm not really wanting to argue over it. The ontology is a mess regardless, and while on principle I'd tend to prefer obscure but unambiguous terms over common, ambiguous terms when building ontologies, I'll go with whatever the consensus is.
- Geo Swan, I did find a solid source for "Charcoal clamp"[3]. I could probably find some more if needed; I'm fairly sure the term "clamp" is wide use in at least some areas. Here's a casual native-English source, just to show I'm not the only one with these odd ideas about the meanings of "pile" and "clamp"[4], and it mentions the fairly well-know children's lit series "Swallows and Amazons", which I think also says "clamp". I'm not sure if I mentioned these somewhere before.
- I would not say that "charcoal clamp" is the technical term, but it is used as a technical term. It seems that "charcoal pile" is, too. It may be that it is preferentially used in academic papers; it may be "clamp" is preferentially used in common speech. I don't know. The Complete Oxford English Dictionary might (my concise OED does not).
- I think this may be partly a dialect difference; I'd always called carbonizing earthworks "charcoal clamp"s, and had not come across the term "charcoal pile", except in the non-technical pile o' stuff sense. I now know that there is a technical sense too. I would not claim that a pile is always just a heap of stuff; I would say that "pile" might mean just a heap of stuff in some English usage. Worse, "charcoal burning" is used for the process of creating charcoal, and for the process of consuming it! English.
- "Heaps" seems reasonable for piles of charcoal that are clearly not structures for carbonizing organic matter. WE have some images of these so a cat seems reasonable. "Charcoal kiln" to me means something with a permanent encasing structure, of metal or stone or concrete or whatever, not just layers of soil and vegetation ("steel ring kiln" is a sourced name for a portable sub-type). But this is not followed in some of the captions of our images, e.g. File:Charcoal Clamps, West Dean Estate. - geograph.org.uk - 195790.jpg. Of course, they might be wrong, or it might be local use again. We do have enough images in this cat that subdividing them by type seems sensible.
- En-WP uses "charcoal clamp" too, with a different target, since 2014[5] when Andy Dingley made a redirect. In 2015 Bermicourt created the charcoal pile article[6]. I am fairly certain that a charcoal clamp and a charcoal pile in the atomic-pile sense are identical, but if anyone has a source distinguishing them, or sources giving contrasting definitions, please do mention it. Otherwise they should clearly have the same target.
- Technically turning organic matter into charcoal decreases its energy content, but burns off the nastiest smoke, leaving nearly pure carbon. This will burn cleaner, and hotter, than the raw wood. Hotter flames are needed for some metallurgical purposes. Charcoal is also far lighter than wood, as you've driven off the water, so it's easier to transport. In the mid-twentieth-century, burning low-grade coal and wood was banned in many cities, under "smokeless fuel" laws, to prevent smogs; you had to buy charcoal or coke or a very good, clean-burning grade of coal. So making charcoal is not really energy production, more fuel refining. As artificial hills go, charcoal-makers' "hills" are awfully ephemeral; they promptly cart them away and sell them.
- I think of boatlifts as things that haul boats out of the water on slings, and a sort of boat elevator like the Falkirk Wheel as a lifting lock. The term "liftlock" might usefully be added to Wiktionary, along with "charcoal pile" and "charcoal clamp". HLHJ (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Charcoal pile is overwhelmingly the most common phrase in English sources" is utter crap. This is, as always here, a German name as a compund noun with a literal word-by-word, non-idiomatic, translation into English and a sprinkling of spaces added. There is nothing to support this. This naming approach is much more common on Commons than on en:WP, but here we have an example where a whole article (based on German language sources) has done it. It's also a poor article, taking a single-country (unsurprisingly a purely German view) of charcoal burning. Charcoal burning depends on the type of wood being used, and so the techniques vary a lot depending on where it's being done, what the source wood is and what the available waste materials are in order to build the rest of the clamp.
- The term "charcoal clamp" is much more widely used in English language sources, at least those which come from the literature based on forestry and charcoal production. This has even stretched into modern practice, where no-one (outside a few deliberate reenactments) builds a "mound" any more, but small-scale artisan charcoal is now burned in steel ring clamps.
- Charbonnière, BTW, is a back-formation. The word's origin is literally as "charcoal burner", i.e. the people doing the work, not the workplace or construction. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
In my totally armchair opinion as an American that only has a peripheral knowledge of this stuff a charcoal pile would be the pile of charcoal left over after the wood is burned (or just a pile of wood alone). For instance File:Charcoal maker, Karataş - Adana 04.jpg would be a charcoal pile. So would be File:Charcoal_pile_03.jpg|this. Whereas, a charcoal clamp is whatever structure your using to hold the wood together in a pile for burning. For instance, File:Charcoal_clamp.JPG and File:Charbonniers_et_gardes_forestier_Montagne_de_Lure.jpg both count as charcoal clamps IMO. Essentially a charcoal clamp is a more minimalistic or "primitive" (although I don't really like that term) version of a kiln. More open and less of structured building I guess, but it's the same idea. Anyway, a charcoal pile and a charcoal clamp are clearly different things. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Follow up conclusions:
- There is still no agreement on the term to be used on Commons for a structure to make charcoal: clamp or pile. But I think we should choose, I don't think this discussion should last forever. When I read all the pros and cons, then I now choose charcoal clamp. If we agree on choosing this term, we depart from the English Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Charcoal pile, but whith good arguments. Charcoal piles will have a redirect to Charcoal clamps.
