Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021
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 |
| 2025 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive <strong class="error">Error: Invalid time.</strong>
Only one member, and even that just shows a list of Turkic languages, without any clear relation to the title of the category. I suggest deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing to discuss here. Maybe next year we should discuss barring some users from opening new cats. I marked the cat for speedy deletion and am closing this page. --E4024 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Done Empty unnecessary cat marked for speedy deletion. --E4024 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Please delete this category, I created it by mistake דוד שי (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This intent of this category seems to duplicate and thus could be merged into category Hard disks. Once that has been done, Hard disks could be added as a subcategory of Disk drives. Waz8 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, HDD stands for Hard Disk Drives, so HDD drives has a redundant D. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done Yes, so I've requested that category for speedy deletion. Waz8 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Lada logos 82.78.75.241 11:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem noted Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn, no consensus. --intforce (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Forschungsgelände Garching with Category:Technische Universität München Campus Garching. Though the latter is strictly speaking a subset of the former, almost all buildings on the campus are somehow connected to TUM, which makes distinction difficult. Especially the whole bunch of aerial photos. intforce (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Almost half of the area is occupied by organizations that are not a part of TUM and for for most of it´s history the area was domininated by other users. Max Planck Society, the Bavarian State Library or General Electric are not a subset of the Technische Universität Campus and shouldn´t be categorized as if they were. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Technical nomination due to removal of Speedy deletion tag. The rationale was "if bloggers would be considered as notable, what’s next ? Tiktokers having category on Wikimedia ? Clearly this Nepalese blogger is not notable and is just spamming Chilhood pictures. Use gallery to save them not a worldwide site." Verbcatcher (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep as nominator, for the reasons in the previous discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Tulsi Bhagat. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Just a troll. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong spelling name. Urang Kamang (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Accidental creation of a category ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Category:Saint Jo, Texas seems to be redundant with Category:St. Jo, Texas. The wikipedia article uses both terms. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- They appear to be for the same place and should be merged. This is supported by File:St.Jo2.jpg and File:St.Jo4.jpg which are in Category:St. Jo, Texas but have the text 'Saint Jo' in the image. My brief research indicates that we should use 'Saint Jo': this form is used by the Montague County website[1] and on the signs on the main road at the city limits.[2][3] Verbcatcher (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I'd say you're right. The following pairs of pictures, each pair having a file from each category, certainly seem to be for the same buildings:
- File:St.Jo4 (1 of 1).jpg and File:St.Jo3.jpg of a city hall building
- File:St.JoTexas2 (1 of 1).jpg and File:St.Jo2.jpg of a public library and other buildings
- File:ST JO, TX.JPG and File:St.Jo6.jpg of a group of adjacent buildings
- I notice that there are files in both categories that were uploaded by the same user, but maybe they were categorized later. The categories were created by two other users. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearly should be merged, and User:Verbcatcher seems reasonable on which way (keep Category:Saint Jo, Texas). I want to make sure this has at least 24 hours open before I do something, since both categories are longstanding, but I don't really think there is much doubt here. - Jmabel ! talk 14:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
As creater of Category:St. Jo, Texas, I'll just say I chose the name based on the enwiki article St. Jo, Texas and on Google. But I don't have a position on which is correct for the Commons. Krok6kola (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. Perhaps there is a genuine confusion between the two: e.g.[4] or maybe the name has changed over time. Krok6kola (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
LTA user Trade (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete the cat, re-categorize the files. E4024 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done - Cleaned up by admin 4nn1l2. --E4024 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi I'm love you too 41.115.13.90 20:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done Meaningless CfD closed. --E4024 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong naming. Date should have been 1963 instead of 1926 Froztbyte (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Katze leckt an meinen Händen 212.95.5.114 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Done Meaningless discussion closed. E4024 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Fel namn - ska raderas FFswe (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I marked it for speedy deletion. --E4024 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Done - Wrongly-named cat was deleted. --E4024 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Gallery of dogs and opine thereat, to keep the discussion at one place. E4024 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (merged with Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Gallery of dogs) Josh (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Blank Page BubblySnow 💬 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Horses were not held. ;) (5 minutes?) --wqnvlz (talk | contribs) 07:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I witdrawed my deletion request. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@BubblySnow and Wqnvlz: Closed (withdrawn by nominator) Josh (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Parent cat for Category:Comedy actors from the United Kingdom and "at this moment" nothing else inside, not even one individual file. I see it as an unnecessary cat, but of course I can also imagine that suddenly Wikignomes will find things to stuff in. Probably not the best categorization method/procedure. IMHO, of course. (I almost always try to open to discussion my personal views and not impose them, at least generally. :) E4024 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have also opened (even empty) "container cats" myself, but the problem -as I see it- is comedians are "actors". Am I wrong? Are there comedians who do not act at all? --E4024 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comedians aren't automatically actors, e.g. Category:Stand-up comedians or Category:Comedy musicians. Category:Clowns are probably on the edge. While Category:Actors is not divided by genre, Category:Comedians seems to be, to some degree (stand-up, music etc.). Therefore, there might be some credence to this category. I see two main problems with Category:Comedy actors:
- It's quite incomplete. Category:Comedy actors from the United Kingdom doesn't even contain Charlie Chaplin or anyone of Monty Python.
- It's ill-defined. Who is supposed to go into this category? Anyone who did a funny movie, television programme or play? Comedians who also did movie / TV / theatre? The content seems to point to the former.
- Summary: Delete, unless we start categorizing actors by genre. The creator is blocked and will not reply here. --rimshottalk 20:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Joshbaumgartner, CfD closer par excellence, as uninvolved, would you mind closing this one also? Thanks a lot. E4024 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Rimshot: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Potentially misleading, as the category does not only contain COM:Featured images. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Alexkom000, was your intent to create a category for images you wanted to highlight from your collection? If that is the case, this should be a gallery instead per COM:User category.
- Just to note: there are no featured images at all in the category. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Had been blanked by User:Alexkom000. --Achim (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Renamed (or rather moved) to Category:Starred images by user:Alexkom000. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Militarized Security (VOKhR) or something else to indicate that this is a particular body, not a general type of security with arms. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. — Niklitov (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Militarized Security (VOKhR) Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
No need for a intrastate regional category here. Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the only subcategory of Category:2017 in Sir YK Pao Studio, HKAPA and should be merged into it. Altercari (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Content moved, category deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
deletion Westbahnhof (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Cement based screeds. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirected Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Misspelled film title, now at Category:Arrival of Prince Henry (of Prussia) and President Roosevelt at Shooters Island Natalie Freyaldenhoven (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. @Natalie Freyaldenhoven: Next time, use {{Bad name|Arrival of Prince Henry (of Prussia) and President Roosevelt at Shooters Island}} -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Muleby, Bornholm redundant with Category:Sorthat-Muleby? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Guess they could be merged, in the German Wikipedia it is Muleby, in the English and Danish Sorthat-Muleby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorthat-Muleby - https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorthat-Muleby
- I'm fine with merging to the second. --Tine (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
redirected to Category:Sorthat-Muleby.--RZuo (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Portland, Jamaica redundant with Category:Portland Parish? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I started Category:Portland, Jamaica, as a city in Jamaica, to distinguish it from Portlands in other nations. I am not an expert on Jamaica, and am happy to yield to those with greater knowledge of Jamaica.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is a parish named Portland in Dorset, England. This makes Category:Portland, Jamaica the better name and Category:Portland Parish a candidate for disambiguation. --rimshottalk 21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I don't think Portland is a city in Jamaica, but a parish, with capital Category:Port Antonio and several other en:Category:Populated places in Portland Parish. But given Rimshot's comments, maybe Category:Portland Parish, Jamaica would be best? Anyone opposed? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'll defer to this or any other reasonable compromise. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Portland Parish, Jamaica. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence this city exists, aside from a fictional place in a book my Bethany Hegedus. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomination. Also delete the empty subcat Category:People of Tweedle, Georgia. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The "unnecessary" definition at the top of the page, "The Republic of Artsakh is a landlocked state with limited recognition in Transcaucasia. It is internationally considered to be part of Azerbaijan, and is closely linked to Armenia" is "unnecessary" (sic). Firstly, because not that so-called Republic is internationally considered to be part of Azerbaijan, but the territory on which it claims sovereignty is considered part of Azerbaijan. Secondly, "is closely linked to Armenia" is quite subjective. I could simply remove this definition, but for a reason not understandable to me, some colleagues are quite sensitive on anything regarding that part of the world. Therefore please without losing several years with a futile discussion simply write here that you agree with me (or not) ASAP so that we can proceed accordingly. E4024 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: you have posted this in the wrong venue, the categories for discussion page is 'a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories'. Your posting concerns the description text in a category page, the place for this discussion is Category talk:Republic of Artsakh. You could draw attention to a category page discussion with a post at the Commons:Village pump.
- In reply to your point, the sentence you refer to could be better phrased, but it does not appear to be misleading. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Never mind, at least something referring to Armenia succeeded in drawing your attention to CfD pages, where your participation is much less than I would like to see. (We need more hours of you in Commons. :) --E4024 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Verbcatcher: Closed (no move/rename/delete; discuss header text on category talk page) Josh (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I suggest renaming to Category:Letters with multiple diacritics, which is more concise and in line with the parent category, Category:Letters with diacritics. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
According to the IP who vandalized her cat, she has about 20 nationalites (sic) or ethnic-religious background. These IPs have made the same to many people and invented several unnecessary cats, some parallel like "Hispanic", "Latin American" and "South American. As long as we do not bar IPs from certain types of contributions (just like not being able to upload anything to Commons) we will always have to work hard to clean up the mess some of them leave behind. (Of course not all IPs act like this.) E4024 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- BTW her surname is Morrone, not Morrene. (Looks funny that the IP knows her 20 nationalities but does not know her surname... :) --E4024 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Spelling change does not require a CfD in a case such as this. As for user permission policies, that will have to be discussed at a much higher level...not much we can do about that down here in the CfD scullery. Josh (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (rename to Camila Morrone) Josh (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
удалить - ошибочно создана Леонид Макаров (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 21:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
psychological trauma 37.238.47.10 09:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think there is any reason for its removal. --Jmarchn (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
closed.--RZuo (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we rename this, maybe to Category:Elizabeth (pear) like some of the other things in its category? I just removed about half a dozen files related to things named Elizabeth that had nothing to do with pears. This page could then become a dab page, using the content I just created at Category:Elizabeth (disambiguation). Auntof6 (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Strong support and speedy move clearly not primary when the given name is far more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Converted to DAB page -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
merged with Category:Iris Nature Reserve Euro know (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Do these flowers occur ONLY in that Nature Reserve? If any are elsewhere, this category needs to remain. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, that I know. Anyway, it needed to be merged, because it's twice the same. Euro know (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, it is found in several places in Israel. The category you moved them to is only one location, as far as I can tell because of the lack of geocoords on the images. That's why I'm wary of this move. Suppose one turns up in, e.g. the American desert or in a botanical facility not in Isreal? They we are telling a lie about the location of all this species. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, The photos are from the same place. Euro know (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Suppose another image turns up from a botanical collection in the United States? We can't use this category because we are misleading people as to its location. Then we would need to retore the original category and yours as a subcategory. You see the problem? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Finding in Google will give you that no such Nature Reserve exists in the USA. Euro know (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- What about a University botanical collection? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still, it's not Nature Reserve. Euro know (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- What about a University botanical collection? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Finding in Google will give you that no such Nature Reserve exists in the USA. Euro know (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Suppose another image turns up from a botanical collection in the United States? We can't use this category because we are misleading people as to its location. Then we would need to retore the original category and yours as a subcategory. You see the problem? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, The photos are from the same place. Euro know (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, it is found in several places in Israel. The category you moved them to is only one location, as far as I can tell because of the lack of geocoords on the images. That's why I'm wary of this move. Suppose one turns up in, e.g. the American desert or in a botanical facility not in Isreal? They we are telling a lie about the location of all this species. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, that I know. Anyway, it needed to be merged, because it's twice the same. Euro know (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yhea, the name of the Nature Reserve in hevrew is written there with the logo of the city Netanya. Every file you'll give that is in that category is needed to be in that category. Maybe in the Category:Iris atropurpurea, there are in that category who needed to be in this category. Still, there is no another Nature Reserve in these files. Euro know (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's some misunderstanding here. There is a flower, named Iris atropurpurea and a nature reserve near Netanya, named Iris Reserve. The flower can be found in other places and the nature reserve also contains other flowers. What we need are actually three categories, one for the flower (Category:Iris atropurpurea), one for the nature reserve (Category:Iris Nature Reserve) and possibly one for photos of that flower in that reserve, e.g. Iris atropurpurea in Iris Nature Reserve. --rimshottalk 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Rimshot: Well thank you for that. That's exactly what I've been trying to establish. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's some misunderstanding here. There is a flower, named Iris atropurpurea and a nature reserve near Netanya, named Iris Reserve. The flower can be found in other places and the nature reserve also contains other flowers. What we need are actually three categories, one for the flower (Category:Iris atropurpurea), one for the nature reserve (Category:Iris Nature Reserve) and possibly one for photos of that flower in that reserve, e.g. Iris atropurpurea in Iris Nature Reserve. --rimshottalk 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, replaced by Category:Iris atropurpurea in Iris Nature Reserve. --rimshottalk 09:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Category:SVG files, "In general, topical categorization by file type is not allowed. Exceptions are: SVG files and to some extent PDF files plus DJVU files, and MIDI files." Therefore, I suggest creating Category:Greek letters with two font lines (sans, SVG) instead and swapping the contents of this and the parent category. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I agree, that categorization by file type is generally a bad idea. But in cases like this, the (typically newer) SVG files are the ones that should be used, and the (typically older) PNG files are superseded. They are kept for all kinds of reasons (e.g. to preserve the attribution chain), but usually they will never be used again. It makes perfect sense, that the superseded images are tucked away in a subcategory, while the ones to be used are directly in it. If this contradicts the letter of some rule, then the rule shold be discussed and adapted, rather than mechanically followed. It would just be confusing to go to a category page, and see only superseded images, while the images to be used are nested one level deeper. It would probably lead to superseded files being used accidentally. --Watchduck (quack) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4 and Watchduck: Closed (no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Superseded SVG sounds like SVG files that are superseded, like Category:SVG supersed flags. This should be called Category:Superseded by SVG to make sense. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, sounds very useful. IMHO it can be done immediately, without a wider consent. -- sarang♥사랑 16:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, although moving the current category would have perhaps been a better option. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thougt first of that; with coexistence of both categories, while the process endures of the template change becoming effective, no file will be in a not-existing category. You are right, that would not matter - I had been too careful! -- sarang♥사랑 08:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Moving with a redirect would have circumvented that issue, too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- This would not have been a great difference - causing also two categories? -- sarang♥사랑 08:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- But preserving the page history. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- This would not have been a great difference - causing also two categories? -- sarang♥사랑 08:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Moving with a redirect would have circumvented that issue, too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thougt first of that; with coexistence of both categories, while the process endures of the template change becoming effective, no file will be in a not-existing category. You are right, that would not matter - I had been too careful! -- sarang♥사랑 08:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, although moving the current category would have perhaps been a better option. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Question @Sarang: You are familiar with {{Superseded}}, having done the recent edits to it. Can you confirm that template no longer adds to Category:Superseded SVG anymore? I do see one reference to it still in the template documentation, but this may just be a relic at this point. Josh (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: sorry, I cannot find it. You can still see it (after cache purge/empty edit save)? -- sarang♥사랑 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Incorrect name, I was sure, that it means ".svg-type files which are superseded". Taivo (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What are the correct definitions of Bookcases and Bookshelves? At Commons Bookcases should have doors and Bookshelves have not, but in de gallery page bookcases might have doors or not. In Wikipedia bookcase and bookshelf are synonymous, they share the same page. Wikidata has one item Q215857 for both concepts. And what is in English one single shelf with books, not being in a bookcase, or one shelf in a bookcase?
JopkeB (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- In US English at least, a bookcase does not need to have doors. It is a piece of furniture, usually freestanding, with multiple shelves for books. I suppose "bookcases" perhaps should be a subcategory of "bookshelves"? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- It strikes me that the relative hierarchy of bookshelves vs bookcases is rather similar to the problem faced at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/08/Category:Stairways and Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Steps, neither of which has been well solved. =( - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- In British usage a bookcase is a piece of furniture which may or may not have doors. Book shelves are shelves for books, which may be attached to a wall or located inside a bookcase. This is confirmed by the Oxford English Dictionary: "1. A cabinet or cupboard containing shelves for books; (in early use) esp. one enclosed by doors, glazed or otherwise."[5](paywall) This indicates that the expectation of doors is an old usage. A Google Image search for 'Bookcase' gives an overwhelming preponderance of bookcases without doors. I think that a bookcase must have sides.
- There is another meaning of bookcase: "2. A protective case consisting of a pair of boards and spine piece covered with cloth, decorative paper, [...]. File:Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum - Reiseapotheke in Buchform.jpg shows this kind of bookcase, and possibly Category:Book box-1913.266.1106. We could make a new Category:Bookcases (boxes) for these. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: I understand your motivation for Category:Bookcases (boxes) but I'm not sure it's a good idea. The German "in Buchform" suggests any box that is book shaped. I'm sure we have lots of boxes that could fit a vague definition of that. (File:Box, wood and book-shaped box (AM 19010-16).jpg or File:Master of the Registrum Gregorii - Book-Shaped Reliquary - 1930.741 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif for instance. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It strikes me that the relative hierarchy of bookshelves vs bookcases is rather similar to the problem faced at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/08/Category:Stairways and Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Steps, neither of which has been well solved. =( - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest this discussion be closed. It has been established that in both US and UK English common usage, a "bookcase" is a piece of furniture with 2 or more bookshelves; doors are optional. "Bookcases" is thus a subcategory of "bookshelves". No problem. (Further subcategories of the parent category "book storage" can be created if needed.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but the definitions at Category:Bookcases and Category:Bookshelves should be revised to remove the 'enclosed by doors' criterion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done for English. If someone could please edit the German accordingly? (Possibly the confusion was different usage in German?) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but the definitions at Category:Bookcases and Category:Bookshelves should be revised to remove the 'enclosed by doors' criterion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Closed Seems resolved now [6] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete, misspelling of Category:Science and technology in Jammu and Kashmir. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support merge the content into Category:Science and technology in Jammu and Kashmir and delete the misspelled Category:Science and technology in Jammu and Kashimir. Josh (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to the English descriptive term 'slavery in the Ottoman Empire' per English Wikipedia's use. I can't find any English sources that use the spelling 'yasyr', the Polish spelling 'jasyr' is more common, but overall, I think English descriptive term would be more useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is the old word for PoW (Turkish "esir", from Arabic; which is "tutsak" in pure Turkish). We already have a Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and we do not need two names for one concept. The problem in Commons is that we make several cats about anything negative related to us, the Turks :) --E4024 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support redirect to Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. @E4024: I don't see a reason not to assume good faith here, but if you have a case for otherwise, CfD is not really the forum for that. Josh (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Never mind. While I am alive I will throw the stars back to the sea one by one; you may later spend time for an analysis of WP/Commons attitude towards certain countries, peoples, religions, cultures etc which could well make a PhD thesis; if I were not too much tired I could do it, however I even quit smoking after Corona. (I mean I am too tired even to smoke. :) I only wish to be kept at home by public force and have a good rest. BTW we do not need this cat. Delete, RD, merge, do something. Thank you very much.. --E4024 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
We do not have a "Category:Izmit" because the city is called "İzmit", and the words on top of the cat are not necessary. Even in Ankara there are more than one "Pembe Köşk". That is only about the colour of the house. I will correct these things, but in case anyone wishes to opine, most welcome. E4024 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support The way it is structured now looks fine to me. No reason not to leave the redirect, I think. Josh (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Pembe Köşk (İzmit) -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This category doesn't seem to serve any purpose. I think we could just copy the subcat into all the parent categories here, and delete this category. Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support "'title' by 'creator'" is good, no need for an extra "'title'" category here. Josh (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:El Soplón by El Greco. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The X220s model was not exist ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ThisIsNotABetter: Ha, thanks for information. Delete category :-). Skim (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete @ThisIsNotABetter and Skim: Maybe it exists or it doesn't but either way we have no files of it, so no need for a category for it. Josh (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I tagged for deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleting - renamed, meaningless redirect ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete only difference is case, so no point for a redirect. Josh (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 10:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Incorrectly named category (should be lower case and plural), incorrect parent category (a software library is not a library), totally empty. It’s easier to create a new category if and when one wants to deal with this subject seriously than to repair this one. Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tacsipacsi, Joshbaumgartner, and BMacZero: There seem to be several things categorized under the non-existant Category:Software libraries. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 | Category:Software Library | Move to/Rename as | Category:software libraries | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | per themightyquill there does appear to be content for this, and already under the more appropriate name, no less. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
Moved to Category:Software libraries. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
like to know if you have any questions please feel free to 41.115.13.90 19:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question What are you proposing? Josh (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This cat and the parallel Category:Gallery of cats look peculiar to me. Do we really need them? If the answer is yes, are the names OK? E4024 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Gallery pages of dogs or Category:Gallery pages of dog breeds might be better. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Including Category:Gallery of cats in this discussion (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Gallery of cats) as resulting conclusions should apply to both. Josh (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Gallery of cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Gallery pages of cat breeds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Gallery of dogs | Move to/Rename as | Category:Gallery pages of dog breeds | |
| per comments above and categories are for 'gallery pages' as opposed to 'gallery' and the gallery page subjects are cat and dog breeds as opposed to individual dogs and cats, so far as I can tell. | |||
| Josh (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
- Agree with Josh. --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Ngorongoro redundant with Category:Ngorongoro Conservation Area? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, merge. Josh (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Is this the name of a collection? I'm not sure it's a useful way to categorize images otherwise. Rename to Category:Chicago in the Reagan Era by Jeff Wassmann if necessary. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC) This is fine by me, this sounds like a better way to categorize this work. Yes, this is the name of the collection. Thank you! Jeff Wassmann
Moved to Category:Chicago in the Reagan Era by Jeff Wassmann. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a mistake at the title? (Only "short films" have been able to be a subcat of this.) E4024 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question What is the purpose of this category? The title is clearly wrong as it would indicate all films would go here. Even if we remove the plural and make it just 'film' it would indicate any video of film or television would go here. It doesn't seem either of these is how this category is being used. Once we know the actual scope for the category, we can propose a proper name to cover it. Josh (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete in favour of Category:Videos of films (which exists) and possibly, Category:Videos of television and Category:Videos about film and television - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Videos of films and Category:Videos of television Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
According to this blog "fishes" could not be acceptable here. E4024 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Fish in Islamic art to match parent category. Note the capitalization as well. -Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Category:Fish in Islamic art as it matches current scheme. Josh (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fish in Islamic art. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in New Brunswick to match category tree and linked wikipedia category, and in accordance with Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Cities and towns in the Northwest Territories -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support and move under Category:Populated places in Canada by province or territory. Also adding Manitoba and the parent meta cat below: Josh (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Cities and towns in Manitoba | Merge into | Category:Populated places in Manitoba | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Settlements in Canada by province or territory | Delete | ||
| same as above, this is the only other one left under the parent category which can thus be deleted. | |||
| Josh (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
- @Crouch, Swale and Joshbaumgartner: Category:Cities and towns in Manitoba could me renamed Category:Cities in Manitoba since it has a clear definition (en:List of cities in Manitoba) and a parent category Category:Cities in Canada. Category:Cities and towns in Quebec seems to be a valid category, as per Category:Cities and towns in Quebec (and the fact that "ville" corresponds with both English words). -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please let us all stop adding new cats with the word "and" and let us delete all ns about "apples and pears" (like "soups and stews"; soups are soups, and stews are stews, if a dish may be considered by some as a soup and others as a stew, it can be put into both cats but no need for "apples and pears", "soups and stews", or "cities and towns". --E4024 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Cities and towns" may be useful in some cases unlike "soups and stews" since it might not be obvious to everyone the distinction and many places such a category would be created may not have enough cities so it might make sense to combine them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved Category:Cities and towns in New Brunswick to Category:Populated places in New Brunswick, and split Category:Cities and towns in Manitoba into Category:Cities in Manitoba and Category:Towns in Manitoba. == Themightyquill (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
We do not need this cat for a few pics of not notable rappers. (No cats inside.) E4024 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support re-categorize files under existing Category:Hip hop musicians by country and Category:Vocalists by country as appropriate. Josh (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Cold War and Modern artillery ammunition | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| use 'by year' categories for chronological organization | |||
| Josh (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Closed (no objections; delete/upmerge) Josh (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable person, now spamming 2 wikis and data. (Wikidata, commons and `pedia.) Eatcha (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep the category has 12 files and the subject has an article on 15 Wikipedias, if there's a problem with notability you need wait for the DR to happen and if all the images and the gallery get deleted this will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with the above. Wait. --E4024 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- While the person is notable most of the files have been copyvios as is the last remaining one Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done C2 as empty Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
xxx bxvxxbvc 140.213.56.123 08:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
nonsense nomination Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Motion pictures redundant with Category:Films? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- i think so. see en:Motion pictures. i suggest redirecting it.--RZuo (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Films. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
wrong name by myself, I created better name here: Category:Carriage house at 34 Wojciecha Korfantego Street in Bytom Gower (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
doppelt und falscher Name Schofför (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done Redirected, can be closed. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Sadasiva Temple. Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. The wikipedia article is at en:Sadasiva Temple, Nuggehalli. Should we follow that? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Sadashiva Temple, Nuggehalli. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Fremont, Seattle, Washington. Mike Peel (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I expect Category:Fremont, Washington is sufficient. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Either way is OK for me. Category:Fremont, Washington is the newer category, created in 2009(!), compared to the other created in 2006. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: The wikipedia article is at en:Category:Fremont, Seattle. Should we follow that? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Thanks Mike Peel (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved both to Category:Fremont, Seattle, Washington. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please delete this empty category, which I created by error and later replaced by Category:Photographs by Nicolas Vigier/Salamanca. Boklm (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per request. Themightyquill (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong title? E4024 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Singer-songwriters from São Paulo (state) -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong title? E4024 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Singer-songwriters from Rio de Janeiro (state). -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
New information about the difference between Security fences and Safety fences, after closing Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Safety fences. @Krok6kola: wrote there on 10 January 2021:
- Oppose Safety fences are used, for example, to keep rocks from falling on a highway, but are not meant to "secure" the monuntain side from humans, animals etc. and can be easily gotten around. Numerous other fences are used for similar reasons. A "Security fence" is meant to be impenetrable by an normal means.
So my proposal would be to reopen Safety fences and bring back the subcategories that were deleted here from Security fences by Krok6kola (Category:Parapets, Category:Railings, Category:Hydraulic road barricade and Category:Snow fences).
@Themightyquill: would you please also comment on this?
JopkeB (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support separate categories, as security and safety fences serve different purposes (though some fences may qualify as both) and thus have different design features that can be illustrated. Josh (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed, but I'm a little confused. Do we have images of safety fences, as you describe them, Krok6kola, that are now erroneously in Category:Security fences? Are they under some other subcategory of Category:Barriers that is doing the job adequately? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Just after a quick look, do you consider these File:FK Sosnová3.jpg, File:Kenosha Post Office 56th and sheridan.jpg, File:Don't lean on the railing - geograph.org.uk - 1204336.jpg, File:AngularVelocityRollCoast.jpg, File:Safety fence - geograph.org.uk - 1727611.jpg as security fences? (They are now categorized as such.) Krok6kola (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your argument here. None of them are used to keep rocks from falling on a highway, which was the example you used. I don't see it written anywhere that security fences must be impenetrable, and I have a hard time imaginging what an impenetrable fence would look like. We also have Category:Railings. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You may be right. Looking at the contents, there is a strange lack of what I would call "security fences", like those around prisons, atomic facilities, dangerous chemical stockpiles and toxic waste dumps, etc. Even looking under "prisons" for example, there are no pictures of fences. No "barbed wire fences" are there. Other than "railroad security" and "airport security" there is not much there at all. Seems like an underused category. this is what I would call a "security fence." or this. There seems to be no specific category that covers these type of fences. This Category:Barbed wire fences by country seems to cover many of what I think of as "security fences". Even Category:Electric fences seems too focused on farming uses. Krok6kola (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far:
- Safety fences are meant for protection against harm, injury, danger, or other non-desirable outcomes. Examples: (1) fences to keep rocks from falling on a highway and (2) protect people from falling down or otherwise injuring themselves or others [added by me].
- Security fences are meant to keep people out or in an area; for instance fences around prisons, railroads, airports, atomic facilities, dangerous chemical stockpiles and toxic waste dumps.
- There are indeed images of both kind of fences in Category:Security fences.
- Security and safety fences serve different purposes (though some fences may qualify as both) and thus have different design features that can be illustrated.
Conclusion: Use separate categories.
Do you agree with these conclusions? Can we then split again Category:Security fences into Category:Security fences and Category:Safety fences?
Outstanding question: What to do with images of fences which might serve both purposes?
JopkeB (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: @Themightyquill: I think it is hopeless. It begins with the definition of "fence" at the top of the parent category:
- Fences are freestanding structures designed to restrict or prevent movement across a boundary. Compare to Category:Railings. Category:Barriers is under Category:Fences (which puts "Fences" under "Barriers"! Isn't that forbidden?)
- This does not even mention the possibility of "security fences". Then if you look at the hodgepodge of images under both Category:Fences (767 images) and Category:Barriers, never mind all the subcategories, my conclusion anyway is that these categories are useless and that no one cares. e.d. Category:Suicide barriers (which most large, high bridges have) does not exist. I created Category:Prison security fences, which almost every country in the world has plenty, but could find very few. Living in California, I saw many hundreds of "fences" to keep rocks from falling on roads (some not far from my house) even in Pakistan I saw them, but they are not identified as such. I am bowing out of this whole discussion. But thanks, JopkeB, for addressing the problems. Krok6kola (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Krok6kola: "Hopeless" is not a word that I use in combination with a category or category structure, you are too pessimistic, no one is getting hurt. By the way, it is of coarse your right to quit this discussion, but I hope you'll reconsider this. JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: @Joshbaumgartner: and others: Let's be pragmatic, let's leave the definitions and structure of other categories to other discussions and focus on security and safety fences. My questions to all of you:
- Do you agree on my "Conclusions so far" of 23 March 2021? If no: What changes should be made?
- Can we leave the choice to which category images of fences which might serve both purposes belongs, to the judgement of the person who categorises these images? There might even be another subcategory in Category:Fences by function some might fit into. In the worst case, they come in both categories; I can live with that.
JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: To use one of your examples, is a fence around a toxic waste dump there to protect the waste or to protect people from the waste? I just want to point out that separating them may mean that some things are in both categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that a fence around a toxic waste dump should be in the Category:Security fences, to keep people out an area. JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: To use one of your examples, is a fence around a toxic waste dump there to protect the waste or to protect people from the waste? I just want to point out that separating them may mean that some things are in both categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Safety fences should be re-opened.
- The definitions of Safety fences and Security fences should be included as descriptions in their categories.
- Images about safety fences in Category:Security fences should be moved to Category:Safety fences.
- It might be necessary to make a new category Category:Anti-suicide fences.
I have implemented these conclusions. JopkeB (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:5th Avenue LRT Station (C-3 Road East & Road West corner Rizal Avenue Extension, Light Rail Transit Authority, Grace Park, Caloocan City)
[edit]Redundant and excessive category: relevant files have been moved to Category:Circumferential Road 3 (Caloocan City section), Category:5th Avenue station, and Category:Buildings in Caloocan City. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- These tarpaulins or Address billboards were photographed so as to provide Editors the evidence as to the Correctness of Categorizing via-a-vis the boundaries of Roads and Barangays; noteworthy is the fact that a) Caloocan Roads and Highways are so prolific that often, there are zero road signs when I can base the names of the Categories; hence, I should have uploaded a new version taking from a good photo of a road shot so that in time like at present, the unused category may be a historical remaining proof of the correctness of my Categorizing and b) 18th Sgt. Rivera Street along C-3 Road verily teaches that the photos should be Categorized as Sub-Category of the General C-3 Road; this Road is kilometric; d) the dim or dark Directional road sign was then needed to Identify the specific road or section, since the Junction or Crossing encompasses 3 Main Roads or Highways of thousands in Quezon City Streets or Roads; e) The Billboard Ads blocked my important photo vis-à-vis DPWH Engineering Bridge and Road works: this is an eye-sore and a Legal Nuisance Public Per Se Art. 694: incidentally, when I met my classmate Mayor of Caloocan 1983 seatmate due to alphabetical seating at the Ateneo College of Law in 1981, he listened to my query and complaint against proliferation of Commercial Ads that block the streets and endanger the lives of NLEX road riders; I lament the pathetic blocking of my good photos by these May anking talino na di kayang Tawaran as 1st Honor genius Pinoys; hereby Noted sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Circumferential Road 3 East (Grace Park, Rizal Avenue Extension, Caloocan City section)
[edit]Redundant and excessive category: relevant files have been moved to Category:Circumferential Road 3 (Caloocan City section) (though several files may fulfill COM:SPAM, but that is not the issue here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- These tarpaulins or Address billboards were photographed so as to provide Editors the evidence as to the Correctness of Categorizing via-a-vis the boundaries of Roads and Barangays; noteworthy is the fact that a) Caloocan Roads and Highways are so prolific that often, there are zero road signs when I can base the names of the Categories; hence, I should have uploaded a new version taking from a good photo of a road shot so that in time like at present, the unused category may be a historical remaining proof of the correctness of my Categorizing and b) 18th Sgt. Rivera Street along C-3 Road verily teaches that the photos should be Categorized as Sub-Category of the General C-3 Road; this Road is kilometric; d) the dim or dark Directional road sign was then needed to Identify the specific road or section, since the Junction or Crossing encompasses 3 Main Roads or Highways of thousands in Quezon City Streets or Roads; e) The Billboard Ads blocked my important photo vis-a-vis DPWH Engineering Bridge and Road works: this is an eye-sore and a Legal Nuisance Public Per Se Art. 694: incidentally, when I met my classmate Mayor of Caloocan 1983 seatmate due to alphabetical seating at the Ateneo College of Law in 1981, he listened to my query and complaint against proliferation of Commercial Ads that block the streets and endanger the lives of NLEX road riders; I lament the pathetic blocking of my good photos by these May anking talino na di kayang Tawaran as 1st Honor genius Pinoys; hereby Noted sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Delete or redirect to Category:Bir Jdid ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: Redirected. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Blank page BubblySnow 💬 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @BubblySnow: This category appears to have been populated in the meantime. Josh (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No longer empty. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I cannot understand this categorization. Is it a commercial add of some special services house, or what? There is only one street image here in which we have to look very carefully to see a man, the other images are about a woman in her underwear in a house... Let us delete this. E4024 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- This category is for people in this street in Tehran. Most of them purport to be pictures of prostitutes working in a brothel, which is presumably located on this street. I have added them to Category:Prostitution in Tehran. If you think these files should be deleted then please raise a deletion request. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- With "let us delete this" I meant the cat, and not the pics in it. (BTW I have no idea where brothels are in Tehran, and -frankly- not even in the city I live. :) --E4024 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Deletion of the category. Category:Prostitution in Tehran is fine for what's currently in there. Maybe the street where the pictures were taken can be added to the file description or meta data instead, but I don't think it warrants a category. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Result: emptied and nominated for deletion. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Al-Husn redundant with Category:Al Husn? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe so, and they should be merged. Josh (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge. Per enwiki and Wikidata which use the name Category:Al Husn Estopedist1 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A user has simply moved the cat without searching any consensus, in an area possibly not very familiar to them. We have many "türbe" cats in and out of Turkey. They can all be considered under a grandfather cat as "mausoleum" but not as "Mausoleums in Bursa", as they are all "türbes". (Look at their names.) As long as we do not remove all türbe items from Commons it is not correct to do that here. The user who moved this arbitrarily used as explanation "using English terminology where possible, and more precise and clear for non-Turkish readers" and their very last edit I see in Commons is this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fes_DSC03646_Morocco_(15278879402).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=525426249 What is "funduq" in English? I am sick and bored of people coming and imposing their choices while they are not even autopatrolled. Please some admin take this back to "Türbes in Bursa". Thanks. E4024 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support If türbe is simply a mausoleum, why does Britannica have a dedicated entry for that? 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting the move. I will now make this a "subcat of Mausoleums" and all is well. We have no problem with the latter, the issue is these are all specifically "türbe" and they have WP articles and categories that we must respect. E4024 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- With "this" above I meant Category:Türbes in Bursa. Now it is a subcat of the -otherwise empty- Category:Mausoleums in Bursa which we may keep as a "container cat". Please close this thread. --E4024 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @4nn1l2: is current solution acceptable? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- With "this" above I meant Category:Türbes in Bursa. Now it is a subcat of the -otherwise empty- Category:Mausoleums in Bursa which we may keep as a "container cat". Please close this thread. --E4024 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting the move. I will now make this a "subcat of Mausoleums" and all is well. We have no problem with the latter, the issue is these are all specifically "türbe" and they have WP articles and categories that we must respect. E4024 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: all resolved. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This isn't really a train station, per my comments on the English Wikipedia: [7]. There's a control point/goods station named Sandweid, and there's a bus stop named Sandweidli about 160 meters away that probably (but not verifiably) has some off-the-books train service. This picture (probably) depicts that bus stop. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is a stop on request signal too: [8]. According to the official timetable, back in 2007 as the picture was taken there was only nine pairs of buses to go through Sandweidli [9]; in the same time, there was a train every 30 mins. [10]. NAC (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that stop-on-request-signal seems to be where the bus stop is, and not the control point. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question @Mackensen: What change do you propose to fix this? Josh (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'd recategorize the single image into Category:Berner Oberland-Bahn (covering the route) and delete the category. Mackensen (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @NAC: Any further comment, or can we adopt Mackensen's proposal? Josh (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: solution per user:Mackensen Estopedist1 (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @NAC: Any further comment, or can we adopt Mackensen's proposal? Josh (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'd recategorize the single image into Category:Berner Oberland-Bahn (covering the route) and delete the category. Mackensen (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that stop-on-request-signal seems to be where the bus stop is, and not the control point. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mackensen, NAC, and Estopedist1: Closed (merge) Josh (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
useless category after renaming and redirecting Gower (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Gower: Was the original category name simply a typo, or was this avenue once known as 'Alley' in the past or referred to such in some sources? If so, we should retain a redirect, but if just a simple error in creation of the category, then we can delete. Josh (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Both categories were created by me and that with Alley is just my wrong translaton from Polish. It's definitely an wide Avenue, not Alley. --Gower (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Without explanation User:Tm emptied this category, and nominated it for speedy deletion, along with Category:Manor houses in Poland by voivodeship. To contest it I open this discussion. I created this category mainly to make clear distinction between manors (manor estates) and manor houses (manor main buildings). Previously existing Category:Manors in Poland mixes manors and manor houses. Despite "Manors in Poland" currently being a subcategory of "Houses in Poland" (residential buildings), this category in addition to manor houses includes photos of other manor buildings (agricultural buildings that are not houses), manor parks and other related subjects. Additionally "Manors in Poland" should include Category:Former Rittergüter in Poland that also isn't strictly for manor houses. Title of new category "Manor houses in Poland" is consistent with English Wikipedia category titles (en:Category:Manor houses in Poland) and also consistent with titles of already existing subcategories of Category:Manors in Poland by voivodeship. These subcategories, like Category:Manor houses in Greater Poland Voivodeship, despite titles currently don't include only manor houses. To clear this up, I believe the first step is to make upper level manor and manor house categories distinct, which I attempted. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D4BE:36A8:CE87:9 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tm: The OP makes what appears to be a valid rationale to retain this category. Can you offer an explanation of your edits? Josh (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this seems like an appropriate category and it exists on Pl, En and De and categorization by country is normal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Crouch, Swale--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: kept per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Is Category:Rouen, France not redundant with Category:Rouen ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the maps, which are the only content of the first, they are the same. Pinging Geo Swan. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Geo Swan: to be merged in favour of Category:Rouen--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be merged in favour of Category:Rouen, of course !--Totorvdr59 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Geo Swan: to be merged in favour of Category:Rouen--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Merged into Category:Rouen--A1Cafel (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Should this empty category be deleted? I created the better “Friendly Sons of St. Patrick“ Ooligan (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: I see no reason not to leave a redirect for now. Josh (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that this category is ambiguous. Its most obvious meaning is for men whose father was Saint Patrick, but it is a redirect to an American organization. However, it is probable that Saint Patrick had no sons: w:en:Saint Patrick mentions none, and as a priest in a church that probably required clerical celibacy it unlikely that he had any children. So it is unlikely that any fifth century men will be inadvertently categorised here. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this redirect as being misleading and suspicious Estopedist1 (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I corrected its categorization but need some guidance to understand why we have the word "Asian" here? E4024 (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages there are several categories whist start 'Asian', 'African', 'Caucasian' or 'Chinese'. Most of these words appear to be redundant. They may have been from a misconceived attempt to control the sort order ({{DEFAULTSORT}} should be used for this).
- Some of the categories in Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages appear to be miscategorised, and are for scripts used to write in Arabic. For example, I suspect that the coins in Category:Sicily Arabic script have inscriptions in Arabic. Category:Afrikaans Arabic alphabet implies that Arabic script was used to write Afrikaans, which seems unlikely. These categories should be revised by someone with relevant knowledge.
- If you have the time and expertise, please identify which of the images in Category:Arabic inscriptions in Turkey are in Ottoman Turkish and not Arabic, and reclassify them accordingly. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am good at opening CfDs and reading Turkish written in Greek alphabet (Karamanlı Türkçesi) but not able to do what you ask me just above. I can probably read Turkish written in Arabic Alphabet based letters normally if they come from a typewriter and with the necessary "hereke" (diacritical marks). Reading manuscript/calligraphy is too much over the capacity of this truck driver. --E4024 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned over the heirarchies under Category:Armoured vans and Category:Armoured cars. I don't remember ever hearing the term "Armoured van" before today. The individual who created that Category:Armoured van seems to have left the project, so they can't defend their decision.
In a lot of cases we end up with odd or idiosyncratic category names because the individual who first started a needed category couldn't conceive of any alternate names, so they didn't consider any alternate names.
I don't think squatter's rights should cause us to stick with less than ideal names.
Currently the schema someone put on Category:Armoured cars assumes that all armoured cars are military vehicles. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that there ae also large fleets of the kinds of armoured cars that collect or deliver cash money, or other valuables. Armoured cars that carry VIPs are a third kind of armoured car. There may be a fourth kind of armoured car, tasked with rescuing people from toxic fires, chemical spills, etc. (Russia has a small fleet of armoured rescue ferries, for use in the oil fields on Caspian Sea. They are hermetically sealed, so they can safely rescue workers from oil rigs, even if doing so requires transitting through huge spills of burning oil. There may be similar vehicles for land based rescues.)
One alternate set of hierarchies would move the current Category:Armoured cars to something like Category:Armoured cars (military). Category:Armoured cars would become a disambiguation page, with Category:Armoured cars (military) at the same level as Category:Armoured cars (valuables) and Category:Armoured cars (VIP).
The exact names of the subcategories? I dunno. Let's discuss it. The current hierarchy sucks. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The ones under Category:Armoured vans are (mostly) van-type vehicles rather than car-type ones (except maybe this one, which I don't know how to describe). I'd be OK with classifying all these the way English Wikipedia does (which I believe is what you're proposing), as long as we realize that we're categorizing by function and not by body type. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- A correction or question: Who is "The individual who created that Category:Armoured van"? I see that Category:Armoured vans has been opened by a "bot"; was there also a Category:Armoured van? E4024 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's right, the first entry in the revision history for Category:Armoured vans says it was started by a bot. And the revision history shows the edit summary left by that bot: "Moved from Category:Armoured van. Authors: KTo288" So, the departed contributor was KTo288.