- There should be two categories in Commons for piles, both being subcats of Category:Charcoal (1) Charcoal clamps for structures to make charcoal and (2) Charcoal heaps for piles of the end product.
- The structure/parent categories should be:
- Charcoal clamps => Charcoal burning + Artificial hills (the two current parent categories)
- Charcoal heaps => Charcoal + Heaps (the two current parent categories).
- There is no agreement on whether the subcategories should reflect this conclusion, whether they might need to be renamed. I could not find a Commons policy about this matter. I think it would be better to rename them all, for clarity reasons and harmonization.
- We should integrate Category:Charbonnière here, with an English title, because of Commons:Language policy. But what name should this category get? Or should the files just being moved to Category:Charcoal clamps? They look to me very similar to the files in Category:Charcoal clamps.
- Whether the English Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Charcoal pile should be adjusted to these conclusions is no longer an issue, because there was a discussion about this article at Wikipedia.
- @E4024, Bermicourt, Joshbaumgartner, Geo Swan, HLHJ, Andy Dingley, and Adamant1: Thanks for all your contributions and research. I suggest that I/we implement these conclusions if you all agree OR when I did not get a reaction after one month. JopkeB (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I still maintain that we should follow the most common usage in English. According to ngram viewer here it appears to be a no contest with "charcoal pile" occurring way more often than "charcoal clamp", both historically and today. Frankly unless someone can demonstrate through a more comprehensive research that it's the other way round or that there is a technical difference (in which case 2 categories are needed), we should choose "charcoal pile" as the default. Let's remember that this discontinuity with the Wiki article only occurred because the category was moved without consensus in the first place. Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Since my translation of the article title has been criticised by one editor above, it's worth clarifying that, as stated on the article talk page, my translation source for the name was the 2004 edition of Langenscheidt's Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch - their flagship dictionary, but you can find Meiler and Kohlenmeiler translated as 'charcoal pile' as far back as an 1870 technological dictionary, but the term also appears more recently in Wiley's 1995 Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment. Bermicourt (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd love to see some evidence that the term "charcoal clamp" is a thing just because of the category being moved, and not because their actually things called charcoal clamps. You can do a basic Google search for the term and get a ton of results for things that are charcoal clamps. Not charcoal piles. There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charcoal_clamp.JPG which is titled not only titled "charcoal clamp" but also illustrates how to make charcoal with one. Sure, maybe there are less files and usage out there about charcoal clamps then charcoal piles, but that doesn't mean they aren't a thing. Probably charcoal pile is just used more because not every charcoal pile has a charcoal clamp, but all charcoal piles are charcoal piles. There's also this this that says "the charcoal produced in the traditional earth ‘clamp’ experiment yielded a mean random reflectance value of 1.41%Ro. Based on the experimental calibration of six hours charring." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to JopkeB for the resolution efforts.
- I'm a bit chary of using statistics for deciding on titles. The worst example I've seen of this was some rather worrying editors naming an article with a brand name of a food cultivar, after which the term when from zero to most-popular online term as counted by Google (history here).
- Now Google Ngram Viewer is much more sophisticated than that, and uses non-web sources too, but there are still some issues. For starters, we cannot determine where texts are using "charcoal pile" to refer to heaps of charcoal, and where they are referring to charcoal clamps or kilns. "Coal pile" is a common term, and this probably refers to heaps of coal, as coal which is carbonized is called "coke" (that is, wood is to charcoal as coal is to coke). Until the late 20th century, a coal/coke/charcoal heap would be found in most English-speaking houses, and people presumably referred to the heap of coal in their coal cellar as a "coal pile" sometimes, and likewise for other fuels. So such household heaps would probably be mentioned more often in books than an engineered structure typically built in remote areas. Especially as charcoal burners would largely be socially and linguistically distinct from writers of published works (dachsprache dialect etc.).
- And of course we must weigh considerations other than commonness of use, like ambiguity and accuracy. I should repeat that I am convinced by Bermicourt that "charcoal pile" is a term which has been used for charcoal clamps (and possibly charcoal kilns?) in written English. I'm a native English speaker, and I'd never heard or read of this usage of "charcoal pile" when I started this discussion, and I had heard and read "charcoal clamp" a fair bit, and I was fairly familiar with the subject. Thus overconfident in the breadth of my vocabulary, I jumped to conclusions. I still feel that "charcoal pile" is ambiguous and confusing, given that it obviously confused me :), but I do not now think that it was a bungled translation attempt by an editor who did not check sources for a translation. Apologies for the contention; no offense was intended, I was just ignorant.