- If you click on Category:Armoured van you will see it was deleted by Foroa, whose deletion log entry said it deleted for "incorrectly named content". Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't find the reasoning that the proposer hasn't heard the term armoured van very convincing since that it the term I have always heard and used. If this was about linking the cats to relevant wikidata items I could go along with that I suppose. But the Term armoured van is better and more accurate language then Armoured car as that brings to mind military vehicles with armoured automobile being for VIP transport. Oxyman (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Unclear purpose. Old forgeries, or forgeries of old objects? Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not wading into discussing the purpose of the category, IMO a category like this is problematic because 99% of what is in Category:Forgery is related to "historical" objects. So it's a category without a purpose, whatever the purpose is (or isn't? Hhhmmm). Really, the whole idea of separate categories for "historical" objects is an abomination in the first place, but that's another discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. For Category:Historical objects, new CFD should be started--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"Cyrillic" is miscapitalised, but the name is also not in line with other subcategories of Category:Media needing categories by alphabet; it should probably be Category:Uncategorized media with description or file name in Cyrillic letters. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support renaming, it matches others in the parent cat. Josh (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me; would we be okay with Category:Uncategorized media with description or file name in Cyrillic (-letters)? It's a very wordy name already. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- To me, that sounds quite wrong. It's like using "Latin" for "Latin letters". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree with the original suggestion, then. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's not the same. Cyrilic is primarily a script, while Latin is primarily a language. --ŠJů (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- In that case to use a phrase like "cyrillic names" (sic) is even less necessary. --E4024 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4, BMacZero, ŠJů, and E4024: : Given that "Cyrillic" may be sufficient for some, but "Cyrillic letters" eliminates any misconception as to what is referred to, it seems that going with "Cyrillic letters" would be best. Can we compromise on that and get this CfD wrapped up? Josh (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- In that case to use a phrase like "cyrillic names" (sic) is even less necessary. --E4024 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- To me, that sounds quite wrong. It's like using "Latin" for "Latin letters". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: and others. Yes Category:Uncategorized media with description or file name in Cyrillic letters (in far future it is probably "Uncategorized files with description or file name in Cyrillic letters") is suitable. By the way, the move is massive: 20k files--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Moved. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy, this does not appear to be the name agreed upon in above discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Very unsharped category. There we have only few festivals from all that we can named "pagan" (almost all that aren't Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist...). Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Wojsław Brożyna: Paganism seems to have a defined scope, and this would be a sub-cat for its related festivals, so I don't see the problem at first glance. What fix do you propose? Josh (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are no festivals that can be simple categorized as "Pagan". My fix is to keep festivals of religions called pagan in their own categories. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner@Wojsław Brożyna: enwiki indeed hasn't such category, but several Wikipedias have, see Wikidata:Q9897505. I also rather support the view, that concrete "paganism"-related festival to be connected with the country of location Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I think we should keep the category, but it should conform to the parameters of the parent Category:Paganism, in that it is to cover pre-Christian Meso-American and ancient European religions, not just everything beyond mainstream Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith. Josh (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner@Wojsław Brożyna: enwiki indeed hasn't such category, but several Wikipedias have, see Wikidata:Q9897505. I also rather support the view, that concrete "paganism"-related festival to be connected with the country of location Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are no festivals that can be simple categorized as "Pagan". My fix is to keep festivals of religions called pagan in their own categories. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Motorola uses "Car Telephone". E4024 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question @E4024: can you elaborate on what change you would propose? The current name seems appropriate per its parent categories. Motorola is neither the first nor only maker of such products. Josh (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Take a look at the template: This category uses the term “automobile”, instead of the term “car”, for reasons of consistency within Commons. --AutomobilePassion (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't we move Category:Mobile phones to Category:Mobile telephones as it is under Category:Battery powered telephones? --E4024 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- BTW are these "telephones" not "mobile phones"? Does Commons not need to make a choice between phone and telephone (of course the latter one is valid) just as it also has to worry about cars and automobiles? I hope you will not find anything out of place here; we are talking about a subcat of "mobile phones". E4024 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- enwiki uses the term en:car phone (Commons equivalent Category:Car phones) Estopedist1 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Made as a parent cat for "Category:Pet dogs of the Abraham Lincoln White House". You know how many dog cats (sic :) we have got there? Only one. Therefore 3 cats for one dog (or two files) are a little bit too much. E4024 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Lincoln had MANY pets in his White House. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/kids/inside/html/Spring99-2.html#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20his%20love,two%20goats%2C%20Nanny%20and%20Nanko. This is a landing spot if media of the others are uploaded to Commons or identified on Commons. SecretName101 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep This category makes the site more navigable. As it allows one to easily find pets of Lincoln when looking at the the category "Pets of presidents of the United States" SecretName101 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: seems to be a logical subcategory of Category:Pets of presidents of the United States? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per my comment above, there is now additional content, so it makes sense to have this structure in place. Josh (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe "orders" in the title of this category and all the subcategories should be lower-case. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. --E4024 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed; it's not a proper noun. Alkari (?), 16 January 2021, 12:35 UTC
- Support seems straightforward enough. Josh (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Could you help automate this? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
if massive renaming will take place, then it is probably wise to harmonize fully. Eg "SVG Orders of Belgium" to be renamed "SVG orders, decorations and medals of Belgium" (but not "SVG orders of Belgium")--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello @1234qwer1234qwer4, E4024, Alkari, Joshbaumgartner, and Themightyquill: So the easiest part is now done: the category is renamed to Category:SVG orders, decorations and medals by country. Now "only" the proposal of @Estopedist1: (renaming the subcategories) is still waiting for implementation. Regards --W like wiki good to know 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems that such a rename would require quite a bit of additional work, since a category like Category:SVG Orders of Thailand is currently contained in Category:Orders of Thailand and would need to be recategorised to Category:Orders, decorations and medals of Thailand; at the same time, this would mean that those files of Category:SVG Orders of Thailand which are not added to the Category:Orders of Thailand tree through a different category would need to be added there separately. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Done: Done. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy, Category:SVG Orders of Germany (before 1918) and subcats still need action. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done: Done. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
We dont have any "Category:Old style buildings" but we do have three of them for three Turkish cities, all with arbitrary comments on top, like "Though a highly modern town there are remains of the old style houses and other buildings, like an old bath house" etc. This arbitrary categorization and personal "impressions" have no place in Commons. Thanks for the pictures one uploads but if this attitude (i.e. "I will make my own Commons") continues I will begin proposing categorization prohibition for certain users. Most of these "old style buildings" are to be categorized under existing "Ottoman architecture" cats, like Category:Ottoman houses in Turkey and its subcats for cities. Sorry to have complained about users here, but I hate to take people to AN, a place I have visited several times (well some of the people who took me there recently were later globally banned, but that is another issue.) I can re-categorize everything, but while I do with ten images, a hundred others are being categorized ARBITRARILY (no bold letters in the gadget, I am not shouting, just stressing) and no-one's free time for Commons is that much to cope with this attitude. That is the reason I am mentioning categorization prohibitions. E4024 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at the subjective heading in this cat: "Older buildings of some architectural merit in Kayseri"... Please! We cannot accept this. --E4024 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I am the person who created this category with this definition I react. I would gladly use the category "Ottoman houses in Turkey" if I knew for sure the pictures of what I call old style houses are actually Ottoman. As there is a definite possibility that I would include so-called Republican buildings or more generally post-Ottoman buildings but in old style I came up with "old style houses". In many towns nowadays old houses are being restored, but does that make them Ottoman? And as I do not want to suggest that the buildings, often in poor condition, show the general state of affairs in a town, annoying inhabitants, I added the "of some architectural merit" part. I have on occasion taken pictures of ruins, which because of them being in ruins showed clearly constructional elements that may be of value to people studying them. As for my attitude, I claim this is not my attitude, but often find myself in uncharted waters where for instance large sets of pictures have by others just been dumped under a general heading, for which I try to find or create a decent category. Similar to the author I try and put order in sets that often are messy, but I have the feeling I look closer at the pictures, and try to get them in proper order, than in the categories as such, where I occasionally make mistakes. I'm still not aware of some of the strategies in creating the general Commons, partly because I am sometimes confronted with expressions I do not know. In this text for instance I found the repeat visits to AN of the author interesting, but I do not have a clue what AN is. Wikipedia hell? I have no intention of getting there, and think my contributions generally are of too great a value to punish me. Dosseman (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- In addition I quote from the outcry of the same author at another discussion "it looks like some of us wish to make their own categorization, totally out of our categorization scheme, structure, trees or whatever it is called." I have earlier asked this person to confront me with some standard structure to use, and never got an answer. Reading the quoted text, I wonder if the author itself posses such a "categorization scheme, structure, trees or whatever it is called" and why I am not told where to find that. I again claim I'm often in uncharted waters, coming across messy collections, that I try to improve. I understand that in doing so I may transgress what people with longer careers in the Commons consider proper categorisation. But this is done to improve, not to create my own system. But, for instance, I used the category “Street views in center of Kozan” because I wanted to group pictures one would see in that most interesting part of a larger city. Pictures in a category Kozan where I found, as so often, pictures from all over Kozan, some of villages in the district, the province, some of street views from I don’t know where. At least I brought some of the most interesting historical centre together, is that a shameful act?Dosseman (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there an architectural style called "Old style"? Please see and participate at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Old style buildings in Kayseri or just here. E4024 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- The words "Old style" were used to indicate that it was not clear to the photographer if other words, like "Ottoman" (a suggestion made by E4024 elsewhere) were valid. He mainly tried to indicate the attraction of the houses is, that they are not "modern". Dosseman (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
We do not have a Category:Streets in Kozan. Why would we have it BTW? If we had it we would probably have to categorize it under the "street cats" (not stray cats :) of cities of Turkey. However, it looks like some of us wish to make their own categorization, totally out of our categorization scheme, structure, trees or whatever it is called. Please also see and participate at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Old style buildings in Kayseri, Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Old style buildings in Kozan or just here.E4024 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Streets in Kozan, conform other Category:Streets in Turkey by city. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Done: Moved. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there an architectural style called "Old style"? Please see and participate at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Old style buildings in Kayseri, Please see and participate at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Old style buildings in Kozan or just here. E4024 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. "Old style" is an ambiguous term, thus failing the selectivity principle of category names. When does "old" end and "new" begin? Furthermore, old style could be interpreted as genuinely historical architecture, but also as historicist (inspired by / based on historical) architecture. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
What is this category supposed to contain? The additions by Tris T7 and PEAK99 (who know each other) are entirely different, and the parent Category:BTS Skytrain doesn't make sense. Paul_012 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Paul 012: This seems redundant to Category:Structures in Thailand. @Tris T7 and PEAK99: Can you shed any light on this? Josh (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I also encourage to do a deletion-CFD for Category:Projects by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This seems excessively granular as Denton is a village area. Propose upmerging to Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2007-11-04, Category:2007 in Denton, Lincolnshire and Category:November 2007 in Lincolnshire Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support most of the time we don't go by month in a county not day in a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support overly specific for the purpose. Josh (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Upmerged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
D-Kuru has suggested that we use the 'non-keyboard' "×" instead of the letter "x" in metric cartridge dimensions. The letter "x" was the result of an earlier CfD which was closed after 10 months open for discussion, but only had 2 participants (myself and Themightyquill) who both supported the letter "x". As D-Kuru originally brought up this matter in another CfD, but in order to allow that discussion to remain focused on its original purpose, I am bringing this question up in its own CfD where the merits of letter x versus multiplication sign can be heard out. Josh (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- x is far easier and therefore more useful, and appears nearly identical to ×. I don't see any advantages to the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to point this out right from the start: By the actions already done Joshbaumgartner this discussion is entirely obsolete, useless and nothing but a waste of time, so I won't spend much time with it.
Last year I mentioned that we should discuss the naming and categorisation scheme. Before he started I mentioned again that we should agree on a default scheme. Even the discussion was not finished Joshbaumgartner started to just change category names (eg. Category:9 × 18mm Ultra, Category:6,5 × 58 R, Category:6,5 × 65 RWS) and partially creating redirects pointing to redirect - really solid work there! These are just examples I know about because I created them for sorting out the main overcrowded category. Giving the other categories a quick look Joshbaumgartner just continues the practice and by the looks does not even care about the discussion. Why he created it in the first place if he does not even seem to care at all is a intere mystery to me.
Name schemes and the use have already been described on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges. Again in short: the non-keyboard × is overall the standard on Wikipedia. Some use the regular keyboard x but they are the clear minority. The non-keyboard × is not harder to use - the keyboard x is not easier to use. If there was really a person landed on the keyboard x named category there would be a link.
I have already poured too much time into this comment. All I say is that ignoring an ongoing discussion Joshbaumgartner has chosen to start so all I say is have fun, the work is all up to you. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, what's done on wikipedia doesn't dictate what we do here. The use of articles titles vs commons categories is quite different. Second, I don't understand how you can say that non-keyboard × is not harder to use than the keyboard x. One is literally at my finger tips when creating, moving, or adding a category. Whatever Joshbaumgartner may or may not have done wrong in the past doesn't undo the need to have this discussion now and provide valid reasoning for our decisions. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- wikipedia doesn't dictate what we do here: It's true that Wikipedia does not dictate what we do on Commons. If we change to a one-for-all naming scheme, why not use one a naming scheme that is already used by the majority of Wikipedia pages? There is no need why we have to invent our own scheme. Examples:
- 5.56×45mm NATO on all Wikipedias: 39 pages -> 7 keyboard-x (18%), 30 muliplication-× (77%), 2 none of both (5%)
- 7.62×51mm NATO on all Wikipedias: 32 pages -> 4 keyboard-x (13%), 27 muliplication-× (84%), 1 none of both (3%)
- You are right. The non-keyboard multiplication sign × is indeed much harder to write than the keyboard x. In fact it is so hard to write that it only appeared in every post on this page at least once. How often do you want to create, move, rename, fancy up, tangle or unwind a category name that an "×" causes a real problem? Category:5.56 x 45 mm NATO was created with the multiplication-× and existed for about 10 years and nobody ever complained about the category name. Same for Category:7.62 x 51 mm NATO.
- Most people who search for images will get to the category through the link to Commons from the Wikipedia page. As long as the link is not a broken or leading to the wrong category, the categoryname can be random for that matter. Looking at en:5.56×45mm NATO and en:7.62×51mm NATO Joshbaumgartner did not bother to change the links - they both lead to the old categoryname that is now a redirect. When you know what you are searching for the category redirect will not stop you in finding what you want to find.
- A discussion should be held and completed BEFORE anybody starts changing anything. The discussion should have a fixed and clear end so that everybody knows how the steps are layed out and even some people might leave or join the working group, the result should stay the same. Neglecting the past and claiming that it's not all that important is a bit too easy for that.
- The last line of my last post stays as it is and this is still how I think about this discussion. In case "have fun, the work is all up to you" wasn't clear enough: I couldn't care less at this point. I will not be part of the discussion or the working process any longer --D-Kuru (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- wikipedia doesn't dictate what we do here: It's true that Wikipedia does not dictate what we do on Commons. If we change to a one-for-all naming scheme, why not use one a naming scheme that is already used by the majority of Wikipedia pages? There is no need why we have to invent our own scheme. Examples:
- +1 for “x is far easier and therefore more useful, and appears nearly identical to ×. I don't see any advantages to the latter.” Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment As described in my post from 28 January 2021, there was no clear consensus for anything. User Joshbaumgartner just started to change the categorynames. The links to some categories are still not changed on Wikipedia even years after the change. So there was "no consensus for change" for any direction. It was just the normative force of facts - thus attributing rightness for actions of the same kind in the opposite direction --D-Kuru (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
With only five separate photographs for the day by city, it makes more sense to upmerge this to Category:September 2009 in Wolverhampton and Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2009-09-12. The month by city category would contain just more than 50 photographs and doesn't require this level of separation. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- upmerge per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: upmerged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this category should be renamed to Royal Portsmouth Hospital to fit with the English name and the year 1902 should be removed. While these 13 pictures are from 1902, the hospital existed from 1866 until 1970 and there could be more pictures (or drawings or whatever) in other years which is why this subset of 13 isn't needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the date from the category name. But the sources I have found indicate that "Royal Portsmouth Hospital" and "Portsmouth Royal Hospital" are both used:
- Royal Portsmouth Hospital
- Portsmouth Royal Hospital
- Clearly both forms are used, although I have not made a thorough search to assess which is more common. The first set of links above are of high reputation, but the second set are a local newspaper and radio station. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- On looking at this again, I see that I did not check for the existing word order "Royal Hospital Portsmouth". I have found no good sources for this without a comma, but there are good sources for "Royal Hospital, Portsmouth":
- Royal Hospital, Portsmouth (or The Royal Hospital, Portsmouth)
- The last of these is the most compelling because it is an official report by the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust. Based on this we should rename the category to Category:Royal Hospital, Portsmouth. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- solution per enwiki en:Royal Portsmouth Hospital, hence - the nominated category to be renamed to Category:Royal Portsmouth Hospital Estopedist1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: Moved. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Some of the Indonesia subcatagories, including this one, seem oddly tautological. I wonder if someone was tryignot emulate tags? Not an expert here, and if someone who is would have a look at these structures, I'd appreciate it. HLHJ (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: this system (Category:Categories of <country>/<city> by topic) is massively used. SQL query is here (https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/60037). At first glance, it fits to the system, see eg subcategories in Category:Categories of Indonesia--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus for change. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Cashmere wool shawls. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Category:Cashmere wool shawls should be for any Cashmere shawls, while Category:Kashmiri shawls should be for any shawls made in Kashmir? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- That would be fine in theory, but 99% of the images labelled "Cashmere" are in fact "Kashmiri". By the time the West learnt to make them, the market for them collapsed and they stopped being a luxury item. So, I agree with the OP here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Kautilya3 most of the images tagged as "Cashmere" are Kashmiri Shawls. Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 and Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq: Don't you mean the reverse? Most things labelled cashmere are made from cashmere wool, but not actually made in Kashmir? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Which of these images are not made in Kashmir? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: None of those 26 images, perhaps, but a commons search for "cashmere" and "shawl" produces 85 images in total. At least one seems to be from Saxony. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant. The OP has asked for Category:Kashmiri shawls to be merged into the larger category. Its separate existence is misleading. People looking for images of Kashmiri shawls really need to look in Category:Cashmere wool shawls. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)r
- @Kautilya3: None of those 26 images, perhaps, but a commons search for "cashmere" and "shawl" produces 85 images in total. At least one seems to be from Saxony. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Which of these images are not made in Kashmir? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: Merged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Can somebody explain the difference between this and its parent cat, Category:Wikipedia page view statistics? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
.png)
- I made this category. So let me explain. "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" is/was the name of the certain website which was located at http://stats.grok.se
- But now, "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" is offline, I suppose, for a long time.
- And categorization in Commons doesn't work well as intended. It seems that most of the images categorized under this category are simply page view statistics, not about http://stats.grok.se
- So I think it's OK/better to merge this category with the parent category. --Was a bee (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I also think these two cats should be merged. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Done: Merged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
How do neighbourhoods and raions compare, and should we be combining them? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same also here, here, here, here. What are the problems? I live here and I know how they are in Ternopil. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Микола Василечко: The question is whether 'neighborhoods' and 'raions' are the same thing in Ternopil. If so, they should be under a single name that covers both, and if they are not the same, each should have its own distinct category. Your local knowledge on this is exactly what we are seeking. Josh (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I named the category similar to the same mentioned above. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Микола Василечко: The question is whether 'neighborhoods' and 'raions' are the same thing in Ternopil. If so, they should be under a single name that covers both, and if they are not the same, each should have its own distinct category. Your local knowledge on this is exactly what we are seeking. Josh (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Микола Василечко and Joshbaumgartner: I've tagged the others mentioned to encourage further discussion. Note that Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Dnipro has been redirected to Category:Neighborhoods in Dnipro and Category:Raions of Dnipro has been redirected to Category:Districts of Dnipro. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are no officially approved districts in Ternopil (as, for example, in Kyiv or Dnipro), but the names of parts of the city by construction districts are recorded in official documents. Other names are old places, as well as those that are formed now. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is perhaps Areas of Ternopil is a better category name? --Sanya3 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are no officially approved districts in Ternopil (as, for example, in Kyiv or Dnipro), but the names of parts of the city by construction districts are recorded in official documents. Other names are old places, as well as those that are formed now. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Sanya3 and Микола Василечко: I still don't understand. What's wrong with Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sanya3, Themightyquill Відповім українською, щоб не мучити ґуґль-перекладач. У Тернополі нема офіційного районування, але в офіційних документах міської влади використовують назви мікрорайонів, що склалися історично з початку 1950-их років, після так званої відбудови міста після війни. Чітких меж мікрорайонів офіційно досі не встановлено, але у владних кабінетах над цим працюють, очевидно, не дуже ефективно наразі. Водночас у Тернополі існують історичні назви місцевостей. Деякі з історичних місцевостей уживаються тільки в краєзнавчих та історичних публікаціях. але деякі (як от Березовиця, Рогатка, Оболоня, або колишні села Загребелля, Кутківці та Пронятин, інші) широко вживані і в сучасному мовному середовищі та офіційних повідомленнях. Деякі з істоичних назв місцевостей стали назвами мікрорайонів. Тому подекуди важко відділити одне від одного. Або усі в одній категорії Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Ternopil, або деякі назви будуть і в Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil, або ж Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil мають бути в Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Ternopil. Як місцевий краєзнавець та трохи знавець історії міста, вважаю, що ця категорія для Тернополя потрібна, бо, ще раз наголошую: деякі мікрорайони і місцевості мають однакові назви як от Березовиця, Рогатка, Оболоня, колишні села, що увійшли в межі міста - Загребелля, Кутківці та Пронятин. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Микола Василечко: Thanks for being patient and continuing to try to explain. I see that the situation is complicated. It seems to me if formal city raions are not really in place, then these are all really neighbourhoods, which like most neighbourhoods, are unofficial and often vague in their boundaries. If some neighbourhoods are/were also city raions, then Category:Raions of Ternopil could be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Raions of Ternopil can be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil. And also categories Zahrebellia, Kutkivtsi and Proniatyn this is former village, they have and now clear borders, probably should be in category Historical villages in Ternopil and also could be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil?
- @Микола Василечко: Thanks for being patient and continuing to try to explain. I see that the situation is complicated. It seems to me if formal city raions are not really in place, then these are all really neighbourhoods, which like most neighbourhoods, are unofficial and often vague in their boundaries. If some neighbourhoods are/were also city raions, then Category:Raions of Ternopil could be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- For example: parts of the street Mykulynetska Street is in raion Berezovytsia, Southern Industrial Raion and Obolonia, also is in historical neighbourhood Rohatka and Bakayikha. Make a street category in these subcategories of raions and neighbourhoods? Do separate street photos in the relevant categories of raions and neighbourhoods? This is a problem for solving categorization. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- See visual for example --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
-
Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Rohatka -
Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Bakayikha -
Mykulynetska Street - raions Southern Industrial Raion and Berezovytsia -
Mykulynetska Street - raion Berezovytsia
_-_12062127.jpg)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Move to Category:Neighborhoods in Ternopil (keeping the current spelling of this word, which can be spelled either way). It is fine to create a subcategory or sibling category Category:Raions of Ternopil. (I suspect sibling category is better, but do not know the city; perhaps all raions really are also considered neighborhoods, I have no idea.) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Deletion please PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why? pandakekok9 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because no one in the Philippines cares about Nintendo. also there's no pictures about the country's video game shops (DataBlitz, iTech, etc.) on Commons (Look at this). PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I do, as well as another Filipino editor on WiKirby. :) But I wonder though if there are any photos of Filipino indie games that can be uploaded to Commons. pandakekok9 06:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because no one in the Philippines cares about Nintendo. also there's no pictures about the country's video game shops (DataBlitz, iTech, etc.) on Commons (Look at this). PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello and good afternoon to both of you - from hereat blue sky Bulacan; I created this considering that all countries use this Video games developed in Category:Video games developed in the Philippines; I created Category:Video gaming in the Philippines since I followed the Wikipedia Articles; Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Found one. Also find that one too. but can you visit any malls across the Philippines that has a video game shops (DataBlitz, iTech, etc. if you find any video game shops across the Philippines. here's that list if you read. PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello and good afternoon to both of you - from hereat blue sky Bulacan; I created this considering that all countries use this Video games developed in Category:Video games developed in the Philippines; I created Category:Video gaming in the Philippines since I followed the Wikipedia Articles; Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @PaulGorduiz106 @panda Here at SM Baliwag :Category:Nintendo Switch in the Philippines and Category:Video game shops in the Philippines ; my sibling was playing Dreamcast Playstation, now PSP since 1975 until today; in Virra Mall we were shortchanged; the Video shop 2nd floor demanded 1,5oo 3x a year, while we discovered a good shop in Baliuag, which downloads only 10 pesos per game and just 300 pesos for a battery; sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@PaulGorduiz106: It seems the category is not empty. Are we okay to close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill Yes. close it. PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Closed without change -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Request deletion after contents were moved to "Animals eating mangoes" YuriNikolai (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Nagtahan Boulevard". There were only three images here, but two have been moved to Category:Jesus Street, and one have been transferred to Category:Road signs in the Philippines. What is supposed to be "Nagtahan Boulevard" is actually the northern part of Quirino Avenue. There is Nagtahan Street though, but it is an unrelated street beside the Lacson Avenue - Mabini Bridge overpass that spans between Lacson and Quirino Avenues/Mabini (formerly Nagtahan) Bridge. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
delete, empty category SecretName101 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved the original category to a more specific title (BBC). Nothing links here, no use of this redirect. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 08:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
delete (typo, fixed) Vojtěch Veselý (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What is the importance of this military chaplain that we made a cat for him, although he has only one image in Commons. I would say he looks like Tom Cruise; is this about a movie hero? E4024 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- EN:WP has a disam page for "Saiful Islam" but there I could not find the officer. --E4024 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see two images in this category, and several more in Category:Abuhena Saifulislam - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- RD'ed to older cat. Nothing else to discuss. --E4024 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Closed. There was an older cat with more than one file and a complete name; redirected there. --E4024 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Uncategorized unnecessary cat. Let us delete it at birth. E4024 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Now it's categorized. It has articles in 2 WPs (that I could not see due to lack of WD link, which is now operative) and therefore no need to delete. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Closed. I hurried a bit to open this discussion. --E4024 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Names in Tajiks? Is this OK? E4024 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is parent Category:Tajikish language okay? Isn't it redunant with Category:Tajik language? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Made the necessary corrections. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done Moved to Category:Names in Tajik, and the parent cat changed to Category:Tajik language. --E4024 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but this cat makes no sense. Look at the two subcats. An Iraqi mathematician from our times (hopefully Christian :) will make up an "Islamic mathematics school"? Sorry, that does not exist (at least here in Commons). Delete. E4024 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would say the inclusion of a sub-category for ancient Egyptian mathematics is even more worrying. Delete this, and rename Category:Islamic mathematics to Category:Medieval Islamic mathematics to match its peers. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The category should be disambiguated per Wikipedia but I'm unsure who this is, it looks like w:Tom Moore (politician) but I'm not sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tom Moore was a videographer for WWL-TV [11] until 2017 [12]. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved content to Category:Tom Moore (videographer) and created disambig page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: is empty now & deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: is empty now & deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: is empty now & deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: is empty now, deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: is empty now & deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Category formerly used by cultural heritage organisation: replaced by SDoC Ecritures (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no Islamic clergy. E4024 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or rename? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to explain a problem, sorry, an "Islamic problem" several times: People who wish to give more visibility to their religion on the one hand, and people who like to show "Islamic people" (their "the other", favourite activity for some colleagues) with their long beards, black headscarves on the other hand, all the time create parallel, similar, unnecessary, overcat cats about Islam. Without finishing the discussion (although I am hopeful for the current decade :) Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Muslim religious workers I feel obliged to open another one. Those people (on both wings) do not even deign to come and defend their activity. Do they not speak English? How come they open "Islamic cats" (sic :) all the time, then? That (what I is a tries to explain above) is the problem. Maybe we should convert Commons into "Islamic Commons"... --E4024 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Unclear proposal. Closing discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It needs to be deleted because I spelt it wrongly. It should have been Glynde Reach. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. @Bob1960evens: Next time you make a typo, use {{badname|Glynde Reach}} on the mispelled category. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tried Help:Delete category to find out what to do, but that did not point me to badname. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This category equals Category:Reinersdorf (municipality Heiligenbrunn). It is simply named by the Hungarian name Zsámánd for the same village called Reinersdorf in German. --Hanzlan (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Create redirect . I think this is a plausible alternate name, and redirection is the best way to avoid accidental recreation/redlinked usage. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Reinersdorf (municipality Heiligenbrunn). -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Artists from Nigeria? Why? E4024 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Already redirected. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Context? His self portrait in this cat, why? Delete it. E4024 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- 1. this is not the discussion but the cat.