- On point six, I think the status quo on Wikipedia, with en:wp:Charcoal pile and en:wp:Charcoal clamp pointing to separate targets, is undesirable. I suggested a broad-concept article on charcoal manufacture, with both terms redirecting to a section there. But that discussion seems to have stalled. Perhaps we should split out that issue and handle it later, tho.
- Adamant1's academic source quote supports my (also otherwise sourced) contention that the reusable structures, generally stone and metal, are charcoal kilns, while "clamp" applies to the traditional earth-and-vegetation structure. As a charcoal kiln is certainly not an artificial hill, I suggest we remove all the images in Category:Charcoal kilns from this category.
- I agree with point 4; whatever we do, let us be consistent, and rename categories not named in English. Many of the files in Category:Charbonnière are actually charcoal-burner's huts, temporary or reusable structures built by charcoal burners so they could check on the charcoal every few hours and still get some sleep. We have a category for that, Category:Barraques de carboner, but it's named in Spanish (like a number of the in-Spain subcategories). I suggest renaming it to "Category:Charcoal-burner's huts", and amalgamating the rest of Category:Charbonnière to "Charcoal [whatever]s in France". Except for the photo of one in Hagen, Germany :). And redirect Category:Charbonnière, I think to Category:Charcoal burning. And merge Category:Tar stone and Category:Pechölstein. HLHJ (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question about the procedure
It seems that there is no agreement on the name, two camps remain, if I have interpreted your reactions correctly. What will be the procedure to solve this? Is there a kind of mediation available on Commons, should we hold a voting, or what else? I've never had this before. JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 | This user's help request has been resolved If you have more questions, feel free to make another {{helpme}} request. |
- I have no idea what to do next either, so let's ask. What do we do with a category-naming disussion that seems to have stalled? Is there a procedure? HLHJ (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- COM:CFD#Closing a discussion requires a clear consensus, which a cursory reading has not revealed. I suggest a !vote on whether to category redirect Category:Charcoal clamps to Category:Charcoal piles, undoing Marcus Cyron's category redirect Category:Charcoal piles to Category:Charcoal clamps in this edit at the suggestion of HLHJ. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , do you have any insight to share here? As far as I am aware, the threshold for CfD adoption is consensus, not a majority vote. Unless those who do not vote for the 'winner' agree as well to adopt the winning proposal (which would in effect be consensus), I'd be cautious about pushing through a change. However, I'd like to know your thoughts as well here. Josh (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- COM:CFD#Closing a discussion requires a clear consensus, which a cursory reading has not revealed. I suggest a !vote on whether to category redirect Category:Charcoal clamps to Category:Charcoal piles, undoing Marcus Cyron's category redirect Category:Charcoal piles to Category:Charcoal clamps in this edit at the suggestion of HLHJ. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Vote/Poll
[edit]What should the name of the discussed category be? There are two possibilities:
Rules:
- You may only vote once.
- The alternative with the most votes will be the new name.
- The vote closes on 6 August 2021.
- I assume we agree that whatever choice we make should be consistent across categories (e.g. "Charcoal [somethings] in Germany" should use the same term as this category). Objections? HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@E4024, Joshbaumgartner, Bermicourt, Geo Swan, Andy Dingley, HLHJ, and Adamant1: Please let at least all participants of this discussion cast their vote!
JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A, charcoal clamps Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- B, Charcoal piles, as the most common name. Bermicourt (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A, Charcoal clamps, because piles may also refer to the end product and therefor is confusing. JopkeB (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- B. Charcoal piles, as both the traditional name, and the most common, and the one used when extending the concept, as in nuclear piles. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A, Charcoal clamps. In my experience, "charcoal clamp" is far more common in lay use. It's suggestive that this sense of "clamp" (a structure excluding air while roasting materials) is in Wiktionary, and this sense of "pile" is not (twelve other senses of "pile" are). Avoiding ambiguity is generally an acceptable reason for using a rarer name anyway. I'd suggest something like "Category:Heaps of charcoal" for piles of charcoal that are not clamps, and "Charcoal kilns" as a subcategory for permanent structures. I don't know if "charcoal clamp" is a newer term than "charcoal pile" (does this matter?). The usage of mid-20th-century nuclear physicists may not reflect common use; do we know if "atomic pile" was intended as a reference to charcoal-making? HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Result of the vote:
A charcoal clamps: 3
B charcoal piles: 2
So the new name is: Category:Charcoal clamps.
- The new category name for temporary structures for making charcoal is Category:Charcoal clamps.
- The redirect in Category:Charcoal piles to Category:Charcoal clamps will stay.
- There will be a new category for piles of the end product: Category:Charcoal heaps.
- There will be two different pages in Wikidata for these two categories, with clear definitions.
- Both categories will be (sub-)subcategories of Category:Charcoal:
- Charcoal clamps = Charcoal burning + Artificial hills
- Charcoal heaps = Charcoal + Heaps.
- There is no agreement on whether the subcategories should reflect the names of the parent categories, so whether they might need to be renamed. There is no Commons policy about this matter. But it would be better to rename them all, for clarity reasons and harmonization.
- Category:Charbonnière should be renamed to an English title or the files should being moved to Category:Charcoal clamps if they belong there.