2. I told you in the summaries following exhibition history, that this is cat for an exhibition where the paintings were exhibited, like we have thousand cats on commons so the Renaissance faces cat also for the Self-portrait. So even if you fail to know, you may not personal attack me and be aggressive, calm down.--Tanzmariechen (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- "this is not the discussion but the cat" is beyond my level of intelligence. Without noticing that there was participation at the CfD, I reverted my edit (of opening a CfD). Sorry. Also sorry for my nervousness, but edit summaries did not tell much indeed. Closing this as unnecessary. E4024 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Second time in a short period I opened a CfD in a hurry, and also closing it quickly not to take time of other people. I will think more before moving the next time. Closed as there is not much to discuss. E4024 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Tecnológico Nacional de México Mike Peel (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Create redirect from Category:National Technological Institute of Mexico to Category:Tecnológico Nacional de México. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted. Created redirect from Category:National Technological Institute of Mexico to Category:Tecnológico Nacional de México. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
improperly named category with overly-specific redirect Mindmatrix 22:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete According to the edit history, the category was created by mistake, so I think it can be deleted. ––Apalsola t • c 22:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete category was created by mistake and this was a left after move. --Zache (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Provinces of Tajikistan reduntant with Category:Regions of Tajikistan? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Regions of Tajikistan. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Région Sughd redundant with Category:Sughd province -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Sughd province. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Lézard rouge, the official name of the train Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection. Moumou82 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
moved.--RZuo (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in Djerba to match category tree. Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Stegop (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Populated places in Djerba Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
blank category. I was the creator of this category. Gazal world (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems like Category:Oil on copper. Could be deleted or redirected. BriefEdits (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Renvoy (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Löschen! Irrtümlich angelegt. Palauenc05 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: yep. --JuTa 04:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Not used Broichmore (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
not needed anymore. blank category. Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This category has a simple spelling mistake and has been moved to the correct name. Badgon (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hellooworl 2001:4898:80E8:9:1DF:40B2:D7CE:B406 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense, clearly, but as the creator of the category it is probably poor form for me to close this. Would someone please do that? - Jmabel ! talk
Done Closing. We saluted the world. --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete this category. Wrong name and unuseful Tangopaso (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Billinghurst. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to "Category:René Renno" (with an acute accent over the second "e") as this is the correcting spelling of his name. Thanks in advance. 51.37.107.92 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: Cat renamed. --Achim (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Strict doublon de Category:Le Lavandou Cavaliere ; vide. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Elle est surtout vide parce que tu viens d'en retirer le contenu... le préciser aurait été honnête.
Quelle est la convention pour les lieu-dits et quartier Ville + Quartier ou Quartier (Ville) ? J'utilise toujours la seconde.
Arflhn (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Taivo (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
mispelling of Ringyuichon Vashum Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Rename Category:Populated places in Sønderjylland Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Commons:Naming categories and standard format for settlement categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Populated places in Sønderjylland -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in American Samoa Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom and split into "Towns" and "Villages" categories if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Populated places in American Samoa. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Based on the fact that villages and towns in Maine seem to have rather separate status, shouldn't we split this category? It is currently linked to en:Category:Villages in Maine. Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom, since Category:Populated places in Maine already exists we don't need to rename, move it to either Category:Towns in Maine or Category:Villages in Maine and create the other. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Towns in Maine, Category:Villages in Maine and [[:Category:Plantations in Maine. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Formerly populated places in the Doupov Mountains as subcategory of Category:Formerly populated places in the Czech Republic. Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support I assume you meant as a sub category of Category:Populated places in the Doupov Mountains but that doesn't change things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Yes that as as well, but also Category:Formerly populated places in the Czech Republic since we don't have Category:Abandoned cities and villages in the Czech Republic. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Formerly populated places in the Doupov Mountains. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places of the Way of Saint James in France or possibily Category:Populated places along the Way of Saint James in France. The same for Category:Cities and villages of the Way of Saint James in Spain. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom though I'm not sure if this category should exist at all since there isn't even an article on ENwiki and this category doesn't appear to exist on Frwiki. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Populated places along the Way of Saint James in France and Category:Populated places along the Way of Saint James in Spain. @Crouch, Swale: You may be right that these categories shouldn't exist at all. I'll leave a CFD suggesting deletion to you, if you'd like. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
According to en:List of cities in Saskatchewan, there's a very clear definition for cities in Saskatchewan. I see no reason to combine with towns, when the category tree is at Category:Cities in Canada. Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom and split since both "cities" and "towns" categories exist on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Split into Category:Cities in Saskatchewan and Category:Towns in Saskatchewan. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Company with questionable notability, borderline spam Jianhui67 T★C 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minoraxtalk 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Aghjkaberd (Tavush) and can be merged, but I'm not sure. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, I was wrong, they are different forts. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Cityscape? Always with capital letter or only here? Why is it different from, say, "Category:Cityscapes of Antalya"? E4024 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was Category:Cityscapes of Alanya... or was it Category:Cityscapes in Alanya? One can get crazy around these cats... --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I moved it boldly to Category:Cityscapes in Mardin. CfD is already backlogged. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Done --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference of this cat from Category:Cityscapes in Alanya? E4024 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I merged them under the latter. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Author requested deletion. All files within category are also tagged for author requested deletion. Nick Boppel (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
i suppose, that the conclusion reached in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings should be applied to this entire cat tree? so all existing cats should in principle be moved to "destroyed xx"? RZuo (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I should think Category:Demolished hotels either should be at Category:Destroyed hotels or at Category:Hotels destroyed by demolition and so forth. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Demolished" is far better. "Destroyed" might apply for something bombed during wartime, but a rename like this is ridiculous and should be reverted.
- As always, Commons' obsession with "consistency" in naming is pointless. MediaWiki just doesn't care about this. It's of no use, and it's simply an excuse to impose these ridiculous renames. "destroyed by demolition" is a classic Wikineologism - there is no such phrasing, there's a perfectly good word, "demolished" for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have closed discussion before I began to make the changes but this CFD has been open for months. You're welcome to create a new CFD on the base category if you don't like it. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Landscapes of Doña Imelda, Quezon City & Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Pedestrian Footbridge, Manila MRT Line 2 - Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard - Gregorio Araneta Avenue Extension, Skyway Stage 3)
[edit]Reasons for discussion request - Manually creating discussion page as automatic process failed due to "loooong name". The exact category title is at the subheading. Empty category, very highly implausible and "nonsense" category: files have been moved to more relevant categories like Category:Magsaysay Boulevard and Category:Construction of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment. The creator (@Judgefloro: has been given messages before to be more specific but realistic in categorizations, and avoid too looooooooong categories (perhaps partly due to his uploading of highly-redundant and repetitious images). -JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Info I purposely trimmed away the category name at the discussion title, as the filing of this category for discussion page cannot be done properly (automatic or manual) if the actual and full name of the category is used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard Categories may be options of renaming;
- I happened to discuss matters with my Geodetic Engineer and another Civil engineer even if my sibling is a Mechanical engineer from UST; I am in no position to submit a highly technical opposition or none, considering that these photos should rather be examined by the Mapping people like Wikimapia, DPWH Engineers and those in the Geodetic mapping;
- As a specific example, though subject of another topic but related herein; the naming of Roads, bridges and Highways depend upon the name appearing at the Bidding; thus when I was studying at the Ateneo, I happened to pass Nagtahan Boulevard near De Ocampo Memorial Hospital and College; jeepney drivers do have as I vividly recall, karatula Nagtahan Boulevard; for us, editors, it would be better to re-categorized Category Former boulevards, heritage, though, instead of using speedy deletion; but since, I am not an expert on roads and bridges, and it is your forte, I would no longer ask for Undelition, for it is no big deal;
- A final point, perhaps: in my extended photography of Bridges, I found the brigdge do have Bridge ID and the names of Bridges change depending on the DPWH final bidding notice which is required by law; so, like our previous long discussion on Taliptip Bridge in Bulacan, before I categorized it I asked the Mayor's office and folks including the Barangay Captain; and I cannot put a better name until the DPWH officially puts a name and Bridge ID thereat; I defer these matters to more learned Wikipedia engineers geodetic and civil submitted Judgefloro (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Main facade of the Iglesia Ni Cristo Church, 1914 - Museum (Punta, Santa Ana, Manila)
[edit]Unnecessary category. This essentially duplicates Category:Iglesia ni Cristo Museum, Punta, Santa Ana, Manila. All images previously here have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Done deleted by Materialscientist -- Common Good (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Masscom mobile phones AnVuong1222004 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Unclear what to do, proposer blocked. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The only such cat among thousands of Commoners. Is this not personal promotion? I hope the cat opener asks its deletion themselves, in order to come to terms with being "one more Commoner" here. We should not try to shine more than others if we are only doing a voluntary work here. This is a call to the concerned user. E4024 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, now I see that there is also Category:Categories created by Sebastián Arena (it had a plural title, that is why I did not see it at the first search); I also ask that cat-opener to ask the deletion of his personal promotion cat. --E4024 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep We have Category:User categories that includes a lot of categories. As you say we are all volunteers here and if users like to keep track of what categories they have made or what files they have uploaded then I do not see a problem in that as long as it is a hidden category. --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Then make it a universal thing for all: Like "user contributions" and "user uploads". --E4024 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: If you suggest that we delete all the 12,156 categories in Category:User categories then I think you should perhaps make a new suggestion with more accurate name "Suggesting to delete all user categories". Perhaps it should also be posted on COM:VP because it would involve hundreds or thousands of users. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Other things exist, I know. What I do not understand is why are we not capable of sticking to the question which is -supposedly- being discussed. That includes only two cats. --E4024 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: When I wrote about the other user categories you replied "Then make it a universal thing". I was not sure if you by that meant that you thought we should make this discussion a universial one about user categories. Thats why I said that in that case it should be more clear. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep:- I'm not a Business Tycoon or Social Media Influencer that I will be notable enough. As you said above, we all are volunteer, and so I'm. We all know and I understand First Impression is the the last impression. The policy states assume good faith, civility and maturity. But I haven't seen such from you E4024. I don't understand your nature, why are you ill-treating me. Whenever I post a message or try to have a conversation with you, You shut the door without proceeding ahead. I don't get it, we all are human being we may make mistakes. I didn't have a good start 9 month back, when I was newbie, unaware of how to do thing here correctly. But that doesn't mean I will always do wrong. If you respect/value your work and time, do same with others too. I like to have a count/record of my works that I'm doing here as an volunteer. I know for that we have a watchlist too, but I'm not at all good managing the watchlist sorry. If the community won't allow me to have one then I would like to request please start the delete process with my category and further end with deleting the whole Category:User categories. And I would request open heartly to all Admins volunteer to keep all pending work aside and focus on category that's more important as per E4024. Sorry I don't want to hurt anyone sentiment, and I apologize if I was rude. Thank you --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete such cats are not defining characteristics of their contents.--RZuo (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - user categories are an accepted part of Commons - MPF (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - as MPF states, user cats are accepted on Commons. As the categories under discussion are hidden for visitors from outside the Commons community I see no harm. It can motivate people to keep track of their work, in a list on their User Page, in a category. And people keeping motivated is very important for our community. I do see personal promotion in this case either. Elly (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus for deletion. --Nick (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable and possibly out of scope. Minoraxtalk 11:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- If its NN then the files probably need deleting first then this will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Now empty. Taivo (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Chen Hui-ling Boat toad 舟集 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
empty category, should be deleted SecretName101 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
out of scope MiguelAlanCS (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
All three subcats use "Bostam(i)" and not "Bastam(i)", although the place is called Bastam. Either there is a mistake or a tricky detail about the local language. I will ping some Iranian experts. E4024 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Neither is wrong. See BESṬĀM ["BESṬĀM, or Basṭām (sometimes written Bustam or Bostam)"], BESṬĀMĪ, BĀYAZĪD, Bisṭāmī, Bāyazīd, Bāyazīd al-Besṭāmī, بسطام and بایزید بسطامی. That being said, I think all categories should be consistent. O or U is the worst choice. I (and probably most Persian speakers) prefer A. E or I is more preferable by English and Arabic speakers. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Consistency is important. As he is Persian let us move all to "Bastami". Any objections? Selling to the customer on the phone one, selling to the customer on the phone two... No, let us wait for one day in case there are any objections. --E4024 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- As a Persian speaker, I personally prefer Bastami, too. Ahmadtalk 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I know, most English-language scholarly sources use "Bastami", however, if "Bostami" is more common in Bangladesh then it's better to keep it for mosque and shrine in that country. P.S. Sorry guys, I was redirecting two cats before I saw discussion. If different decision is agreed here, I'll fix all again. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I searched around hoping to find something official from Bangladesh. Results are this: most of official pages and scholarly articles use "Bayazid Bostami", although "Bayezid Bostami" is also widespread. Rarely, even "Bastami" is found, as well as "Baizid". We all agree that main category for this person should stay as Bayazid Bastami since he was Persian and he never actually went to Bangladesh (see biography, 4nn1l2 provided link of a different person), but I'm not inclined to rename two Bangladeshi places because it's obvious that Bostami is more used there. There are countless examples of institutions in Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and other countries named after the same persons, and there are minor differences in English translations of their official names.
- One small curiosity: imagine that person is born in Central European country, has a surname of Persian root, obtained through Ottoman Turkish. He travels to Turkey and Iran a lot, even lives there for years. When he requests official documents, should he write his surname as (1) native one, (2) Turkish version, or (3) a Persian original? I wonder what Turkish and Persian experts E4024, 4nn1l2 and Ahmad would say about it. This isn't some weird and hypothetical situation, it's a reality. Mine own. :) Since I keep it as native and inconsistent, you may call my opinion about Bangladeshi places as biased. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I just saw a weird situation (IMO) and opened it to discussion. AFAICS there is nothing Turkish here. So Persian, Bangladeshi and other experts may further discuss it. I hope it takes less time than other discussions I opened here (an average of 3-4 years) to come to a conclusion. Good luck. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the status quo. I didn't know that the shrines and mosques subject to this discussion were in Bangladesh (I assumed they are in Iran without seeing them). I agree with Bangladeshi spelling. Thanks Orijentolog for being so meticulous. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion finished several months ago, therefore I'm closing it. Result is Keep. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Created by mistake, Richard Roland Holst was meant. Tekstman (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Jianhui67 T★C 09:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
In COM:CUR, there is no information about North Korea. Is it okay to upload North Korean currency to Wikimedia Commons? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
not category-for-discussion. Proper info at the hatnote of Category:Coins of North Korea Estopedist1 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In COM:CUR, there is no information about North Korea. Is it okay to upload North Korean currency to Wikimedia Commons? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: You'll get much better responses at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
not category-for-discussion. Proper info at the hatnote of Category:Banknotes of North Korea Estopedist1 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Should this be plural? E4024 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think so. Unless "Listings" is the name of a magazine, which doesn't appear to be the case here. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- As it is under Category:Magazines by subject, should be so. Please move it. --E4024 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I support the move per description at en:Listings magazine. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support for the plural form--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Listings magazines Themightyquill (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
empty category أمين (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I am against the deletion of empty cats of notable people. We can always have files to add there, and even as empty they have a function of linking WP, WD and Commons. E4024 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted - Empty is empty Gbawden (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Princiapl author of Book - Wigram, W. A. (William Ainger), 1872-1953 , Not PD-UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I see you have nominated the files for deletion. If they are deleted, the category can be deleted as empty, but the category is not breaking any copyright rules - just holding things together. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like everything but the PDF of the book are going to be kept. So the category should be also. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:The cradle of mankind; life in eastern Kurdistan (1922), or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Could be merged and redirected into [Category:Slavery]. Have just cleared that one up so it has plenty of subcategories for everything. At the moment there's a lot of overlap. JRennocks (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is the most strangest suggestion I have ever seen > must be a joke. This debate should be closed, because no plausible reason is given. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Maybe not exactly the same thing but the less clutter of cats the better. --E4024 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see this as a valuable separation. The initial acquisition, the transportation and the sale of slaves is a distinct part of slavery worthy of grouping together. Wikipedia has a whole category about it at en:Category:Slave trade so it seem there should be more than enough content to fill it. But I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the proposal. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Trade is not the same as other aspects of slavery like labor, abolitionism, treatment and housing. --Hannolans (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was not merge/not redirect Estopedist1 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably inspired by the "Category:History of Islam in Pakistan" at EN:WP, which has a subcat called "Category:Islam in Pakistan". When you take examples from a badly constructed site you can only reach at bad results. This (what they did at Jimbo's favourite WP) is called putting the cart before the horse. Let us freeze this cat until we can really do something about it; indeed it should be about the "Subcontinent" and not "Pakistan". The Turkish moghuls took Islam to the Subcontinent, not to Pakistan or Bangladesh. E4024 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This category is off the mark. It currently includes individual trees that were nominated for European Tree of the Year title. These nominees however didn't hold national Tree of the Year title in Estonia. Category currently links to et:aasta puu that is a title for tree species, not individual trees. This category should be deleted, unless it was perhaps renamed into something like "European Tree of the Year nominees". 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C996:AFED:E0AF:2260 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good catch, mate! Being an Estonia expert, the correction of the situation was easy. This category to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- I ask for a new discussion before deleting. I had already given my answer, now just delete without discussing it is not fair. An answer from your side is still pending--Cookroach (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- about your changes Estopedist1 I have created a new discussion page for the project (see here), please put all criticism and suggestions there, thank you--Cookroach (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cookroach: what do you want to discuss? Estonian Wikipedia et:Aasta puu and et:Euroopa aasta puu are different awards/distinctions. Please use Google translate to understand Estopedist1 (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1, thanks for your answer. I have already understood that these are different topics. The problem is only the classification of the categories. In Estonia it seems to be similar to Germany, that a certain tree species is chosen as tree of the year - but this has only indirectly to do with the competition. The actual competition is a European competition in which Estonia, just like Germany, has only partially participated with certain trees. These categories here and the subcategories do not describe the trees of the year as a tree species, but the participants of the competition. Since Estonia participated in 2015, 2016 and 2017 with the respective nominees, the classification here is correct. I don't see any collision with the created data/images of the tree species pages. Please explain why you see it differently. Please do not continue the discussion here, but on this page under the relevant section, thank you--Cookroach (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cookroach: I am unable to understand your intentions. However, it is certain that the nominated category with three subcategories are misleading and wrong. If no other users are interested in this specific topic, I will withdrawn my suggestions, and this CFD can be closed. But future discussions are encouraged. Just in case pinging user:Taivo and user:Kruusamägi Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are bunch of categories under this. If they list the respective nominations from those countries to the European Tree of the Year title, then everything is fine. Where there is an isse is what was mention in the original comment: "Category currently links to et:aasta puu that is a title for tree species, not individual trees". That is what should be fixed. Wrong interwiki linking. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi Hello and thanks, If only the link on the data object is the problem, why is it not changed, sometimes I really don't understand some users. If Estopedist1 can't understand it and don't want to actively discuss it or become active themselves. I will create a new data object for each, the existing one for the tree type and a new one for the competition. Give me 1-2 days to implement the problem, as it does not only concern Estonia. I hope this will put an end to this discussion. I would still be pleased if someone from the people mentioned here comments on whether this is okay.--Cookroach (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are bunch of categories under this. If they list the respective nominations from those countries to the European Tree of the Year title, then everything is fine. Where there is an isse is what was mention in the original comment: "Category currently links to et:aasta puu that is a title for tree species, not individual trees". That is what should be fixed. Wrong interwiki linking. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cookroach: I am unable to understand your intentions. However, it is certain that the nominated category with three subcategories are misleading and wrong. If no other users are interested in this specific topic, I will withdrawn my suggestions, and this CFD can be closed. But future discussions are encouraged. Just in case pinging user:Taivo and user:Kruusamägi Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1, thanks for your answer. I have already understood that these are different topics. The problem is only the classification of the categories. In Estonia it seems to be similar to Germany, that a certain tree species is chosen as tree of the year - but this has only indirectly to do with the competition. The actual competition is a European competition in which Estonia, just like Germany, has only partially participated with certain trees. These categories here and the subcategories do not describe the trees of the year as a tree species, but the participants of the competition. Since Estonia participated in 2015, 2016 and 2017 with the respective nominees, the classification here is correct. I don't see any collision with the created data/images of the tree species pages. Please explain why you see it differently. Please do not continue the discussion here, but on this page under the relevant section, thank you--Cookroach (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cookroach: what do you want to discuss? Estonian Wikipedia et:Aasta puu and et:Euroopa aasta puu are different awards/distinctions. Please use Google translate to understand Estopedist1 (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- about your changes Estopedist1 I have created a new discussion page for the project (see here), please put all criticism and suggestions there, thank you--Cookroach (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The main issue, as outlined at the top, remains unresolved. It is misleading to categorize Tamme-Lauri Oak and Rusalka oak as "Tree of the Year" because they were never selected as trees of the year, not in Estonian and not in European Tree of the Year contest.
- It appears that "Tree of the Year (<country>)" categories are modelled after en:Tree of the Year (United Kingdom). In case of Britain the national tree of the year truely is selected (and also nominated as a candidate for Europe-wide contest). I don't know if this model applies to any other country than Britain, but it definitely doesn't apply to Estonia.
- The category necessarily doesn't have to be deleted. Instead, as suggested above, it could be renamed into something more accurate such as "European Tree of the Year nominees from Estonia".
- Category:Tree of the Year by country also needs a more suiting title, as far as it's a subcategory of "European Tree of the Year". It could be "European Tree of the Year nominees by country" then. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E0A7:1EA1:BB46:CFB0 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The user with the address 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E0A7:1EA1:BB46:CFB0 is really overdoing it a bit now, I had already agreed to the compromise, there is no need for further discussion on this. Especially not if it is done under an unregistered user account. To take an opinion seriously, the user should identify himself, otherwise it could also be treated as a shitstorm. In the interest of the cause, I ask that only registered users be able to accept changes and comments.--Cookroach (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
closing this discussion
[edit]I now feel subjected to a significant shitstorm by user 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E0A7:1EA1:BB46:CFB0, I cannot respond to any post, whether amendment or discussion, if this is done by an unregistered user. I hereby inform the users (user:Taivo, user:Kruusamägi, User:Estopedist1) involved in the previous discussion that I will not make any further changes to the files and that Estonia will be excluded from the project for the time being. This should put things to rest for the time being. Maybe this is what the anonymous user in question wanted to achieve. I don't want to waste my time arguing with anyone about this. I will forward further attacks of this kind to the admin.--Cookroach (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: see the last post --Cookroach (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I already fixed the Wikidata item. The category in Commons could be renamed or not: I don't really care enought, to look further into it. If someone want to deal with it then please go ahead. For me the discusson had ended. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Kruusamägi, I have also adjusted the ambiguous data object for Germany today (see Wikidata item). Obviously Estopedist1 wants to continue to disturb, but this is too much fuss for me, let him argue with himself. It's a pity one could have tried it objectively for once--Cookroach (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I already fixed the Wikidata item. The category in Commons could be renamed or not: I don't really care enought, to look further into it. If someone want to deal with it then please go ahead. For me the discusson had ended. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This should be renamed to "Miniatures from Iran" and categorized accordingly. (BTW the Arab and Turkish -nowadays called Azeri- artists are/were from Iran but not "Persian", AFAIK.) E4024 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I don't think so, the "Persian miniature" is well-established cultural term (not ethnic nor linguistical) in the West, similar to the "Persian carpet." There are also "Ottoman miniatures" and "Mughal miniatures", corresponding to three Gunpowder empires in a historical political sense. Currently there is no Category:Miniatures by country, but it can be open for separate categories (current borders), like for carpets. Renaming all three to "from Iran/Turkey/India" is a bad idea because some miniatures will end up in "from Syria/Afghanistan/Pakistan" despite literature groups them into first three (cultural) terms. If (let's say) some Armenian was making miniatures in Damascus 300 years ago, it's still Ottoman. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, your high intellectual level now made me think about Gunboat diplomacy... I never said anything about "from Turkey" (although we keep so many Ottoman and Iranian miniatures in our libraries, museums and archives). I only opposed (and always oppose) Persian hegemony on anything from culture to contemporary names. Probably you have not met any ... (I cannot find the English word for that now) people, especially famous ones, who try to show themselves more than what they are by saying "they are from Persia". No, they are from Iran, and the miniatures also. IMHO, of course. --E4024 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I'm not saying that I'm 100% against your idea, perhaps 50-50%. Personally I also don't like "Persian X" categories, not because of some kind of hegemony, but because it's vague. The same is with Islamic art and architecture, used for both religious and secular buildings built during 14 centuries, from Andalusia to India. It is not possible to completely remove the term because it is too well-established, but utterly vague. Regarding the Persian carpets, I'm 100% sure it must exist, since it's a style (not political or ethnic designation) and too much common term in the West (like "Turkish bath" or "Arabic numerals"). About miniatures I'm not an expert and therefore not sure. Perhaps Hanooz can help. In any case, it would be helpful to open categories like miniatures by country, city, dynastic period and so on. Still, it's parallel categorization and does not answer our question here, too keep "Persian miniatures," redirect it to "Miniatures from Iran" or make a disambiguation page (to Safavid, Qajar, Zand, etc). --Orijentolog (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, your high intellectual level now made me think about Gunboat diplomacy... I never said anything about "from Turkey" (although we keep so many Ottoman and Iranian miniatures in our libraries, museums and archives). I only opposed (and always oppose) Persian hegemony on anything from culture to contemporary names. Probably you have not met any ... (I cannot find the English word for that now) people, especially famous ones, who try to show themselves more than what they are by saying "they are from Persia". No, they are from Iran, and the miniatures also. IMHO, of course. --E4024 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm neither in favor of the idea nor oppose it. As an alternative option, the category could contain miniatures with the Persian text like [13]. Hanooz 15:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good. In that case it would be a subcat of the name I asked for. E4024 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- enwiki article is under en:Persian miniature. So I guess that keep Estopedist1 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good. In that case it would be a subcat of the name I asked for. E4024 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Well-established cultural term, like carpets and gardens, it will be recategorized on the similar way. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Without looking at who made the cat, I can imagine. A user that always complains about my criticism of their categorization. Right? They have never been warned for complaining about other users at CfD, I think that is a privilege for me only. If this cat name seems OK to you, I have no arguments. I will still use the platform to request other people to look around other cats concerning the country or even other countries before inventing new cats (just as I also have to do). We have cats for "by country". For example "Category:Cityscapes in... x country". If we do not have "X city edge of town" cats for other countries, that probably means this may be a bad cat name. E4024 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- My, edgy. I wondered what the Wikipedia (En.) would say about cityscapes, and smiled when I saw the first illustration showed the former City Hall, now royal palace, on the central square in my hometown. It’s on a square that’s seen as the heart of the country. Nothing could be further from what I meant with edge: the part of a town where it gradually merges with the surrounding country. Think of “Darkness On The Edge Of Town” ((Springsteen). Then I checked where you put my category, it’s in Cityscapes in Turkey, where I found a very small number of categories of a very few cities. It seems not to be a roaring success. One other category was “Water reflections of cityscapes in Turkey””. That showed a mixed bag of pictures, none of which I’d consider typical reflections: Duden Falls, a marine ship in the Bosporus, a few buildings that are at a waterside. If that is the company I’d keep using the category, I’d rather decline. Dosseman (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep your sarcasm to yourself. If you have a problem with Category:Cityscapes by country open a discussion about that case. If Category:Cityscapes in Turkey is a "roaring success" that is due to the fact that some people who have uploaded many pictures of Turkey do not deign to add their pictures to the existing cats of the country. Perhaps they do not agree that Turkey cats -or their files- should be part of "by country" cats. The solution, in your case, could be to take pictures of other countries (maybe you already did so and uploaded them, I have no idea; I mostly follow Turkey pages) also and make a "by country" categorization: "Dosseman by country". This way files would be easier to find, as we cannot expect people to try to guess which words you chose in every occasion to name the cats. Look, if we want to make sarcasm here, it is more than enough with the opening words of this CfD. Any admin with the buttons can check my edits and see that I opened this discussion without looking at the history of this cat. This case is not only about you, there are, better "were" several people following the same course of action with you. One of them made a series of mistakes about cats of Turkey and in the end left the place. Later I met them in TR:WP where they apologized me for all the harm done in Commons. Another user, specialised on "Arabic cats", and whose many cats I brought here said "they made Oriental categorization", which I took as "please accept me as I am, do not bother me". I may give in to not bothering that colleague, but Turkey is my country. I do not have another one. I almost lost my eyes trying to contribute to Turkey issues in Commons and WPs. Therefore I will not give in before anyone on this area. If you have some sympathy towards my country give some of your time to examine our "by country" cats, find those ones where we do not have Turkey and use your files to make a "country cat" for Turkey. If you see a "roaring success" in some "by city cats of Turkey", such as the one you mentioned above, add your files to new cats you will open to make that roaring success greater, instead of inventing -as you did in the past- things such as "towns within cities", like, say "Category:Kastamonu town". That attitude may also be taken by others, such as myself, as if you have no respect to the work of other volunteers in Commons. "I take my pics and organize them to my own liking. The existing scheme beats me". No Sir. E4024 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @4nn1l2, hi! Could you please evaluate this discussion? It is open for a year. Kadı Message 19:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep your sarcasm to yourself. If you have a problem with Category:Cityscapes by country open a discussion about that case. If Category:Cityscapes in Turkey is a "roaring success" that is due to the fact that some people who have uploaded many pictures of Turkey do not deign to add their pictures to the existing cats of the country. Perhaps they do not agree that Turkey cats -or their files- should be part of "by country" cats. The solution, in your case, could be to take pictures of other countries (maybe you already did so and uploaded them, I have no idea; I mostly follow Turkey pages) also and make a "by country" categorization: "Dosseman by country". This way files would be easier to find, as we cannot expect people to try to guess which words you chose in every occasion to name the cats. Look, if we want to make sarcasm here, it is more than enough with the opening words of this CfD. Any admin with the buttons can check my edits and see that I opened this discussion without looking at the history of this cat. This case is not only about you, there are, better "were" several people following the same course of action with you. One of them made a series of mistakes about cats of Turkey and in the end left the place. Later I met them in TR:WP where they apologized me for all the harm done in Commons. Another user, specialised on "Arabic cats", and whose many cats I brought here said "they made Oriental categorization", which I took as "please accept me as I am, do not bother me". I may give in to not bothering that colleague, but Turkey is my country. I do not have another one. I almost lost my eyes trying to contribute to Turkey issues in Commons and WPs. Therefore I will not give in before anyone on this area. If you have some sympathy towards my country give some of your time to examine our "by country" cats, find those ones where we do not have Turkey and use your files to make a "country cat" for Turkey. If you see a "roaring success" in some "by city cats of Turkey", such as the one you mentioned above, add your files to new cats you will open to make that roaring success greater, instead of inventing -as you did in the past- things such as "towns within cities", like, say "Category:Kastamonu town". That attitude may also be taken by others, such as myself, as if you have no respect to the work of other volunteers in Commons. "I take my pics and organize them to my own liking. The existing scheme beats me". No Sir. E4024 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- My, edgy. I wondered what the Wikipedia (En.) would say about cityscapes, and smiled when I saw the first illustration showed the former City Hall, now royal palace, on the central square in my hometown. It’s on a square that’s seen as the heart of the country. Nothing could be further from what I meant with edge: the part of a town where it gradually merges with the surrounding country. Think of “Darkness On The Edge Of Town” ((Springsteen). Then I checked where you put my category, it’s in Cityscapes in Turkey, where I found a very small number of categories of a very few cities. It seems not to be a roaring success. One other category was “Water reflections of cityscapes in Turkey””. That showed a mixed bag of pictures, none of which I’d consider typical reflections: Duden Falls, a marine ship in the Bosporus, a few buildings that are at a waterside. If that is the company I’d keep using the category, I’d rather decline. Dosseman (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:X edge of town is not a standard naming on Common. There is only one category named like this and that is this very category about Kastamonu (quarry:query/67389). I moved all the files to the parent category, i.e., Category:Cityscapes in Kastamonu. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Women wearing dotted bikinis and high-heeled shoes while smiling and standing and related sibling categories
[edit]- Also included are all other subcategories of Category:Women_wearing_bikinis_and_high-heeled_shoes_while_smiling_and_standing
Proposing deletion. Uselessly over-specific categories containing images that are also of questionable utility. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the cat and some of its contents, only keep the best files. E4024 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all and upmerge files to parent categories. Whether or not the files are within scope should be dealt with elsewhere at COM:DR. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete too specific categorization--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: . —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposing deletion. Uselessly over-specific category containing images that are also of questionable utility. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, and also regarding the subcategory. All files should be added to Category:Dotted bikinis. Ove Raul (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: . —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Some categories and files use “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party), instead of Communist Party of China. Should a redirect be created? I have not done one. Ooligan (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: File names should not be changed. None of the current subcategories use CCP. Which ones are you talking about? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Some older documents, books and files used Chinese Communist Party or simply CCP, which is now Communist Party of China in current use (and a Commons category). More photos and documents from the 1950s and 1960s will become available from various archives and libraries that will use this old nomenclature. Can files, books or documents that use Chinese Communist Party or CCP be placed into a sub-category of the Communist Party of China? For researchers and students these names indicate files from an earlier era of post-communist Chinese history. --Ooligan (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misunderstood. Some categories use "Chinese Communist Party" or "China Communist Party" instead of "Communist Party of China." Yes, I think a redirect makes sense, since "Chinese Communist Party" was never the official name of the party. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- enwiki article is under en:Chinese Communist Party. We should follow enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misunderstood. Some categories use "Chinese Communist Party" or "China Communist Party" instead of "Communist Party of China." Yes, I think a redirect makes sense, since "Chinese Communist Party" was never the official name of the party. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Some older documents, books and files used Chinese Communist Party or simply CCP, which is now Communist Party of China in current use (and a Commons category). More photos and documents from the 1950s and 1960s will become available from various archives and libraries that will use this old nomenclature. Can files, books or documents that use Chinese Communist Party or CCP be placed into a sub-category of the Communist Party of China? For researchers and students these names indicate files from an earlier era of post-communist Chinese history. --Ooligan (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
redirected to Category:Communist Party of China. cat titles normally follow official english names.--RZuo (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this the exact same meaning as Category:Paintings by substrate? I'm not a painter but the dictionary definition and online discourse would suggest so. BriefEdits (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @BriefEdits: That could be. Category:Paintings by substrate was created later and Category:Paintings by surface follows the model of Category:Categories by surface. @Wmpearl: Did you mean to differentiate between the two, or did you just not see Category:Paintings by surface when you created Category:Paintings by substrate? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think like you, both are obviously the same. I think the only reason why nothing happens here since more than one year was the word substrate which we are maybe not very colloquial. But if we look at substrate we found other usages of the word but still with the broad meaning of ‘surface’, e.g.:
- Substrate (biology), the natural environment in which an organism lives, or the surface or medium on which an organism grows or is attached
- Substrate (locomotion), the surface over which an organism locomotes
- ...
- So I think we can merge it, what I ve just done. Hope you are fine with that!? And @BriefEdits and Wmpearl: you too!? Regards, --W like wiki good to know 21:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, seems fine to me. -- BriefEdits (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think like you, both are obviously the same. I think the only reason why nothing happens here since more than one year was the word substrate which we are maybe not very colloquial. But if we look at substrate we found other usages of the word but still with the broad meaning of ‘surface’, e.g.:
Done categories were
Merged after consens. Added description "This category is for paintings by surface/substrate" to the category. --W like wiki good to know 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
About the (national) subcats: I made "Category:Turkish-language names" and I believe this formula is better and more in line with similar language cats. We should make all subcats uniform, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- For the most part, yes. Your formula matches the category tree better, as well as the sub-categories "X-language masculine given names" in almost all of these. You should tag the affected categories as well before any moving gets done. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- While a discussion was open, some people made new arrangements. In this case (discussion and compromise not preferred) we have nothing else to move the remaining subcats to titles harmonized with the majority. It is a pity that CfD is evaded, probably because of lengthy, futile discussions in many cases. --E4024 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: It's possible the changes were made without seeing the discussion, because you didn't tag the relevant categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The consensus is to use the "X-language name" formula. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Is Category:Technical institutes redundant with Category:Technical universities and colleges? This is just for institutions with the word "institute" in their name? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Institutes can be separate entities from colleges and universities. Which are focused on higher education. Whereas, an institute can focus on other things. So they aren't synonymous. The category should be clarified to reflect it though so places that revolve around higher education aren't wrongly put in the category. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Institutes can be for things other than education, but sometimes they are purely for education. Category:Institute of Technical Education is a clear example. If we want something for technical research institutes, let's create Category:Technical research institutes and make it a subcategory of Category:Research institutes (or Category:Technical research organizations in Category:Research organizations, if we go that way.) -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've tagged Category:Technical colleges and Category:Technical universities which should be merged into Category:Technical universities and colleges. In general, we don't make a distinction between colleges and universities, and I don't see any need to do so in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think there are good reasons to differentiate between colleges and universities, as there are cases where multiple colleges constitute a university (see Colleges by university). However, both should be covered under a single umbrella category. Therefore, Technical colleges and Technical universities should exist separately
and they should be subcats of Technical institutes. Technical institutes should be used for technical institutes that are neither called colleges nor universities.Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think there are good reasons to differentiate between colleges and universities, as there are cases where multiple colleges constitute a university (see Colleges by university). However, both should be covered under a single umbrella category. Therefore, Technical colleges and Technical universities should exist separately
- i suggest we keep three:
- "Technical universities and colleges" for any organisation related to post-secondary education.
- "Technical schools" for any org related to secondary education. (there's no technical primary school right?)
- "Technical research organizations" for any org that do technical research but without any educational function (like some technical research labs affiliated with companies?).
- "Technical institutes" can redirect to Technical universities and colleges or Technology organizations. RZuo (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the proposal. As I said before, Technical colleges and Technical universities should have separate main categories. However, I have changed my proposal a bit and they should be subcats of Technical universities and colleges. You can merge the two into "universities and colleges" for countries where the distinction between universities and colleges is ceremonial. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
No-consensus keep, as per the broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Institutes. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
can we plz harmonise the subcats? in or of?
personally i would say of maybe? like Category:Companies by country? RZuo (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- No objection to standardization, but I’m not sure which word is better. Is a branch of Clifford Chance (a UK law firm) in Singapore a law firm of Singapore? It’s definitely in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- seems that the preposition "of" should be favoured. See eg en:Category:Companies of Europe by country Estopedist1 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I harmonized them all to "Law firms of", per the above discussion. Clay (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
"Cities" does not seem to reflect the content of this category, though the classification as a city is mostly subjective (relative), most included are either towns or even smaller settlements. Not sure whether moving this category, for instance to "Sunken settlements" or creating a new one is the best course of action. Savhñ 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It was probably just produced to mirror en:Category:Sunken cities, but wikipedia also has en:Category:Submerged places, en:Category:Submerged settlements in Ukraine. The parent category Category:Submerged remains also sounds funny to me... like a dead body at the bottom of a lake. Maybe Category:Submerged places would be best, as a sub-category of Category:Abandoned places? And while it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, Category:Sunken populated places (or Category:Submerged populated places?) would match the category tree at Category:Formerly populated places. We do have Category:Sunken populated places in Ukraine already. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- i think submerged is a better word than sunken. many settlements have been flooded and therefore submerged but not sunken, due to construction of dams, for example.--RZuo (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- This wikidata item is using, right know, as English label: "flooded village". Of course, this label may change. For the sake of mentioning additional options... I have no opinion at all, since English native speakers would be more prepared to select the best word (city, town, place, populated place, village,...). Strakhov (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Enwiki still has en:Sunken cities with hatnote "Category for underwater cities and other populated places". I guess we should follow enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- This wikidata item is using, right know, as English label: "flooded village". Of course, this label may change. For the sake of mentioning additional options... I have no opinion at all, since English native speakers would be more prepared to select the best word (city, town, place, populated place, village,...). Strakhov (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Submerged populated places has been created per consensus, and Submerged cities (moved from Sunken cities) has been retained as its subcat. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
| Category:Foreign countries' pavilions | Move to/Rename as | Category:Exposition pavilions by country of origin by exposition | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (countries) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 by country of origin | |
| better fits standard metacat structure, fits into existing Category:Exposition pavilions by country of origin. As covered in Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Foreign countries, 'foreign' is not usually an appropriate adjective (all countries are foreign to all other countries). This proposal covers all subs of Category:Foreign countries' pavilions. | |||
| Josh (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
- @Joshbaumgartner: I think you should close this discussion with no objections to rename these categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename category per above | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Should be deleted. No content other than a Wikidata infobox and an ill-advised subfolder of a relative. Commons is not a genealogy database where every person who ever lived gets their own profile page under the guise of "category" with no media whatsoever. --Animalparty (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I added her portrait to the category. Although, I'm going to leave it up to other people to decide if a category with one file should be kept or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- in Wikidata it is kept because "structural need". I guess that we haven't strong arguments to delete this one-member category in Commons as well Estopedist1 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like there's more stuff in the category now. I'm not sure if what was added should be there, but at least it points to the fact that the category probably shouldn't be deleted at this point. Even if it was just her picture I'd say it's probably fine to say we keep the category since it has a Wikidata item and whatnot. Sometimes it's good to leave things as is when that's the case. Even if there's a small amount of files in the category at present. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- in Wikidata it is kept because "structural need". I guess that we haven't strong arguments to delete this one-member category in Commons as well Estopedist1 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like he created the cat but forget to add the cat to the image. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Not empty, useful content. --Yann (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
i disagree with special:diff/530590799, because not all votes are elections. for example, a board of governors making decisions by voting can adopt a voting system, which sounds odd if called an electoral system. voting is a superset of elections. RZuo (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify, RobLa has proposed moving Category:Voting systems to Category:Electoral systems following wikipedia's article at en:Electoral systems and category at en:Category:Electoral systems. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to move, kept as-is. Elli (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Commons is not your personal photo album. Quakewoody (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Quakewoody: What is that "your"? CfD is not intended to address one particular person, but for discussion of the community, regardless of who uploaded the image or who created the category. Categories are intended to group files related to the same item. Deleting a category is only possible if there is no content in it and there is no reason to expect to use it in the future. If 5 photos of the same person are uploaded in the project, then it makes sense to group them into one category.
- In the case of a proposal to delete individual images, the usability of such images for the purposes of the project should decide. This usability may result either from the significance of the person depicted or from the usability of another aspect of the image. Both of these aspects can be discussed. During a quick googling, it seems that this person is not completely unknown and has some publicity in his country. As for the theme of the photos, a photo of a diver with a turtle or a photo of a man getting out of a small helicopter can be in scope, even if the depict a completely unknown anonymous person, regardless of who and why uploaded these photos to the project.
- P.S.: It seems a bit suspicious to me that someone who has not even set up his own user page in this project (and systematically deleting discussions on his personal discussion page, and having just 1 his own upload file) is systematically involved in deletion proposals in this way. What can be his experience with the categorization system and project scope? --ŠJů (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mean to imply that you were at fault or did anything wrong. But, the uploader and his cross wiki promotional material did cause you to create a seemingly legitimate category. However, in the process of thoroughness, the category should be purged with the rest of the material.
- And, just to note - what does my editing history have to do with the discussion? Quakewoody (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, can everyone please remember to adopt a civil tone and discuss the key issue of the category title without criticizing other users? That's not that CFD is about.