Trivial topic–source intersection. Who would want to look for images of Paris exactly from Panoramio? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: This is bigger than just Panoramio. The entire orphan tree of Category:Categories of Paris by source should be discussed. Josh (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Categories of Paris by source Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Many redundant images for subject - many images maybe considered "not educationally useful" ~ by lesser quality of image to subject's need - has no specific worth compared to other available images of this subject? Text mdnp (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion is frivolous and pointless, and has been so for almost a year. Somebody should mark this as closed by now. Dronebogus (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
discussion about files, not about the nominated category Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Subcat of Category:Bullfighters from France but that cat is for people and this one also. OTOH, for example Sabri Allouani appears as "bullfighter" per Wikidata. Is this a subclass of bullfighters? Like "matador"? Is this a French-only concept or is it universal? See the cat of Maurice Rinaldi, the name of the profession is written differently as "raseter" (?) E4024 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: This appears to be a distinct discipline of bull fighting, and I am not aware of an English translation, so I would keep this category. However, there is no restricted to French participants so it should just be under Category:Bullfighters. The individuals here who are from France should have their categories added to Category:Bullfighters from France in addition to Category:Raseteurs if they are not already there. Josh (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- stale discussion. Solution per @Joshbaumgartner Estopedist1 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Estopedist1: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
non sense category MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete "Absurdo". E4024 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)- Meant, I suppose, to be something akin to Category:Views of Peru and/or Category:Populated places in Peru. Delete and recategorize its contents into one of those, or their childcats. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Recategorize done. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Fawad4real from the same user. Can't work out what was meant to happen. S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 | Category:Angulated | Move to/Rename as | Category:Angulation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Noun form better captures the concept that is depicted. Also considered "Angulated shapes" as an alternative. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
- I agree. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Basket shape | Merge into | Category:Basket-shaped objects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Basket-shaped objects" is the only sub of "Basket shape", no need for the extra level at this time. | |||
| Josh (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
stale discussion. The result was merge Estopedist1 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:M6 37 mm Gun Motor Carriage (Dodge WC-55) | Move to/Rename as | Category:37 mm Gun Motor Carriage M6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| adopt official name for category and eliminate parenthetical alternative name. "M6 Gun Motor Carriage" and "Dodge WC55" are common alternate names it goes by, so should be redirects to this cat. So should previous designations, "37 mm Gun Motor Carriage M4"/"M4 Gun Motor Carriage" and "37 mm Gun Motor Carriage T21"/"T21 Gun Motor Carriage". | |||
| Josh (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
stale discussion. solution per user:Joshbaumgartner--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
empty category Caulfield (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I can see no point in categories that categorize user errors according to username. If the files are useless, we have COM:DR for that. Rrburke (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Additionally:
- Category:Fake SVGs by Cloudman
- Category:Fake SVGs by Rrburke
- Category:Fake SVGs by Brgesto
- Category:Fake SVGs by Huyme
- Category:Fake SVGs by Stpiev
- Category:Fake SVGs by Ssolbergj
- Category:Fake SVGs by ROSTIKBOSS
- Category:Fake SVGs by Yayamamo
- Category:Fake SVGs by XTC100
- Category:Fake SVGs by AnginaKup
- Category:Fake SVGs by Fandi89
- Category:Fake SVGs by Oka21000
- Category:Fake SVGs by KenzoMogi
- Category:Fake SVGs by Keymap9
- Category:Adobe files with CDATA blocks: Frisky007
- Category:Fake SVGs by Frisky007
- Category:Adobe files with CDATA blocks: Yayamamo
- Comment The idea was that those SVG would be corrected by a knowledgeable user, as far user Sarang explained it to me. However, the conversion work has never been completed. I did not appreciate to have my files classified as "fakes", just because they can be improved, as they are used in numerous articles. Instead of discussing on the categories, please discuss on the work to be done to improve them. Pierre cb (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I can see no advantage to categorizing them by username and no way in which that aids in fixing their problems, something which is beyond my competence anyway, so I think the categories should be deleted. —Rrburke (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Info I can automatically convert Fake-SVG to PNG/JPEG, see/try https://svgworkaroundbot.toolforge.org/. However I have problems uploading extracted PNG/JPEG automatically using command-line upload and I currently asked for advice by an experienced user see the recent discussion at meta:User_talk:Alexis_Jazz#fakeSVG->PNG. (I do not have the time of uploading each image on my own.)- It is "easy" to lossless extract Fake-SVG to PNG/JPEG, however depending on the SVG it can be undisputed or controversial.
- For example
- controversial: Fake SVGs by Pierre cb (simple lines and text), Fake SVGs by Cloudman (textlogos), Fake SVGs by Stpiev (coat of arms), Fake SVGs by XTC100 (diagrams), Fake SVGs by AnginaKup (chemical elements), Fake SVGs by Frisky007(road signs), Fake_SVGs_by_Thomas_Linard (icons) since those should be redrawn as Real-SVG (however since it is generally much work, the progress is slow)
- undisputed: Fake SVGs by Oka21000 since Photos generally cannot be vectorized meaningfully.
- Some images such as roadsigns by Frisky007 can be converted automatically into Real-SVG, however the number of try&error to find a fitting setup to get good results is imho too file-dependend, to be reasonable workable.
- I personally would extract all Fake-SVGs to PNG/JPEG and ban/delete all Fake-SVGs on commons, then all categories would/should be empty and this discussion is invalid. Fake-PDFs are imho out of scope see Commons:Project_scope#PDF and not recommended for graphics see Commons:File_types#Scanned_text_documents_(DjVu,_PDF) and should be extracted explained at Commons:Extracting_images_from_PDF, however there is no such rules for Fake-SVGs.
- If we only want to extract the undisputed ones, then it is more complicated. Categories with more than 200 Images are imho endless and confusing and imho should be avoided. Different Users do different manual conversions and need different tools, therefore splitting the category in subcategories is imho essential. You could argue, let's split Fake-SVGs in Topics, however which method of vectorization you are using can depend on the number of colours, the resolution, the precision, the tool it was created with, the kind representation, schematic or realistic,.. that there might not be a better way than in splitting it depending on the uploaders. It is imho easiest and most realizable/duable subcategorising of Fake-SVGs.
- Imho Users that have there own Fake-SVG-category should be informed/clarified/warned of not uploading fake-svgs on there talk-page, that it is clear that uploading new fake-svgs of those users is due to ignoring the rules and not due to nescience.
- I am currently neiter saying Fake-SVGs should be categorized by username, nor the opposite. I'm just saying it makes more sense to categorize it this way, than it looks at first glance.
- I think first the handling of Fake-SVGs in general should be discussed at a more central place, not in a category-discussion, therefore I think we should pause or close the discussion here and ask the community if Fake-SVGs should "banned" similar to Fake-PDFs (PDF is allowed for Documents [RealPDF] but disapproved for pictures [ {{FakePDF}}]).
- PS: Personally I don't consider Fake SVGs by Pierre cb(differently to the other categories) as Fake-SVGs since they also contain Real-SVG-text. But the splitting in {{BadSVG}} and {{FakeSVG}} depends on how the community decides on how to treat FakeSVGs, should they be extracted to PNG/JPEG or not (wait till they get properly converted to RealSVG).
- — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I think the categories are very helpful. If it's technically easier to categorize fake .svgs by username, I don't see any problem with doing this. BTW, years ago, I was testing Adobe Illustrator and created and uploaded a fake .svg and it was marked this is a fake ... I was immediately offended but too bad. There has to be some control and this is a way to control these .svgs when we have a serial fake svg creator and there are many serial fake svg creators. I'm thinking it's a big issue. Every year, it seems high school teachers assign an .svg / wikipedia project and we get a bunch of new users who start creating, uploading and smacking files onto articles like it's some kind of videogame or contest. The problem is, they don't care if the file is valid or real because it's for a grade (and I suspect the teacher could care less if they create a mess here). The uploaders first sometimes, don't even know they're supposed to check the file through the W3C Validator, and later even when warned on their user page - just don't care. This leaves the community to sort through their mess. Would you care to let me know how you would mark this file? Is it Fake? Is it Bad? How should this be marked? It has an .svg extension but File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto_Rico.svg receives more than 90 errors when tested with the W3C Validator. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Updated: --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.svg is an interesting example - I did not know about Created with Method Draw, and I will have to check whether that tool is used more often for drawing SVG in the Commons. -- sarang♥사랑 10:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Currently it seems that only Cookieman1.1.1 is using that tool – but he also uses several others (or the SVG code is changed after generation). Method Draw generates many W3C errors, may be that with setting some options (?) it will be better. It is no problem to make a template for SVG created with that tool, but then Cookieman1.1.1 should use it and not let it for others to do the validation! -- sarang♥사랑 10:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: "It is no problem to make a template for SVG created with that tool..." Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think a file is a "fake" svg if it has errors exactly. And yeah, to my knowledge im most likely the only person who uses Method Draw on this specific wiki. From what i have seen by just browsing threw articles, Wikipedia has plenty of svgs with errors that are still being used like File:Coat of arms of Darwin.svg or File:Coat of Arms of New Maryland, New Brunswick.svg are good examples. I wouldn't say that an svg has to be validated to be used. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: "It is no problem to make a template for SVG created with that tool..." Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Cookieman1.1.1: Please don't come here with your Darwin File:Coat of arms of Darwin.svg 'cause we know all about evolution. Whether the team accepts valid or invalid .svgs is up to the team. You know where to take this discussion. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- What? decorum, i am speaking in general not for the Wikiproject. Try not to take things out of context please. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the goal here is to collect SVG images which are actually raster graphics without vector coding, then it is pointless to sort them by user. They should be grouped by the problem that needs fixing. They should be upmerged the maintenance category Category:Fake SVG. If the goal is to identify and deal with problem users, then the users' talk pages (and user problems board if that doesn't work) are the right place for that activity, not the categorization scheme. All "Fake SVGs by 'user'" should be upmerged to Category:Fake SVG. I would also recommend a better name for that category that better identifies the actual problem (Category:SVG files without vector coding or some such would be better than just "Fake"). Josh (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Either editors or admins, or both, may be interested in prioritizing their dealing with users who upload fake svgs based on which users upload the largest number of such files. Categorizing by username expedites this process. There are, likely, two types of editors uploading fake svgs: (1) those doing it knowingly (and --perhaps-- thinking they can get away with it), and (2) those doing so in good faith (based on, let's say, their awareness of the fact that Commons prefers certain types of files to be uploaded in svg format as opposed to gif, png, etc.). Categorizing by username would quickly identify which editor(s) are doing the most damage based, of course, on which editors have the largest number of fake svg files. And, while there could be other ways to get the same information, categorizing them by username would provide one of the most direct routes to that information.