- Second, since there are currently no images in this category, it's hard for me to understand what's going on. Did someone remove them from the category or have they been deleted? If there is no content that currently fits here, we can delete the category and recreate it in the future if legitimate content is uploaded. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- And, just to note - what does my editing history have to do with the discussion? Quakewoody (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Quakewoody and Themightyquill: It seems that all the 5 images (listed here) were deleted by a process of quick deletion, ie as a "revenge" for the uploader's aggressive and and parasitic self-promotion, without careful consideration of whether the person depicted is publicly known and whether the theme and composition of the photos (person sitting in a small helicopter, a diver swimming next to a turtle, etc.) can be of some benefit to the project. We have many similar images with anonymous divers or anonymous pilots, which no one proposes to delete. Is revenge for self-promotion a sufficient reason? As regards the person depicted, he is obviously pushing for his self-promotion, however, thanks to this, it is not completely anonymous and is traceable in public space ([14]). Is it appropriate to delete such images in a quick delete process without proper discussion? In general, it is welcome that people also contribute to the project with pictures of their city, village, region, workplace, or from their field of work or hobby. There is always a degree of "self-promotion" in this, and we need to consider whether such images can have any value for others.
- The personal level plays only a factual role here: just as it is suspicious if someone contributes to the project only once on one topic in which he has his personal interest, it is equally suspicious if someone who has a minimum of uploads and a short editing history, is too involved in deleting content. I'm not sure if such an "interproject annihilation stalking" is what should be tolerated in the Commons project. The benefits of images should be judged regardless of who uploaded them and why. --ŠJů (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. The category can be recreated if the images are undeleted or re-uploaded. User complaints can be lodged at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Non-educational, potentially harmful. Page was created by someone blatantly pro-anorexia trying to promote the illness. Ms-Isabel (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Categories are there to organize content, not to advocate certain positions, and certainly not to "inspire" people to embrace a harmful disorder. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete It looks like this is related to the creation of the article of the same name on fr.wp. Here is a short squib about the banning of the tag on Instagram in 2012. Research suggests this was not entirely effective. SashiRolls (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Noting for the record: I'm aware that this process is backlogged and these thing ccan take months and months to be actioned. That being the case, given the unanimity of responses so far, I've removed the three images from this category. If somehow it ends up being kept they can simply be added back by checking my edit history for this date. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Move this to Latin transcription. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the strange name one cannot even help the categorization. Are all these images about one building or what? Commons is a collective enterprise; we should at least be able to read the letters. (This is why I made the cat Category:Mercimek soup and not "Mercimek çorbası": This way everybody knows it is about a soup.) Please help from Armenian-native users. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done.Tozina (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Armenian churches in Naxçıvan. Closed. --E4024 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Lukáš Dvořák. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's a DAB on Wikipedia so we should probably move Category:Lukáš Dvořák to Category:Lukáš Dvořák (photographer) and create a DAB there and redirect this title there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. Until we get some photos of Lukas Dvorak the footballer, there is no need for a disambig page. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this and all other "Category:Photography by ..." cats should be moved to "Category:Photographs by ..." to help harmonization. E4024 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This is an empty category SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to Category:Mid Ulster. It would match the English name and the district council website uses Mid Ulster without a dash. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No problem for me. Most probably when I created it, 5 years ago, it was styled Mid-Ulster. -- Blackcat (write me here) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Closed and moved to Mid Ulster per nominator. -- Blackcat (write me here) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This category links to en:Category:Cities in Hawaii which states that "Honolulu is the only city in Hawaii". At least some of the populated places in Hawaii categorized here as "cities and towns in Hawaii" are categorized under en:Category:Census-designated places in Hawaii on wikipedia and under Category:Census-designated places in Hawaii here. We have no Category:Villages in Hawaii either. I would suggest we delete this category, and merge the subcategories to "Populated places in Hawai" (e.g. Category:Cities and towns in Lanai would become Category:Populated places in Lanai). -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes maybe delete the Wikipedia category or perhaps rename this to Category:Cities in Hawaii if it is an exception to w:WP:SMALLCAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- The subcategories were all created buy Howcheng and Reykholt. Are you okay with moving them to "Populated places in X"? (or, now that I think of it, maybe "Populated places on X" since they're all islands?)- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- In a legal sense, Honolulu is the only city (technically it's a city–county), but in everyday parlance other CDPs are called cities. See for example, "The best city or town in Hawaii", "Big Island Towns" ("Hilo is the county seat and the only major city on the island's windward coast"), and "New report says the happiest city in Hawaii is ... Pearl City!" (note that Pearl City is not actually a city). So with that mind, I think the categories are fine the way they are. —howcheng {chat} 02:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The subcategories were all created buy Howcheng and Reykholt. Are you okay with moving them to "Populated places in X"? (or, now that I think of it, maybe "Populated places on X" since they're all islands?)- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Is there any reason not to move to "populated places" like the rest of commons? Surely there are some places small enough in Hawaii that they are not referred to as cities. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The standard for U.S. states is "Cities and towns in [state]". Granted, those are actually incorporated cities and towns, but it seems to me that Hawaii should follow the same pattern, otherwise it's not particularly user-friendly to have this state be different simply because these aren't de jure cities. —howcheng {chat} 00:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: I don't see any other "Cities and towns in [state]" categories, so I'm not sure how that is the standard. It is not very user friendly to have a category name unique to Hawaii. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, it's "Cities in [state]", and it appears that Category:Cities in Hawaii is a soft redirect. I'd be happy with making Hawaii match the other states. —howcheng {chat} 06:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Populated places in Hawaii and Category:Cities in Hawaii. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty Category....Relevance? DerDeutscheFotograf (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please redirect this category to the already existing category of "Category:Fennagh, County Carlow" as both categories are about the exact same place (based on the category that this category is linked to). There are also other Fennaghs elsewhere is Ireland so maybe this category could be replaced with some type of disambiguation page so that others wouldn't be confused. Thanks in advance. 109.76.67.102 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: disambig'd. --Achim (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
One last thing, can you also do the same to "Category:Fenagh" (with one "n")? I know the category doesn't exist yet but it might be useful as the Fenagh in County Leitrim uses that spelling. Once again, thanks in advance. --109.76.67.102 23:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Erroneous, correct category (already existing) is"Comet (ship, 1812)", to which all content has been moved. There was no steam ship "Comet" launched or completed in 1811. Davidships (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did not come to the deletion page until after editing the categories in the individual files. Sorry if this was out of order. Davidships (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete all this work? That is what the previous discussion seems to suggest and I strongly disagree. At least one of the categories I created here, Film locations of Crooked House (2017), has already disappeared completely without any warning. A lot of research went into it and for someone else to just throw it away, I find this very disrespectfull. Judithcomm (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the entire cat tree.
- yes delete all. otherwise locations like these would have endless categories https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/most-used-filming-locations-world .
- an alternative, better way for this info should be the other way around:
- location XYZ (e.g. Category:Grand Central Terminal)
- cat:Films set in Grand Central Terminal
- Film A
- Film B
- ...
- cat:Films set in Grand Central Terminal
- location XYZ (e.g. Category:Grand Central Terminal)
- this way it's more manageable, since i guess very few films are set in lots of different locations.--RZuo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- "very few films are set in lots of different locations"? If you think that, you don't know much about film. A simple Poirot episode can be filmed in 12 different locations. But if it has to be changed, I insist that no cat should be deleted until the information it contains has been secured in another way.--Judithcomm (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- 12 is not a lot, but only a dozen. maybe you dont know much about english.--RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Turning the categorisation around would created a similar problem. Some films would have a huge list of 'Films set in' categories. And in Wikipedia Category:Films_set_in_London now has 2,393 members. But if this is the way to go, I would prefer to use 'Films filmed in', because 'set in' is ambiguous. Witness for the Prosecution (1957 film), for example is listed as 'set in London', but was not filmed on any London location. And many spaghettiwesterns are listed as 'set in the US', but are filmed mostly in Spain. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- 12 is not a lot, but only a dozen. maybe you dont know much about english.--RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- "very few films are set in lots of different locations"? If you think that, you don't know much about film. A simple Poirot episode can be filmed in 12 different locations. But if it has to be changed, I insist that no cat should be deleted until the information it contains has been secured in another way.--Judithcomm (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- See also special:permalink/547051826#Film_locations. (^o^)--RZuo (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- No mention of deleting the entire cat, though.--Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I saw an example like "Category:Film locations of 10 Things I Hate About You" and honestly think that this isn't that bad as it is relevant to the film and would make finding images to use when writing about film locations. Couldn't this entire category tree be turned into" Hidden categories"? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a lot of discussion about this on commons and the general consensus is clearly against keeping these categories. I don't see any reason why galleries are an insufficient alternative. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would gladly create galleries - already started - but I need the info in the categories for this. So that's why I'm asking not to delete them before the gallery is created. What's more: If a place being a film location is not an attribute that defines it, how about Category:Collections by museum? The location of a work of art in a museum does not define it either (unless it's controversial, like stolen ancient Egyptian art). It can be moved to another museum without changing where it's made, what it's made of, what it looks like, what culture it belongs to, who made it and when, etc. Shouldn't this whole cat tree be deleted as well?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: If you're really okay with galleries and you are moving in that direction, why are you still arguing to keep these as they are? If you want to open a discussion about deleting Category:Collections by museum, please go ahead. Once you complete a gallery, please nominate the related category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- No I'm not really ok with deleting locations categories, but I don't want to lose all the work I've done either. I was trying to make a point, that's all. And I just spent several days categorizing images of the gorgeous works of art in Patan Museum in Nepal, so no, I see value in collecting them that way and will never nominate Collections by museum for deletion.--Judithcomm (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: If you're really okay with galleries and you are moving in that direction, why are you still arguing to keep these as they are? If you want to open a discussion about deleting Category:Collections by museum, please go ahead. Once you complete a gallery, please nominate the related category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would gladly create galleries - already started - but I need the info in the categories for this. So that's why I'm asking not to delete them before the gallery is created. What's more: If a place being a film location is not an attribute that defines it, how about Category:Collections by museum? The location of a work of art in a museum does not define it either (unless it's controversial, like stolen ancient Egyptian art). It can be moved to another museum without changing where it's made, what it's made of, what it looks like, what culture it belongs to, who made it and when, etc. Shouldn't this whole cat tree be deleted as well?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that in spite of my request, more locations cats of mine have been deleted. There were galleries there, but I would have liked to make a backup of the list of locations. Is it really to much to ask to let the creator of a locations cat decide when it is deleted? I am doing my best to complete the gallery pages and secure the info in the cats, but this takes time. Please respect the work I've done and don't force me to do it twice --Judithcomm (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: I'm not nominating anything for deletion, much less deleting them, but I might suggest you focus your attention away from the Patan Museum and toward your locations categories if they are being deleted. That said, some patience should be expected from others. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some content here is really not helpful and could easily be deleted:
- Who needs a two categories to tell them that the Sphinx in Gallipoli was the Sphinx? Or that the statue of liberty in Tom and Jerry was the statue of liberty?
- Category:Film locations of Gallipoli (1981) in Egypt
- Category:Film locations of Gallipoli (1981)
- Category:Film locations of Tom and Jerry
- These categories all have a single subcategory for a general community, not a specific house or beach where filming took place. As such, it's possible that none of the images in these subcategories would even be recognizable from the film.
- Category:Film locations of Murder in Three Acts (1986)
- Category:Film locations of See Spot Run
- Category:Film locations of Ned Kelly (1970)
- Category:Film locations of Mystery Road (2013)
- Category:Film locations of The Nugget
- Category:Film locations of Pete's Dragon (2016)
- Category:Film locations of Rams (2020)
- Category:Film locations of Ride Like a Girl
- Category:Film locations of Scooby-Doo
- Category:Film locations of Shock Treatment (1973)
- Category:Film locations of Slow West
- Thank goodness this method wasn't applied to Category:New York or Category:Los Angeles. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The "Murder in three acts" was one of mine; I nominated that now. The others I don't know. Sometimes it does make sense to identify or exclude a well known location as a film location. One Agatha Christie film I know of was filmed entirely in a studio, but the sets are so realistic, that one could have sworn it was filmed on location in London. The remake WAS filmed in London on those same locations. --Judithcomm (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It is not really helpful to delete all or some film location categories. For me – and many other people – informations about these places are of absorbing interest. Entire books have been written about film locations and many of them are very important in the local tourism industry. Often they are visitor attractions. So it seems a little bit silly to ignore it here. J.-H. Janßen (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will add the locations gallery pages to this cat, so at least the info doesn't get lost.--Judithcomm (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing as delete most per my previous close here. Categories are for defining characteristics - the fundamental information about an item, including the source(s) of its notability. In the vast majority of circumstances, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. A famous location may be used in dozens or even hundreds of productions; it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to list them all, as it would inhibit use of the category system on those categories for defining characteristics. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.
I will hold off on deleting subcategories until the end of May to allow for those interested to move the information to appropriate locations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This category is a redundant and repetitive fork/offshoot of Category:Pulilan Regional Road (and encourages redundancy). The creator of this repetitive and superfluous category has been notified before of proper categorization (at User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 1#Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife) and User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 3#Category cycling). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: all 192 photos have been moved to Category:Pulilan Regional Road. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: empty category now - deleted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Another superfluous category encouraging redundancy: all five files have been moved to Category:Odonata on hands. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please delete, it was named wrong. 5snake5 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. @5snake5: . We all make mistakes - no need for discussion. Next time, use {{bad name|Category:Bad Sooden-Allendorf}} - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Category for a YouTube channel with < 2k subscribers. The category was populated by the creator and none of the files have any indication of CC licensing or COM:EDUSE. Seems promotional to me. BriefEdits (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Wikidata item also nominated for deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Baixo do Pinda to avoid confusion with es:Pinda (Category:Pinda (Apiaceae)) -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Pinda is a place on itself (the main place there, if I'm not mistaken). If you agree with it, we can move it to Category:Pinda (Mozambique), and close this discussion. What do you think?-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I couldn't find any place named Pinda either on a map or by googling. But if you're sure, I'll defer to you. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I am sure - there are plenty of sources for that. Then the place gave the name to the other related places (Baixo do Pinda, baía do Pinda, Porto do Pinda, etc.)-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I couldn't find any place named Pinda either on a map or by googling. But if you're sure, I'll defer to you. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support EN has this as a DAB and there are plenty of other places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Pinda, Mozambique which matches other peers in Category:Populated places in Nampula Province. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Diese Kategory wurde von mir versehentlich unter dem falschen Namen erstellt (statt Naturdenkmal Krefeld ND 12) Ich bitte um Löschung, da diese Kategorie leer ist. Rolf Simon (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Station was demolished so long ago that I doubt there are any good-quality photos of the station that could be added here. 192.196.218.210 18:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It was empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Oanabay04; I suspect the image we had was of the former site. No objection to deletion; we can always re-create it if there's an appropriate image. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as empty category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This cat can now be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is for Category:Vintage images of King's Lynn and West Norfolk District and all sub categories.
Do we really need / want "vintagexxxx" categories for images? I dont think so. GeorgHH • talk 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need Category:Vintage images or any subcategories at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe change these categories from Vintage to Historical as there is already a Category:Historical images by country Kolforn (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to "Historical images" which is equally bad in my opinion, but at least more universal for the moment. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Pulilan-Calumpit, Bulacan Road (Calumpit) public transport in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic
[edit]Unnecessary, and redundant to Category:Pulilan Regional Road during the COVID-19 pandemic. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Category:Pulilan-Calumpit, Bulacan Road (Calumpit section) will become empty if this is deleted. If the decision is delete, please delete that as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A number of categories within Category:Dog types:
- move Category:Dog hybrids → Category:Dog crossbreeds – "Dog hybrid" suggests it is a hybrid between two species
- move Category:Dog hybrids by parentage → Category:Dog crossbreeds by parentage – per above
- move all of the subordinate categories of Category:Dog hybrids by parentage, substituting the word "hybrids" with "crossbreeds"
- move Category:Bulldog breeds → Category:Bulldog type – not restricted to specific breeds but allows what is in fact the contents
- move Category:Bull-type Terriers → Category:Bull-type terriers – unnecessary capitalisation
- as well as subordinate Category:Bull-type Terriers in art
- move Category:Cur (dogs) → Category:Curs – unnecessary disambiguation
- move Category:Herding Breeds → Category:Herding dogs – more specific and corrects errant capitalisation
- move Category:Hound → Category:Hounds – plural form is both correct and consistent with other dog types
- move Category:Mastiff → Category:Mastiffs – as above
- move Category:Pointing breed → Category:Pointing dogs – more specific
- move Category:Scenthound → Category:Scent hounds – plural form is both correct and consistent with other dog types and typically it is written as two words
- merge Category:Toy breeds into Category:Toy type dogs and delete the former – duplicate and the latter is specific.
Cavalryman (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support moves & merger. These categories appear to have been established at a time when there was an effort to establish the dog breeds on the wiki projects. With the passage of time, these are no longer appropriate titles and a wider scope for each category should now be established. William Harris (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to William Harris as I have added some additional categories with this edit. Cavalryman (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
Closing discussion myself as it appears to be completely uncontroversial. Result was move all per nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC).
- Post-closure comment → Category:Toy dogs has an already established purpose, which is for images of man-made, dog-like toys, so Category:Toy breeds has been moved to Category:Toy type dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
- Post-closure necro gripe: moving Pointing breed and Herding breed to Pointing dogs and Herding dogs was a mistake. The new names are in fact less specific, and they are ambiguous as well. They are now being used for both the breed categories and the act of pointing or herding, which are not exclusive to these breeds, pointing especially. This is mostly a note to self, I'll need to bring the larger issue of Verbing dogs ambiguity up at some point. --Pitke (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If Molossus is an extinct dog breed how come this actual one a subcat of something which is extinct? E4024 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Second question: How come it has no other cats? Do people have to find the cat of an actual (living) dog breed through an extinct breed? This is not "good categorization". Some people may know more about dogs, but here there are also people who know cats (not the enemy of dogs). --E4024 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello E4024, there is no living dog breed called the "Molosser", I am unsure where you got that impression. As is described at w:Molossus (dog)#Modern kennel club classification, the terms "molosser" or "molossoid" are used by some kennel clubs to group the very much distinct (and unrelated by domestic dog standards) livestock guardian breeds and mastiff breeds. The term is derived from the Molossus, although there is no actual evidence connecting these dogs to those dogs of the ancient Molossians, hence the categorisation. Cavalryman (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC).
- I believe it is a category that could be deleted. William Harris (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, upon reflection it serves no great purpose, it only confuses. Cavalryman (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC).
The result of the discussion was delete. Cavalryman (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
Move to Category:Public Universal Friend ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would support that; "Public Universal Friend" is the name used by (most of) the Wikipedia articles and the name the subject was notable under and preferred. (In most RS, both names are found.) -sche (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support for moving the category to "Public Universal Friend" as the subject rejected their birth-assigned name. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Public Universal Friend Themightyquill (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
We have no other "Specific people" cat. Will we now have to make a "Category:Specific people" in our categorization scheme? E4024 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's merge this into Category:Deaths from COVID-19, in fact it is already full of "specific people who have died with COVID-19" (sic). --E4024 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I have changed my mind. Let's get rid of this category. Normally, I like more specificity and granularity in categories. But as Túrelio pointed out; Category:Deaths from COVID-19 by country is not using "specific people" cats. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe the creator meant this to be a "by name" type of category. I don't see the value in separating the categories of people who've died of the virus from individual images of people who don't have their own category. In any case, I agree that "specific people" is not a good term to use in a category name. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am the creator of the category, and had no problem with individual images and subcategories being in it. But I now believe that the costs outweigh the benefits of keeping this category. See my previous reply.
- Support. Feel free to move everything now to Category:Deaths from COVID-19 and Category:Deaths from COVID-19 by country. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom otherwise we could have "Specific people from London" etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Using Cat-a-lot I moved all the images and categories to Category:Deaths from COVID-19. Since I am the one that originally moved them out of there, I took the liberty to move them back. From what I am reading above, I don't think anybody disagrees. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Category was deleted by Wdwd on 09:14, 23. Mär. 2021. GeorgHH • talk 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
A needless duplicate of Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan - Interior, which is simpler and uses common name. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant / excessive category. All content have been moved to Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan. Those images in the category showing the old façade before the renovation/restoration have been moved to Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan (pre-2019), so there's no need for this unnecessary category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant and unnecessary fork of Category:Candaba Viaduct. All images have been moved to the original category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant fork: all files have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Simon, Pampanga segment) and Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Fernando, Pampanga segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: by P199. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants — 4 files — have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants — 2 files — have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary fork of Category:San Simon Interchange, NLEx. All files have been moved here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants: 3 images, have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Apalit segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole file is now moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unremarkable overpass/subject. Its only contents, two files, have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Fernando, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This category is redundant to both Category:Tabe I Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto) and Category:Tabe II Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This category is redundant to both Category:Tabe I Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto) and Category:Tabe II Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessaey fork of Category:North Luzon Expressway (Guiguinto segment) that encourages/attracts redundancy and excessive images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- All files have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Guiguinto segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
A needless duplicate of Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan, which is simpler and uses common name. Common names are generally preferred over official designations (the official designation is mentioned in the brief description of the original category). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
We have Category:Cities in Malaysia and Category:Towns in Malaysia, but there's no need to combine them in this state. Redirect to Category:Populated places in Perak. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support or maybe rename to Category:Towns in Perak to split like Wikipedia though a villages category exists a cities one doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Marrupa, Mozambique redundant with Category:Marrupa? Themightyquill (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it seems so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge, in favour of Category:Marrupa Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Category without files Mannivu · ✉ 12:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's already 1 file. 182.29.25.44 07:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can we close this now? -SteveCof00 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nominated category is populated Estopedist1 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in Tierra del Fuego to match category tree (and to include villages). -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support though the Wikipedia category is at this title that probably needs renaming. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral @Themightyquill and Crouch, Swale: "cities and towns"-scheme is widely used in enwiki (see eg en:Category:Cities in Europe by country). Should Commons take the other direction?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Commons has taken another direction. There are very few like this. --- Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in Tierra del Fuego. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:ESL already exists. Pbrks (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Generally, I should think that any three letter acronym should be a disambiguation page. en:ESL is about something else, so I'd suggest converting ESL to a disambig page. But the topic here is listed as en:ESL (company) on wikipedia, not "e-sport". - Themightyquill (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree @Pbrks and Themightyquill: ESL to disambiguation page, and solution per enwiki; Category:ESL (e-sport) to be renamed to Category:ESL (company)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:ESL (company) and converted Category:ESL to a disambig page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Unidentified jazz saxophonists? I'm sure they have names. Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just merge to Category:Jazz saxophonists. There are already files directly in that category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- solution per user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category be named with the subject's actual name -- i.e., Rosamund Clifford? Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would say so, yes. A redirect could be kept though. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection to keeping a redirect, but the Wikidata entry should point to the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- both enwiki and Wikidata use the name Category:Rosamund Clifford--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection to keeping a redirect, but the Wikidata entry should point to the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rosamund Clifford. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
A certain user claims there is no concept as "Mountain dogs"; however there is a WP article for "Mountain dog". E4024 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:William Harris, other people, what do you think? --E4024 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, this purported type of dogs is not back up by any reliable sources, they are all w:Livestock guardian dogs. The only source available that addresses these dogs as some form of group says the words “mountain dog” are included in the English translation of some breed names of some Livestock guardian dog breeds.[1] Cavalryman (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
- What about all those WP articles like Perro de montaña, Cani da montagna, Mountain dog etc? Are we also going to delete all those WP articles? If categorization of the dogs (subcats and/or images) are wrong, then re-categorize them; but as long as there are articles about "mountain dog(s)" we should normally have a cat for that. (Do not think, please, that I do not understand you. BTW, do you understand me? :) E4024 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited in Perro de montaña mention “mountain dogs” (and none would be considered reliable, secondary sources on enwiki), Cani da montagna cites no sources at all and Mountain dog states exactly what I have stated here. Yes I understand you, but I do not agree with you, just because something exists on one sister project does not mean it must exist on every sister project, particularly if there is no evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of a classification of a related type of dogs called “mountain dogs”. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
- Let's see if the cat-opener has something to say; if she does not object, I cannot at all, because I am a total ignorant on this topic. E4024 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the ping. The English Wikipedia article "Mountain dog" contains nothing more than a definition. In my opinion, that article should be deleted as WP:NOTDIC - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, the entry has a background and there exists a group of "not-well-informed" editors who wish to keep it, so for the time being it has to remain; a year from now may see a different proposition. William Harris (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have nothing else to say that the FCI recognizes a sub-category called "mountain dogs" (FCI group 2.2.2). However, as there are several other essential kennel federations, such as the AKC, that don't recognize this category, I don't mind if this category is deleted. Canarian (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's see if the cat-opener has something to say; if she does not object, I cannot at all, because I am a total ignorant on this topic. E4024 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited in Perro de montaña mention “mountain dogs” (and none would be considered reliable, secondary sources on enwiki), Cani da montagna cites no sources at all and Mountain dog states exactly what I have stated here. Yes I understand you, but I do not agree with you, just because something exists on one sister project does not mean it must exist on every sister project, particularly if there is no evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of a classification of a related type of dogs called “mountain dogs”. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
References
- ↑ Hancock, David (2014) Dogs of the Shepherds: A Review of the Pastoral Breeds, Ramsbury, Wiltshire: Crowood Press, p. 31 ISBN: 978-1-84797-808-0. "Some are called shepherd dogs, others mountain dogs and a few dubbed ‘mastiffs’ ..."