- Second, it has been stated above that "the idea was that those SVG would be corrected by a knowledgeable user". From this perspective, it would then be desirable to add new categories which would categorize those fake svg files according to the error(s) that need correcting, such as Category:SVG files without vector coding. Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. I see that there are no consensus to delete. I guess that we can close this CFD as keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus to delete. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Any name could be associated with any country. I think e.g. in the United States, Germany, or the United Kingdom and many other immigration countries, each name is found at least once. So I suggest deleting the category. HarryNº2 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, I can't see the point of this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Those of us like the nominator and myself who also work in Wikidata suffer this; as "say" a surname like Börtüçeneboyluoğlu is -at times-claimed to be Dutch or German (!) because some Turkish immigrant carries it. What I'm trying to say is that the fact that "a surname existing in a country is claimed to belong to the language of that country"! At least they have not yet abused the formula for multi-language countries like Switzerland, because it would be difficult to claim that a Turkish, Greek or Serbian name is in fact German, French, Italian and something else at the same time, and not Turkish, Greek or Serbian... --E4024 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- My, why the heck do you want to delete these categories? Studying surnames geographically seems perfectly relevant to me (sure that's not surprising since I initiated these categories). Surnames all come from someplace and in fact many are toponyms. Surname distribution maps have always been used in this field and where to put them if we don't have any geographical categorization? Yes people migrate and surnames may be found far from their place of origin but that's actually very interesting to track migrations. And contrarily to what you seem to think, migrating isn't easy nor fun and you won't find any surname in any country. Yes, there are immigration countries like in the Americas where you will find a great diversity of surnames but still there are immigration patterns and studying them seems very interesting to me. Let's take French immigrants in Canada for instance, French-language surnames there are much less diverse than in France and in the US you may find French surnames that you no longer find in France where they are now extinct or very rare (see Category:Surnames in Louisiana). And I am actually considering creating categories like Category:French surnames in the United States or maybe rather Category:Surnames from France in the United States to be less ambiguous. And I am not sure having huge Surnames by language categories is that interesting either. I prefer knowing that for instance Newhouse in the US comes from Neuhaus, was found in Belarus, is Jewish, etc. In short anthroponymy is a complex matter and I find that reducing it to a "one name/one language binom" is excessively simplistic and doesn't really help. - Olybrius (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Commons is the wrong place to track migration movements with the help of a category, these would be better off in an article in Wikipedia. In addition, the distributions of the names and the categorization are completely arbitrary and without references to sources. For example, the name Miller/Müller will probably be found in every country on earth. Should we now classify the name Miller/Müller in over 100 country categories? The same applies to names like Schmidt, Lange, Krause, Shaw, or Larsen etc. The Category:Martin (surname) already has 14 categories which list countries like Argentina, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand and many more without citing the source. The Category:Surnames by language is sufficient for this purpose. The Category:Surnames by country makes no sense in Commons and is not helpful for finding people or pictures in this context, so delete it. --HarryNº2 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- My, why the heck do you want to delete these categories? Studying surnames geographically seems perfectly relevant to me (sure that's not surprising since I initiated these categories). Surnames all come from someplace and in fact many are toponyms. Surname distribution maps have always been used in this field and where to put them if we don't have any geographical categorization? Yes people migrate and surnames may be found far from their place of origin but that's actually very interesting to track migrations. And contrarily to what you seem to think, migrating isn't easy nor fun and you won't find any surname in any country. Yes, there are immigration countries like in the Americas where you will find a great diversity of surnames but still there are immigration patterns and studying them seems very interesting to me. Let's take French immigrants in Canada for instance, French-language surnames there are much less diverse than in France and in the US you may find French surnames that you no longer find in France where they are now extinct or very rare (see Category:Surnames in Louisiana). And I am actually considering creating categories like Category:French surnames in the United States or maybe rather Category:Surnames from France in the United States to be less ambiguous. And I am not sure having huge Surnames by language categories is that interesting either. I prefer knowing that for instance Newhouse in the US comes from Neuhaus, was found in Belarus, is Jewish, etc. In short anthroponymy is a complex matter and I find that reducing it to a "one name/one language binom" is excessively simplistic and doesn't really help. - Olybrius (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We will ask you to delete it because it is personal information and old information. (Gallery permission was obtained) Gatft (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