Done: Deleted per above. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Tigris is a river. It has its own cats. The bridges on it have their own cats. What does "Tigris, Hasankeyf" mean? Arbitrary categorization. E4024 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps for the same purpose as Category:Danube in Budapest? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- seems that should be renamed per User:Themightyquill, hence - Category:Tigris in Hasankeyf Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tigris in Hasankeyf. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Although not a native speaker, I guess "fishes" is not correct. Secondly, none of the three subcats are about "fishes". Shark is a mammal and the other two are human beings (all mammals). E4024 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- move to Graffiti of fish conforming to other subcats of Category:Fish in art by medium.--RZuo (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- solution per User:RZuo Estopedist1 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
moved to Category:Graffiti of fish.--RZuo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the territories listed in the category are politically "occupied" by Bangladesh. All of them are part of India. There's no territorial dispute with Bangladesh since 2015. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-neutral name created by non-neutral user. I'll delete a lot of his/her contributions due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
imho this metacat title should probably be "Films by actor". starring is not even a noun. RZuo (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:Films by actor would be better, especially since we made Category:Actors gender neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- This would widen the scope - starring can mean anything from having one of the main roles to being featured somewhat prominently in the credits. It certainly would not include not-so-well-known actors in bit parts. As the definition of starring is not very clear, I would prefer Category:Films by actor, but the subcategories would need to be renamed as well. The cat sorting should be changed, too, as it is now by first name instead of last name. @Joostik: was this category meant for all actors in a film or really only the starring ones? In the latter case, by which definition of starring? --rimshottalk 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- It hasn't been strictly enforced to this point, unless someone really thinks Buzz Aldrin's cameo in Transformers: Dark of the Moon was a starring role: Category:Films starring Buzz Aldrin. =) I'm not sure this whole category tree is useful on commons at all since we don't have many movie categories, but conversely, since we don't have many movie categories, it's unlikely to get out of hand. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- this cat tree is the way to go. the other direction (which creates a loop when both are present) is a joke like the "film locations by film" tree. the other direction is "XYZ movie cast members" Category:Cast members, which puts prolific actors in hundreds of cats.--RZuo (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- enwiki hasn't such solution. Category:Films by actor may be acceptable. Something similar is Category:Films by character Estopedist1 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for Category:Films by actor. Category:Films by starrings is just nonsensical. Although maybe something like Category:Films by star would work, but I'm still going with Category:Films by actor since "star" isn't an actual thing and you can't really have Category:Films by starrings if "star" doesn't exist in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- this cat tree is the way to go. the other direction (which creates a loop when both are present) is a joke like the "film locations by film" tree. the other direction is "XYZ movie cast members" Category:Cast members, which puts prolific actors in hundreds of cats.--RZuo (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Films by actor. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Sculptures depicting Satan? Are Satan and Devil two different concepts? E4024 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since a parent category is Category:Devils in art, maybe this should be renamed to Category:Sculptures of devils. Whatever is done, other categories with "the Devil" in their names should have the same treatment. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a mess. We have a lot of examples of Commons:Overcat and just plain miscategorization here:
- Category:Devils
- Category:Satan
- Category:Devils in art
- Category:The Devil
- Category:Lucifer
- Category:Paintings of Lucifer (in Category:Paintings of angels but not in Category:Paintings of the Devil or Category:Paintings of devils)
- Category:Statues of Lucifer (in Category:Statues of angels and Category:Statues of demons in Christian art but not in Category:Sculptures of the Devil or Category:Statues of the Devil)
- Category:Satan
- Category:Devil as deceiver in art
- Category:Lucifer
- Additionally, whether any of these are (grand)parented by Category:Demons in art seems entirely random. Any thoughts on how to organize this better? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The ideas of Satan, he devil, Iblis, Lucifer and many others is insanely complicated and complex, I honestly don't know what the best to do here is.*Treker (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- No changes. - nothing came of this discussion. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Does this category serve a purpose beyond "Organizations called institute" ? I'm wondering if that's a useful categorization at all, but if we're keeping it, we should make that explicit. I'm not sure there's any need to subdivide by focus since different "film institutes" might serve wholly different purposes (education, preservation, promotion, etc). Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- My guess is no. The same goes for Category:Institutions. Which is totally unnecessary and to vague as a category to be useful even if it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep After some research I've found that institutes are someone unique entities from other organizations (for instance colleges/universities). So the best thing to do would be to better clarify the category instead of deleting it. Category:Institutions should still be dealt with somehow though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: But then you're saying the category is for anything with "institute" in its name, regardless of its actual meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Sure, but is there really that many (or any) things with the word "institute" in their names that aren't institutes? Perhaps there is in a non-English speaking non-Western place, but It's not like what constitutes an "institute" is an official, globally recognized thing anyway. Seriously, considering the definition for an institute is an "organizational body created for a certain purpose" literally anything can already go in the category anyway. So who really cares if it's an institute in name only? Technically all institutes are. Most of them share nothing else in common. Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: But then you're saying the category is for anything with "institute" in its name, regardless of its actual meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: If the category is for anything with "institute" in the name, the issue is with anything that supposedly is an institute (and categorized as such) but doesn't have institute in its name. Personally, I think a category with such a broad definition is pretty useless, but you suggested keeping, so I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: My suggestion was to keep the category so it could be better clarified, if there is no way to do that though then I'm fine with it being deleted. Obliviously once categories reach a certain level of higher level semantic abstraction they become pretty meaningless ways to organize things, and that could be the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- redirect institutes to organisations.
- institutions is an abstract term that refers to some sort of social systems, rather than any specific organisations. RZuo (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Merge Category:Institutions into Category:Organizations I suppose one could see an 'institution' as being the event in which an organization is established (the institution of the institution?), but this does not serve a significant purpose for Commons. Josh (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Merge Category:Institutes into Category:Organizations I have had a bit of a rethink and while I still think a distinction can be made, I am not sure that we should in Commons categories. The distinction is both subtle and subjective and while we could come up with a definition to slap on the categories, for the normal user, I doubt that it would help them much in getting to the content they are seeking. It would be far simpler and effective to merge these three. Josh (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Adamant1: clarify the category (and make clear criteria). For a word that is so widespread, we should look further. I think:
- Category:Institutes should be a subcategory of Category:Organizations by type; its subcategories should be categorized in a subcategory of Category:Organizations by subject
- The defition can be: "an organizational body created for a certain purpose", like education and/or research on specific topics. I think institutes facilitate those purposes, they are a kind of vehicle (like in "financing vehicle") for organizing certain activities and raising funds to be able to perform those activities.
- Criteria can also be:
- main purpose is to perform activities that are focused upon knowledge and documentation or other goal related to the welfare of humanity
non profit, not-for-profit- financed with subsidies, grants, gifts and/or payments for products (like reports) and services (like courses and commissioned research).
- They maybe:
- have the word "institute" in their names
- be a private initiative or set up by the government or other organization (this is not a distinctive criterium, just to let us know that the initiatiator can be anyone/any organization)
- are part of another organization, like a university.
- --JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Those are potential criteria, but they aren't based on any solid definition, just arbitrary ideas. Why should a for-profit educational institute like en:ITT Technical Institute be excluded? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, User:Themightyquill, institues may also be for-profit (I did not know any, so I presume -wrongly- they only are non profit or not-for-profit). So we can drop that criterium.
- About the definition:
- The first part of my definition is from w:en:Institute. Other sources give similar definitions:
- Webster: "a society established for the promotion of learning, art, science, etc."
- Oxford dictionary: "an organization that has a particular purpose, especially one that is connected with education or a particular profession."
- Do you have a better one? I am OK with picking one of the others, most important is that there will be consensus and we can move forward.
- About the criteria:
- The criteria I suggest, are not "just arbitrary ideas"! I protest. They are suggestions I thought well about, they are proposals to discuss. So I hope we'll discuss here the content.
- Except for the profit criterium, do you agree with the other criteria I suggest? Do you know other/better criteria? What would you suggest?
- JopkeB (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, User:Themightyquill, institues may also be for-profit (I did not know any, so I presume -wrongly- they only are non profit or not-for-profit). So we can drop that criterium.
- @JopkeB: Those are potential criteria, but they aren't based on any solid definition, just arbitrary ideas. Why should a for-profit educational institute like en:ITT Technical Institute be excluded? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: It wasn't meant as a criticism of your effort. I don't think there is a legitimate accepted definition of "institute" beyond "organization with a purpose" (much like the first/key part of the one offered by the oxford dictionary) which is broad enough to be useless. The second part of the oxford definition uses "especially" which means "not always." Various people might define it in a variety of different ways, so choosing one makes it arbitrary. If we are to keep this category, the only legitimate criteria I can think of is "Organizations called institute". -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I still think an institution is not just any organization (going from small foundations to big corporations). If you merge them with Category:Organizations they get lost in the big quantity of all kind of organizations and you lose information. For me "Organizations called institute" is good enough. In addition, we might say on Commons that at least one (or two) of the other criteria must apply:
- Created to perform activities that are focused upon knowledge (like education, research) and documentation, or other goal related to the welfare of humanity, and to facilitate those purpose.
- Financed with subsidies, grants, gifts and/or payments for products and services that are in line with the purpose.
- Is part of another organization, like a university.
- Would this be a solution? JopkeB (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Organizations called institute" = institutes, just like "Organizations called corporation" = corporations...
- those criteria are arbitrary. RZuo (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- So Rzuo, what would you suggest? Should Category:Institutes disappear or stay? And do you mean that when this category should disappear from Commons that then also Corporations and perhaps more subcategories of Organizations should disappear? JopkeB (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- "redirect institutes to organisations.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)" RZuo (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- So Rzuo, what would you suggest? Should Category:Institutes disappear or stay? And do you mean that when this category should disappear from Commons that then also Corporations and perhaps more subcategories of Organizations should disappear? JopkeB (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I still think an institution is not just any organization (going from small foundations to big corporations). If you merge them with Category:Organizations they get lost in the big quantity of all kind of organizations and you lose information. For me "Organizations called institute" is good enough. In addition, we might say on Commons that at least one (or two) of the other criteria must apply:
No consensus for Institutes, default to keep. The definition of the category should be clarified. Merge Institutions to Organizations. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
None of the territories listed in the category are officially "claimed" by Bangladesh. In fact, there's no territorial dispute with Bangladesh since 2015. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Could/should this be re-named to fit under Category:Former disputed territories? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for @Themightyquill: . This is not a geopolitical site, we can tolerate a "neuter" approximation. -- Blackcat
19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1 for @Themightyquill: . This is not a geopolitical site, we can tolerate a "neuter" approximation. -- Blackcat
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Could this be moved to Category:Shaker leaders since it's a child category of Category:Religious leaders from the United States and we have no Category:Notable people category? Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that if the people are actually leaders. Otherwise they could just be merged up to the existing category. We shouldn't have any categories that specify "notable". --Auntof6 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The nominated category is unacceptable Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Technically they are referred to as Shaker elders, so I'm moving the category to Category:Shaker elders Relinus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Shaker elders. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Müsste die Kategorie nicht "City wall of Nördlingen" es gibt ja eigentlich nur eine. Zimtstern 2k (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- We generally use (I mean in similar cases) "walls". --E4024 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Zimtstern 2k: Even if there is only one currently (?), there were surely more than one in the past and we may have images related to the previously existing ones. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, we probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Atamari recently created a large number of disambiguation categories containing the {{Disambig}} template but no disambiguating entries. I left a message on their talk page pointing out that entries are needed.
The user replied that entries are not needed because the links in the {{Disambig}} template are enough. They also said that putting entries on the page is "static," which I took to mean that when you put entries on a disambig category, it takes effort to keep that list up to date.
I replied that I see that point, but that these pages need the entries anyway. I hereby propose that the empty pages in question be deleted. (I will add the full list as soon as this CFD is created.)
I did consider populating these, but 1) a few that I spot-checked actually have only one entry among existing categories that would fit, and therefore don't need a disambiguation category, and 2) there are over 200 of them, a cleanup task that I am not prepared to take on at the moment.
Click below to see the list of categories included in this request.
- Category:AbuBakr-Moschee
- Category:Achenbachstraße
- Category:Ackerstraße
- Category:Adersstraße
- Category:Adler-Brauerei
- Category:Adlerstraße
- Category:Adolfstraße
- Category:Ahornstraße
- Category:Akazienstraße
- Category:Alarichstraße
- Category:Albert-Einstein-Straße
- Category:Albertstraße
- Category:Albrechtstraße
- Category:Alemannenstraße
- Category:Alexanderstraße
- Category:Allensteiner Straße
- Category:Alsenstraße
- Category:Alte Dorfstraße
- Category:Alte Freiheit
- Category:Alte Straße
- Category:Alte Synagoge
- Category:Altenberger Straße
- Category:Am Anger
- Category:Am Dornloh
- Category:Am Ehrenmal
- Category:Am Forsthof
- Category:Am Friedenshain
- Category:Am Hofe
- Category:Am Kalkofen
- Category:Am Kasinogarten
- Category:Am Nordpark
- Category:Am Sandfeld
- Category:Am Stall
- Category:Am Timpen
- Category:Am Walde
- Category:Am Werloh
- Category:Amalienstraße
- Category:Amselstraße
- Category:An der Bergbahn
- Category:An der Hütte
- Category:An der Kirche
- Category:An der Waldau
- Category:Andreas-Hofer-Straße
- Category:Anemonenstraße
- Category:Annenstraße
- Category:Arndtstraße
- Category:Arnoldstraße
- Category:Ascheweg
- Category:Askanierstraße
- Category:Asternstraße
- Category:Astilbenstraße
- Category:Augustastraße
- Category:August-Bebel-Straße
- Category:Badische Straße
- Category:Bahnstraße
- Category:Baldurstraße
- Category:Bandstraße
- Category:Bandwirkerstraße
- Category:Bankstraße
- Category:Bärenstraße
- Category:Barmer Straße
- Category:Bartholomäusstraße
- Category:Baumeisterstraße
- Category:Baumstraße
- Category:Bayreuther Straße
- Category:Beethovenstraße
- Category:Belle-Alliance-Straße
- Category:Bembergstraße
- Category:Benningsenstraße
- Category:Benrather Straße
- Category:Benzstraße
- Category:Berghauser Straße
- Category:Berglehne
- Category:Bergstraße
- Category:Berliner Platz
- Category:Bernhard-Letterhaus-Straße
- Category:Biberweg
- Category:Bildhauerstraße
- Category:Blankstraße
- Category:Bleicherstraße
- Category:Blumenstraße
- Category:Böcklinstraße
- Category:Bockmühle
- Category:Bocksledde
- Category:Boelckestraße
- Category:Boettingerweg
- Category:Bogenstraße
- Category:Bollwerk
- Category:Bolthausen
- Category:Borner Straße
- Category:Bozener Straße
- Category:Brahmsstraße
- Category:Brandenburgstraße
- Category:Brändströmstraße
- Category:Bredde
- Category:Breitenbruch
- Category:Bremer Straße
- Category:Breslauer Straße
- Category:Bromberger Straße
- Category:Bruch
- Category:Brüderstraße
- Category:Brunnenstraße
- Category:Buchenkopf
- Category:Buchenring
- Category:Buchenstraße
- Category:Bundesallee
- Category:Bürgerallee
- Category:Burgstraße
- Category:Burgunderstraße
- Category:Cäcilienstraße
- Category:Calvinstraße
- Category:Chlodwigstraße
- Category:Claudiusweg
- Category:Clausewitzstraße
- Category:Collenbuschstraße
- Category:Concordienstraße
- Category:Corneliusstraße
- Category:Cronenberger Straße
- Category:Dahler Straße
- Category:Dessauerstraße
- Category:Deutscher Ring
- Category:Deweerthstraße
- Category:Dickmannstraße
- Category:Dienstagstraße
- Category:Dieselstraße
- Category:Diesterwegstraße
- Category:Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Weg
- Category:Domagkweg
- Category:Donarstraße
- Category:Dorfwiese
- Category:Döringstraße
- Category:Dornaper Straße
- Category:Dorotheenstraße
- Category:Dörpfeldstraße
- Category:Drosselstraße
- Category:Droste-Hülshoff-Straße
- Category:Druckerstraße
- Category:Dürrweg
- Category:Düsseldorfer Straße
- Category:Eddastraße
- Category:Edith-Stein-Straße
- Category:Eduardstraße
- Category:Ehrenberger Straße
- Category:Ehrenhainstraße
- Category:Eichenstraße
- Category:Eiland
- Category:Eintrachtstraße
- Category:Eisenlohrstraße
- Category:Eisenstraße
- Category:Ekkehardstraße
- Category:Elberfelder Straße
- Category:Elbersstraße
- Category:Elisabethstraße
- Category:Elisenstraße
- Category:Elsasser Straße
- Category:Else-Lasker-Schüler-Straße
- Category:Elsternstraße
- Category:Emilienstraße
- Category:Emilstraße
- Category:Emmichstraße
- Category:Engelsstraße
- Category:Erholungstraße
- Category:Erichstraße
- Category:Erkrather Straße
- Category:Erlenstraße
- Category:Ernststraße
- Category:Eschenstraße
- Category:Esmarchstraße
- Category:Espenstraße
- Category:Essener Straße
- Category:Etzelstraße
- Category:Eugen-Langen-Straße
- Category:Ewaldstraße
- Category:Eylauer Straße
- Category:Falkenweg
- Category:Färberstraße
- Category:Farbmühle
- Category:Fasanenweg
- Category:Feldstraße
- Category:Ferdinand-Schrey-Straße
- Category:Fichtenstraße
- Category:Finkenstraße
- Category:Fischertal
- Category:Flanhard
- Category:Flensburger Straße
- Category:Flieth
- Category:Florastraße
- Category:Florian-Geyer-Straße
- Category:Flotowstraße
- Category:Fouriersgasse
- Category:Frankenplatz
- Category:Frankfurter Straße
- Category:Franzenstraße
- Category:Freiheitstraße
- Category:Freiligrathstraße
- Category:Fresestraße
- Category:Freyastraße
- Category:Friedhofstraße
- Category:Friedrich-Engels-Allee
- Category:Friedrichschulstraße
- Category:Friedrich-Wilhelm-Straße
- Category:Frielinghausen
- Category:Fröbelstraße
- Category:Fuchsstraße
- Category:Fuhlrottstraße
- Category:Funckstraße
- Category:Fürstenstraße
- Category:Gambrinusstraße
- a) there is no obligation stated on the description page of the template that you have to provide links! No regulation described. Alone the first linking of the template is worth gold.
- b) A bad example can be seen under Category:Kirchstraße (coincidentally improved by Auntof6) A better view is contained by the link that provides the template at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories/Kirchstra%C3%9Fe.
- A whole 161 direct hits and another 332 indirect hits, not just the two listed. This can really only be done with a dynamic view. A static view of the possible hits to this template is impossible to implement correctly.
- c) The secondary purpose of the template is to "occupy" the space. So that nobody chooses a parenthesized category out of ignorance, although many parenthesized categories have already been prepared and written.
- --Atamari (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The disambig description page says: Generally this template would be placed following the list of items to be disambiguated (at the end of the article page). So something (e.g. a link) should be given.
- Second: In case of the title of this Cfd the first link at disambig page give more than hundred hits but only two of them fits the title Category:AbuBakr-Moschee - a bad example for using {{Disambig}} without further links. GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- delete all: we don't do pre-emptively disambiguation pages with zero or one entry Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: category deleted per discussion. EDIT: I deleted most of the categories listed above, kept the ones that actually disambiguate or were useful. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Way too broad in scope. (Not to mention the vague name.) What is the point of a category, that would contain almost every animation? Who looks for "endless loops" to illustrate anything? I suggest to delete this. Watchduck (quack) 23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- How about renaming it to "seamless loops"? The idea is to have a repository of animations that loop without breaking, which only a small subset of animations do. Yitzilitt (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I should also mention that as an artist, I often find myself specifically looking for loops with no clear breaks in them, which can be harder to find than you might think. For me at least, such a category would be practically useful. Yitzilitt (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- How Yitzilitt describes it is how I interpreted the name as well. Renaming it to "Seamless loops" makes a lot of sense. It's a useful collection, but this whole category tree needs some explanation descriptions who editors can more appropriately categorise into them. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any problems. Of course we can create subcategories for more detailed explanations, but it is what it is for me. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Yitzilitt: If separating animations with and without breaks is relevant, fine. But when a category (Animations) is split in two halves, there is still the question, which of the two halves should become the subcategory. (It is not usual to create both foo things and non-foo things.) The obvious answer should be, that the smaller of the two halves should become the category. And as far as I see, being seamless is the usual case for animations - not the exception. If that is the case, the category should be animations with breaks. To find those without breaks, one has to exclude those with breaks. The problem that Commons does not offer a good way to do that, should be addressed rather than papered over. (Maybe there is a way to do it in Deepcat. See example Animations of geometry.)
- It is not realistic, that this category will ever contain even a tenth of all seamless animations. If you want to collect some of them, you should turn this into a gallery. Watchduck (quack) 13:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Watchduck, perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did this change from the name/scope of this category and into a discussion of Animations in general? I'm also concerned that you're misunderstanding the scope of this particular category (if I'm wrong, I do apologise), which is to collect seamless looping animations like this one, rather than just simple looping gifs like this one. I agree that the current name of the category is problematic, but its contents are of a specific nature that warrants categorisation. Using the argument that a gallery would be better here because it's incomplete is nonsense; by that logic most of the more abstract categories should be converted. Galleries are intended as a showcase of a particular topic, not as the whole collection of a particular topic (which is, of course, the purpose of categories). — Huntster (t @ c) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Huntster here, there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding as to the purpose of this category (which is itself strong evidence it should be renamed imo). I would also be fine with creating more detailed subcategories for this page if it becomes overcrowded, but the fact that subcategories can be created isn't a strong argument for the deletion of the larger category—otherwise we would never be able to effectively organize anything here! Yitzilitt (talk)
- @Huntster: I dont' think we have a misunderstanding here. We may have different assumptions, what kind of animation is more common. (Makes sense, because no one of us has counted them all.) My impression is, that film sequence like animations like this, this or this are the minority, while most animations show some kind of rotation - like this, this or this. We agree, that the distinction deserves to be reflected in the category system. My argument is, that it might be better to sort the smaller set of images in its own category. -Watchduck (quack) 13:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I just realize, that there are at least four kinds of seamless animations:
| rotating objects (otherwise unchanged) |
|
| periodic movements based on rotations |
|
| periodic movements |
|
| back and forth |
|
| Droste effect self-similarity |
|
I think that these would be relevant subcategories, so I rest my case for deleting this category.