eople portrayed there have requested not to appear for privacy reasons. Garros Galería is echoing this request, as well as the one we received from the author Funiko Nakashima, who wants to protect her image, because it has been a source of derision, ridicule and defamation on an internet page that has used photographs of the artist, and could use again against her honor The page in question detected, is: http://www.vipfaq.com/Fumiko_Nakashima.html. We hope that those images of this expo can be preserved, in which they only show images of the work presented. Thank you very much. If you wish to contact me, please sed a menssahe: WhatsApp: +52 1 55 38966126 Thanks you very much. Joel Nava Polina Chihuahua 131-1, Roma Norte, Mexico City. Cuauhtémoc Mayor's Office, CP 06700. Tel .: 52 1 5555841918 Garrosccr (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep not empty category. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We will ask you to delete it because it is personal information and old information. (Gallery permission was obtained) Gatft (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep not empty category; I see nothing personal in this category name. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be identical to Category:Videos from webcams; the name of the latter seems more appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @1234qwer1234qwer4: sounds reasonable Estopedist1 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: per request. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Typical "apples and pears" cat. We must eliminate all such cats... E4024 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- support: though I suspect the reason they were so grouped is because ?every? company name is a brand. So is every named organization, product or model for that matter. The terms "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia" and "Commons" are all brands being promoted, sometimes with really cool logos. Likely move all these into Brands by company. Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- support My opinion on this is to move everything into either Companies, Products, or some other better category. Brands by company wouldn't work because it's nonsensical since companies can also be brands. So your essentially putting items in Companies by company. Really at the end of the day the whole "brands" category tree just needs to be axed because it has the same issues, but that's another discussion. I think my solution works at least for now. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support elimination of this category. See outcome of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/08#How independent is Commons in deciding which categories are appropriate?: There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. Also get rid of Category:Companies and brands by location and its subcategories. Just split them into "Brands" and "Companies". --JopkeB (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Move the subcategories to proper categories. (2) Ask for deletion of this category. (3) Do the same for Category:Companies and brands by location and its subcategories. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Still to do/ Action: Remove the associated templates, like {{Countries of Asia|prefix=:Category:Companies and brands from}}, {{Countries of Africa|prefix=:Category:Companies and brands from}},{{Countries of the Americas|prefix=:Category:Companies and brands from}}, {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Companies and brands from}}, {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Companies and brands of}}. It turns out this was automatically done, no need for action. JopkeB (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
I have never visited Iraq or Kuwait and have no idea about their specific cuisine; but I can bet that "qouzi" is a deformed transliteration of the Turkish word "kuzu" which means lamb. Probably they only refer to lamb meat as "qouzi" and not to a specific dish. Therefore (I mean if I'm right) we should make this cat disappear. E4024 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- There exits an article en:Quzi. Pls keep it.--Sanandros (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing me that so-called encyclopedia article, I had a broad smile. A superficial text based on dish recipe (which is supposedly not accepted as reliable source per that same WP's rules :) and claims "(this rice with lamb dish) was introduced into Turkey by Arab immigrants" for a dish of rice with "kuzu". (And they decided to use a Turkish word for something they took themselves to Turkey! Of course the claim goes without any reference although there is a ref no after the sentence... :) Now I know that all the rice with meat (pilav-plov) tradition of Central Asia was also probably introduced by Arab immigrants. :) Maybe the Turks came to Anatolia not from the steppes of Asia but from the Arabian desserts where they have lots of rice plantations (with drop irrigation)...
It was good to learn that there has been an "Arab immigration into Turkey"? But stop, we only had "refugees" and which only began recently with the Middle East refugee crises. I am more confused than before! BTW thanks to you I see once more that if an article is claiming nonsense about Turkey it is always welcome in EN:WP. Sometimes I feel happy they threw me out. Please keep it and do not add Category:Turkish words and phrases to this thing.--E4024 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. Seems keep per user:Sanandros--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- actually enwiki doesn't mention the term "quozi". Maybe we should delete this category as a typo? Correct may be category:Quzi--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then why is Al Jazeera English, where reporters usually know both languanges pretty good are using that term? See here.--Sanandros (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
_-_Flickr_-_Al_Jazeera_English.jpg){kind=link}
Result was redirect to Category:Quzi - typo. TheImaCow (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Long labia 66.115.100.171 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like a bad nomination by an IP user. I don't particularly care about this category, but I think this nomination should be speedy-closed as kept. - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, you "don't particularly care about this category", but do you find it positive to make cats like this? I mean this or similar other junk like "Category:Nude or partially nude women smiling with teeth while caressing one or both of their boobs (soles apparent)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: sorry, I didn't notice your comment 2 years ago. It was presumably addressed to me, but you didn't ping me. Or sign. Short answer: if someone makes a basically meaningless CfD request, with no rationale for doing anything, I think the right thing to do is (would have been) to close it speedily, and if someone wants to start a proper discussion, start it with a description of what you want to do (e.g. delete the category) and a rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- One thing in its favour is that it includes a significant number of images. Arguably it should be a subcat of Category:Female human genitalia. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why, in your opinion, human female genitalia (or penises or male anuses) are so much in scope of Commons, while the faces of many youngsters from the Subcontinent who look with hope of a better future at their democratizer cell phones, and make selfies to publish in Commons are not in scope? Why do we have a preference for genitals and not faces? I began asking this question to myself because while my DRs based on being OoS work perfectly for those youngsters but not for, say, any image within this category; and leave aside the scope thingy, even the "dubious own work" issue began to disturb people when a couple of genitals were deleted from Commons for our precautionary principle. Hey, I'm still young and certainly want to live long enough to receive a convincing explanation to why our scope is "wide open" to ordinary genitalia but not to ordinary youngsters... --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- This deletion request is about a category, not about the individual images. We have a relatively small number of pictures of human genitalia compared with the number of pictures of human faces, and I am not defending them all. I think most uploads of genitalia are speedily deleted. Editors may respond with suspicion to deletion requests for images that are seen as taboo, because they suspect that the request may be motivated by disapproval of the image rather than by copyright or scope concerns. Commons is not a hosting site for everybody's selfies. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know, I know, the AGF thingy; so most penis pics are not selfies. E4024 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This deletion request is about a category, not about the individual images. We have a relatively small number of pictures of human genitalia compared with the number of pictures of human faces, and I am not defending them all. I think most uploads of genitalia are speedily deleted. Editors may respond with suspicion to deletion requests for images that are seen as taboo, because they suspect that the request may be motivated by disapproval of the image rather than by copyright or scope concerns. Commons is not a hosting site for everybody's selfies. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why, in your opinion, human female genitalia (or penises or male anuses) are so much in scope of Commons, while the faces of many youngsters from the Subcontinent who look with hope of a better future at their democratizer cell phones, and make selfies to publish in Commons are not in scope? Why do we have a preference for genitals and not faces? I began asking this question to myself because while my DRs based on being OoS work perfectly for those youngsters but not for, say, any image within this category; and leave aside the scope thingy, even the "dubious own work" issue began to disturb people when a couple of genitals were deleted from Commons for our precautionary principle. Hey, I'm still young and certainly want to live long enough to receive a convincing explanation to why our scope is "wide open" to ordinary genitalia but not to ordinary youngsters... --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, you "don't particularly care about this category", but do you find it positive to make cats like this? I mean this or similar other junk like "Category:Nude or partially nude women smiling with teeth while caressing one or both of their boobs (soles apparent)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The nomination stinks, no doubt, but this level of specificity in organizing beaver shots is simply not necessary. The category creator has a terrible history of creation of undesirable categories and redirects across multiple projects, many of which were "haha boobies and crotches" like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this cat, especially considering its high number of viewers which is 72,796 only in Dec 2021 (ranked 10th among all pages on Commons). 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that the same category is also being discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Nude women sitting with legs wide open. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- this cat is essentially an intersection of four topics: nude, women, sitting and legs wide open. all 4 of them are proper cats. (i wouldnt need to explain the former 3 right? for Category:Wide open legs, a special kind of it is Category:M-shaped spread legs which is a known phenomenon and has wp entries, so the parent cat should exist.)
- then it becomes necessary to have this intersection. otherwise, deleting it will just push the files up into their parent cats which will fill up and require diffusion... back to this. RZuo (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | none | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
- Comment Out of scope files can be nominated for deletion. If such deletions leave a category empty of legitimate files, it can be speedy deleted at that point. Josh (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see much sense in creating a specific category for only two items, who can perfectly be in the above category, or in another subtree dedicated to sistricts and autonomous regions Darwin Ahoy! 15:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, the main reason is not the fact that the region are "autonomous" but the fact that they are geographically distant, related to another area. Thus, especially for overseas dependent territories, a separate subcategory (and its respective categorization) makes great sense. But separate subcategories also often make sense for individual cities or regions of the main part of the state. It depends on the amount of content (photos, documents), but also on the specificity of the place or region. Of course, it is necessary to start from some assumptions, for example why we sort images and other files into categories at all and why we do not have them all mixed together in one big pile. --ŠJů (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Btw., the categorization of dependent territories is not created just "for only two items" but at least for 18 items (for now), and all of them are grouped by their "parent" country. Some of such territories belong even to another continent than their parent country. --ŠJů (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. @DarwIn and ŠJů: Category:Autonomous Regions of Portugal already exists as part of the structure of Portugal's regions. Thus it is appropriate for a topic such as COVID-19 to follow the same organization for regional sorting. Josh (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- stale discussion. It fits into the parent Category:COVID-19 pandemic in dependent territories Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. @DarwIn and ŠJů: Category:Autonomous Regions of Portugal already exists as part of the structure of Portugal's regions. Thus it is appropriate for a topic such as COVID-19 to follow the same organization for regional sorting. Josh (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Darwin, ŠJů, Joshbaumgartner, and Estopedist1: I think we should close this discussion with no actions to take. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No consensus | |||
| Actions | none | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||