I agree that Seamless animations would be a decent name. -Watchduck (quack) 15:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nice analysis. I worry that too many subcategories will result in the same image being tossed in several of them, but this is a minor concern. I kind of think the two "Periodic movements" rows would most appropriately be combined for simplicity's sake, as that first row has far more in common with other periodic movement images than with rotational items, and tangenting them into a sub-sub category seems excessive. I'd like to give more thought to the overall structure of this category family when I have more time.... — Huntster (t @ c) 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think periodic movements based on rotations should be a subcategory of periodic movements and of rotations. And the other subcategory of rotations would be rotating objects (where the object does not change apart from the rotation). I am in no hurry either. --Watchduck (quack) 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- moved category based on apparent consensus, hope that's okay. Yitz (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wonderful analysis! I would love a recategorization along those lines. By the way a worthwhile characteristic (orthogonal IMO) is Category:Looped_animations where they are real-life videos that have been carefully looped. --Nanite (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can we remove {{Category for discussion}}? Pere prlpz (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was reached. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The name of the category is very broad (no mention of a religion or denomination), yet it redirects to Mormon salvation plans. This redirect is a timebomb which over the years may fill with different diagrams of salvation plans into a category which only concerns mormonism. Therefore, I believe this category redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: This redirect is the best solution.--93.195.202.214 07:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I do not see the danger which you described.--93.195.202.214 08:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could you justify your positions? Veverve (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
If the deletion is good managed, it is also good.--93.193.170.30 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete redirect. According to en:Plan of salvation, other plans of salvation can exist so it doesn't make sense to take it so broadly right now. It doesn't make sense to have this category with just one subcategory subcategory either. Can the anon explain what 'solution' this redirect solves? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete-closed, as no longer discussed.-- Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Why was this moved from the English "Japonism" to the French "Japonisme"? The subcats continue to use "Japonism". I think we should go with the English, but if not we should at least be consistent in using the French. Jmabel ! talk 13:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not just us. English wikipedia is equally confused, using. en:Japonisme but en:Category:Japonism. Not that this really helps further the discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Themightyquill, the en wiki article was moved to Japonisme in February 2020 following a requested move discussion at en:Talk:Japonisme#Requested move 2 February 2020. That was probably the reason for moving the commons category in November 2020, but the movers obviously didn't worry about the en wiki category or the commons subcategories. Based on that discussion I would support Japonisme. Tate and the Met seem to use Japonisme in their websites as well. TSventon (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally happy with Japonisme if we use it consistently. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Can I propose here to move Category:Japonism in France to Category:Japonisme in France; Category:Japonism in Italy to Category:Japonisme in Italy; Category:Japonism in Poland to Category:Japonisme in Poland and Category:Japonism in Spain to Category:Japonisme in Spain. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Sure. Tag those to point to this discussion, and if no one objects in seven days it's time to go uniformly to that spelling. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, subcategories now nominated. TSventon (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: , can the subcategories be renamed now? TSventon (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: fine with me. I believe this is a complete list of affected categories.
- - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Sure. Tag those to point to this discussion, and if no one objects in seven days it's time to go uniformly to that spelling. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Can I propose here to move Category:Japonism in France to Category:Japonisme in France; Category:Japonism in Italy to Category:Japonisme in Italy; Category:Japonism in Poland to Category:Japonisme in Poland and Category:Japonism in Spain to Category:Japonisme in Spain. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally happy with Japonisme if we use it consistently. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Themightyquill, the en wiki article was moved to Japonisme in February 2020 following a requested move discussion at en:Talk:Japonisme#Requested move 2 February 2020. That was probably the reason for moving the commons category in November 2020, but the movers obviously didn't worry about the en wiki category or the commons subcategories. Based on that discussion I would support Japonisme. Tate and the Met seem to use Japonisme in their websites as well. TSventon (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus for Japonisme across multiple categories - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Makara at the National Museum (Malaysia) or Category:Makara in the National Museum (Malaysia). Themightyquill (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Makara in the National Museum (Malaysia). -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Also a magnet for derivative work/no FOP copyvios. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Also a magnet for derivative work/no FOP copyvios. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Quirino Highway (Balon-bato, Balintawak, Baesa, Talipapa, Sangandaan, Bagbag, San Bartolome, Gulod & Novaliches Proper)
[edit]Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minoraxtalk 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minoraxtalk 04:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minoraxtalk 04:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minoraxtalk 04:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name to this category to "Kurt Schneider (cyclist)" to match standard category naming. Thanks in advance. 51.37.26.120 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Cat renamed. --Achim (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name to this category to "Jochen Schmidt (cyclist)" to match standard category naming. Thanks in advance. 51.37.26.120 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Cat renamed. --Achim (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty cat can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This cat is emty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody remove this page? It is a faulty page that I accidentally created, the surname mentioned is not correct, as it is missing some accents on letters. - NeoMeesje (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Named for a user, but no clear scope or usefulness - is this images that TMenang uploaded? Likes? DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Category:User:TMenang. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest just deleting this. I believe that the QR code just leads back to this category on the enwiki's version--Minoraxtalk 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Update: creator has been blocked as an LTA, so unlikely to be developed further --DannyS712 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong spelling of name. Obsolete and empty Elly (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The model in question was marketed as the 1972 Plymouth Fury Gran rather than as the 1972 Plymouth Gran Fury. My mistake. GTHO (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done - I marked it for deletion. Closed. E4024 (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Highly redundant category to Category:Manila–Cavite Expressway encouraging redundancy and repetition. All of its 89 image files have been moved there, and so this superfluous category is now empty. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Can Category:Knitted pantyhose be merged into Category:Knitted tights? Is it the same concept? JopkeB (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why not? In the end an invisible "female body parts lobby" arrange many cats, frequently through IPs from where the sun rises, to make women (their legs in this case) everyday more and more "categorized" - or visible. The idea, IMO, sometimes looks like not "classifying" but "expanding". --E4024 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tights are two pieces, I think, and pantyhose are a one piece item. In Iberian spanish there's a very specific tern for this thing (leotardos, very different in meaning from english leotards) and also German (Strickstrumpfhose) and Basque at least have a specific term. --Luistxo (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Luistxo: I do not agree with you that tights are two pieces. When I look at Wikidata, tights are Mallas in Spanish, and they are, like pantyhoses, one piece items. In German it is called Strumpfhose, also a one piece item, the same for the Dutch maillot and I am very sure that that is a one piece item as well. Perhaps you mean nylon stockings? These are indeed two pieces. But they are not what this discussion is about. JopkeB (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @E4024: , I have followed your advise. JopkeB (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Knitted pantyhoses and Knitted tights are about the same concept and these categories can be merged. I'll merge Category:Knitted pantyhose into Category:Knitted tights. JopkeB (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What is this category about? (I moved one file - File:Suéter de estambre.png - to Women wearing sweaters.) Can this category be removed/deleted? JopkeB (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Prueba 1" means "Test 1", so I suspect this was a test category. It probably shouldn't have been created, so I'd say delete unless the creator can explain what it's for. Even if it's a user category, it should have the user's name in the title. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Auntof6: for your remarks. I'll delete this category.
This is no useful category, so I'll delete it. JopkeB (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only idiot that does not understand what this cat serves? I'm afraid to ask the deletion of this ns but am suspecting someone will come forth and say E4024 does not understand anything, this is a very useful cat. But what is this? E4024 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 You are very much right I wanted to see if it can have any significance at the time of planning it made sense but now that I look back I don't think so. Icem4k 🤗✌ (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I marked it for deletion; closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Done - cat initiator agreed to delete. The cat is empty and marked for deletion. E4024 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to Category:Rudolf Hellmann" as that is the name used on the German Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance. 109.76.82.57 23:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per [15]. --Achim (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Knitted waistcoats is not a good name; waistcoats do not have sleeves and cannot be knitted. The three files have been changed to Category:Cardigans (for the two hunting jackets) and Category:Knitwear + Category:Tunics (for the silk tunic). So now this category is empty and may be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Those were bad edits. Before the 19th century, waistcoats *did* have sleeves. "Knitted waistcoat" is the specialist term for these 16th and 17th century garments (see http://costumehistorian.blogspot.com/2018/11/early-modern-knitted-waistcoats-and.html). Please put this all back the way you found it. - PKM (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PKM: You are right. I also see another blog on https://evashistoricalcostumes.blogspot.com/2015/11/17th-century-knitted-waistcoats.html, which comfirms this. Please add a description to (new) categories from now on, especcially when they might cause confusion. I'll make the changes an close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"Knitted waistcoat" is the specialist term for 16th and 17th century garments with sleeves. This category should be kept for this reason, the three files must stay here. JopkeB (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion by creator due to typo Invokingvajras (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary category; only media previously here was a single image of an unrelated building merely bearing the name of the company that first deployed this communications technology Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any other "ancient time" cat? Is this a "good" name? E4024 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- This category deals with images that deal with the process of milk creation in ancient times, with archaeological finds. Even today, milk and its products are produced. You raise a question but do not make any other suggestion. I think the category is important and I see no reason to delete itץ Hanay (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- CfD -not necessarily- is for deletion discussions. Why did you say "ancient times" in your talk and not "ancient time"? --E4024 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Realy, this is your problem? My English? User:Geagea, Can you help? Thanks. Hanay 2A0D:6FC0:71A:F500:61E1:D144:A206:C590 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- E4024, if I understand correctly you are ok with Category:Milk processing at ancient times?
- Realy, this is your problem? My English? User:Geagea, Can you help? Thanks. Hanay 2A0D:6FC0:71A:F500:61E1:D144:A206:C590 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- CfD -not necessarily- is for deletion discussions. Why did you say "ancient times" in your talk and not "ancient time"? --E4024 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- -- Geagea (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Better than what we have, but still some of these "ancient cats" around this one seem problematic to me. Tried to fix a few by "categorization", but we have to understand that we cannot classify things of "ancient times" with terms of "modern times". Thank God yet I have not seen any "ancient automobiles" or "ancient mobile phones" cats. Move it to plural, please, one initial step towards normalization. E4024 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- -- Geagea (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved: per discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Should I haved named this (and its subcategories) Category:Armenian Apostolic churches instead? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: such naming is used on English, German, Spanish and most other Wiki projects, but current naming is not incorrect. By the way, I think you made a mistake here: subcategories of this category are categorized under "Orthodox churches in [country]" but the latter is used only for Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox churches. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: Thanks! Any thoughts on this discussion or this (much longer) one? -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No action needed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category that has no purpose whatsoever. Most of the files have been deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Letter-Permit to-from Arnel F. Mendoza (Philippines), while I recategorized the two kept files to the more useful categories: File:332Letter Permit Arnel F. Mendoza Philippines 06.jpg is transferred to both Category:Letterheads and Category:Letters of the Philippines, while I moved File:332Letter Permit Arnel F. Mendoza Philippines 07.jpg to Category:Bustos, Bulacan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. Its sole occupants; 2 images, have been moved to Category:SM City BF Parañaque JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"American" is ambiguous. Rename. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it's ambiguous, although the parent category is for the Americas. Maybe this category should be divided into separate categories based on where the people depicted are actually from. It can't be useful to have a category that include people in Sweden who are from places in different parts of North and South America. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Expatriates from the United States in Sweden. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No need to group north and south america together here. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No "Americas" category is useful if the only contents are subcategories for the two continents. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? Why was it made? It seems redundant to me. Can the three subcategories be moved to Category:Service industries? Category:Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling even has both as a parent. Category:Services (economics) is even a parent of Service industries, so this looks to me as a strange construction. JopkeB (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The reason for creating that category is, a compatibility with other Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia. For many people, Wikimedia Commons is a media archive site for other Wikimedia projects, and the incompatibilities of the category hierarchy between projects may cause the many confusions and complexities. On the other hand, each Wikimedia project is independent one, so we can select a different design (of category hierarchy) than other projects, if we have a rational reason.--Clusternote (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's perfectly compatible, whatever we call it, or whether we have this superfluous level. This is one of those things that just doesn't matter to Mediawiki. If you meant consistent (i.e. pandering to the puny humans) then you might have a (weak) point, although even that is overplayed. We should not (but regularly do) force a meaningless consistency onto Commons naming, at the cost of accuracy and linguistic correctness. But in this case, it's not even consistent. This category is linked to en:WP:Category:Services sector of the economy, which isn't even the same concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions:
- There is no need for consistency or compatibility in naming Commons categories with other Wikimedia projects at the cost of accuracy and linguistic correctness.
- The three subcategories can be moved to Category:Service industries.
- This category "Economics of service industries" can be deleted.
I'll make the changes. JopkeB (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This category doesn't have any logical connection to the Category:Americas category tree since neither other events of this kind or the themes of this event are categorized by supercontinent. It's only link to "The Americas" was Category:Topless women in the Americas was deleted per this CFD for these same reasons. I have no problem with Category:Dyke March by country or even Category:Dyke March in North America (or South America), which fit the existing category tree more obiously under Category:LGBT events by country or territory and Category:LGBT in North America. Category:LGBT in the Americas was deleted in 2019 for similar reasons after this CFD. If these events had any particular pan-american focus, it might be different. There is simply no good reason to group these by supercontinent. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, split up to continents. - Jmabel ! talk 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and split per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Split up. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
We already have Category:Adage, do we need this category as well, or could it be redirected? Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Adages, redirect Category:Adage to it, per our usual standards for pluralisation of category names. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy either way, what seems odd to me is the duplication of categories not the names. I simply suggested merging new to old. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- If I were in your place I would simply do the needed, there is nothing to discuss here, Mike Peel. Use "Adages". Just blow "Adage" up. (BTW -not for this case, in general- some people all the time create unnecessary cats here and when you open a CfD they do not even come to discuss. I can show you examples of my CfDs or other people's CfDs, and I am not referring to people who opened a cat in 2013 and are not active since 2014 or 2015. These discussions tend to go loooong time -mostly without participation after the first one or two days- and in the meantime errors get consolidated or the same people who do not deign to participate in the discussions about their mistakes continue to build their own erroneous cat tree...) So just act. Nobody opposes. Consensus to merge. E4024 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I can confirm your experience. Although I assume that creation of unnecessary is mostly done in good faith, I sometimes would have liked a means to stop it. Couldn't be there a blocking mechnism for a certain amount of time, or something like that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: If I'm sure it's a duplicate, I tend to go ahead and merge. If I'm not sure, I start a CfD and see what others think. I wasn't sure here. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I can confirm your experience. Although I assume that creation of unnecessary is mostly done in good faith, I sometimes would have liked a means to stop it. Couldn't be there a blocking mechnism for a certain amount of time, or something like that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- If I were in your place I would simply do the needed, there is nothing to discuss here, Mike Peel. Use "Adages". Just blow "Adage" up. (BTW -not for this case, in general- some people all the time create unnecessary cats here and when you open a CfD they do not even come to discuss. I can show you examples of my CfDs or other people's CfDs, and I am not referring to people who opened a cat in 2013 and are not active since 2014 or 2015. These discussions tend to go loooong time -mostly without participation after the first one or two days- and in the meantime errors get consolidated or the same people who do not deign to participate in the discussions about their mistakes continue to build their own erroneous cat tree...) So just act. Nobody opposes. Consensus to merge. E4024 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy either way, what seems odd to me is the duplication of categories not the names. I simply suggested merging new to old. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Sandwiches and sandbox’s and salads ....? 197.61.165.174 11:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy close as keep. Invalid, irrelevant and incomprehensible nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy close as nonsense nomination, no files have sandwiches or salads so this is clearly a nonsense nomination. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Hyundai S Coupé - if so, I suggest merging, I don't mind which way. Mike Peel (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Merged into Hyundai Scoupe. --MB-one (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to Category:One-person operation, the contemporary gender-neutral term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support I agree, Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Renamed. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This category needs to be deleted so that Category:Puerto Princesa City can be moved here (cannot be moved due to technical reason), in accordance with enwiki format/title convention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
All don’t 203.144.68.240 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) @Rodhullandemu: The result was Keep, due to a nonsense nomination. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
A typo in the name of the category I created, created a new one, please delete this one. 攝影師 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
My mistake (shouldn't have created categories in Chinese). Could someone help delete this category and move the photos to "Category:Yuhengzai Fude Temple"? Many thanks Wikimycota (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- A bot will do the move, although there are few files and you can do it manually. When the cat is empty we will make it disappear. --E4024 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
moved and redirected.--RZuo (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Armenian Apostolic monasteries? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Armenian churches -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minoraxtalk 13:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category, also violates no FOP. All erring files have been moved to Category:SM City San Jose Del Monte for an organized batch DR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minoraxtalk 13:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
According to en:Benjamin Chavis he is no longer using the surname Muhammed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support: his official profiles use the shortened name Benjamin Chavis. Also en:w:Benjamin Chavis and Benjamin Chavis (Q4888389) are corrected. Aavindraa (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Benjamin Chavis. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Cions of Ekaterinburg mint at the Museum of History and Archaeology of the Middle Urals
[edit]typing error Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vyacheslav Bukharov: Typos do not require discussion, just add {{Badname}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect name created by carelessly uploaded photo 攝影師 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Correct name "Category:1948 km (Zlatoust, former settlement)" [16], [17]. At the same time, it is required to rename all files uploaded by him in this category: 148 -> 1948. 攝影師 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Klemen Kocjancic. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Deletion. Replaced by Category:Locator maps of the Virgin Islands Urhixidur (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Urhixidur: I marked it as {{Badname}}. Obvious wrong names or mis-spellings don't require discussion. Also, if you are going to open a discussion please don't blank and empty the category before doing so, it makes it very difficult to discuss anything. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
"Paintings" or "paintings"? E4024 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Renamed with lowercase by Andy Dingley. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like there's a whole family of these, seems like a fairly useless means of organizing images. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that this even looks like COM:CSD#C2 appliable? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a fairly big difference in definitions between En-Wikipedia and Commons. What should be the definition in Commons?
- The definition in En-Wikipedia indicates a tent for camping purposes ("living area", "inner tent", "outer tent").
- The definition in Commons ("pop up canopies or portable gazebos") indicates other purposes, especially entertaining.
I think that this is a big difference. What is the correct definition? My proposal:
- The main category Frame tents should be about all types of frame tents whith rigid poles. Subcategories are for:
- Frame tents for entertaining purposes, like the images that are now in this category.
- What should be a proper name?
- Should these categories be subcategories as well? They clearly all need frames and are for entertaining purposes, but they are not yet a subcategory of Frame tents:
- Circus tents
- Fumigation tents
- Marquees (tents)
- SG-Zelte: tents for groups, kitchen tents, sanitair tents, for gatherings/meetings. And could this category be renamed into or merged with an English category?
- Small Clear Span Tent
- Striped tents
- Trade tents
- Frame tents for camping purposes (not yet subcategories of Frame tents):
- Bungalow tents and Wall tents (not yet a category). My follow-up question (as a non native English speaker): should "bungalow tents" and "wall tents" be two seperate categories or could they be merged?
- Ridge tents
- What about Tent trailers? Are they indeed always frame tents or should they be a subcategory of the main category Tents, just like Roof tents?
- Frame tents for entertaining purposes, like the images that are now in this category.
JopkeB (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: This is interesting. I also note the big difference between wikipedia's en:Category:Portable buildings and shelters (which contains tents, marquees, etc) and our version, Category:Portable buildings (which doesn't). Oddly, our Category:Tents is instead under a wholly separate Category:Mobile buildings, which is a subcategory of Category:Camping equipment and Category:Manufactured homes. What a mess!
- I'm not sure Category:Frame tents is even necessary? What other types of tents are there but frame tents? But separating Category:Camping tents from Category:Tents makes sense to me.- Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree that the string of categories for tents and the like might need some kind of review. 'Portable' looks more appropriate for camping tents because one or several persons may carry a tent by him-/herself (dependant on the size), while 'mobile' may require a (special) vehicle or pack animals and is more appropriate for larger and inflexible tents. 'Camping equipment' does not apply to all tents, only for those used by tourists; and it does not apply at all to all other types of mobile buildings. Yes, a mess indeed.
- Yes, there are other type of tents than frame tents as I defined them (which are with rigid poles); (1) tents with flexible poles (like dome and tunnel tents), (2) roof tents (though they have poles, I would not put them under frame tents, but I am not an expert at all), (3) with no poles at all (like camouflage tents).
- I am not sure wether 'Camping tents' is a useful idea for a direct subcategory of 'Tents', perhaps it is as a subcategory of 'Tents by association'. Many types of tents may be used for camping as well as for other purposes: rigid tents are also used in the military and scouting; yurts and bedouin tents are used for camping as well as for permanent living by nomads. JopkeB (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree that the string of categories for tents and the like might need some kind of review. 'Portable' looks more appropriate for camping tents because one or several persons may carry a tent by him-/herself (dependant on the size), while 'mobile' may require a (special) vehicle or pack animals and is more appropriate for larger and inflexible tents. 'Camping equipment' does not apply to all tents, only for those used by tourists; and it does not apply at all to all other types of mobile buildings. Yes, a mess indeed.
- @JopkeB: Sorry, I somehow missed that basic definition in your explanation above.
- I think that wikipedia article is rather confused and also poorly sourced, so I think it's safe to ignore it.
- Might it not make sense to rename to Category:Tents with rigid poles or Category:Rigid-pole tents to avoid any confusion? We could create Category:Tents with flexible poles or Category:Flexible-pole tents as well.
- I don't think you need to sub-categorize by entertainment/camping here. That should be done at Category:Tents. You could easily include sub-categories for each of the types of frame tents you've listed above without this category being overly full.
- I wouldn't say Category:Striped tents or Category:Fumigation tents are for entertaining.
- Category:SG-Zelte seems like a very specific line of tents in the German context, but they could fit under something like Category:Emergency management tents.
- "Wall tents" and "Bungalow tents" seem to be redundant. Another term, "cabin tents", is also used.
- Category:Ridge tents does not seem very consistent to me.
- I hope that helps. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, this helps indeed.
- @1: Point taken. If I search with Google for images of a frame tent, I see mainly the type of tents mentioned in the definition and included in Category:Frame tents: large tents, bigger than bungalow tents, with or without walls, for many people. So I would suggest to keep the definition of Commons. (So far for my original question.)
- @2: I tried to make subcategories for Rigid-poles and other kind of poles tents, but nearly all (about 20) were rigid-poles, there were only five for three other subcategories ((1) flexible: dome, tunnel; (2) with just ropes; (3) supported by vehicles: roof tents and tent trailers), so that would not be a balanced categorisation. And because of the extra layer/subcategory, it would be more difficult for users to find what they are looking for as well. So I would suggest not to have a subcategory about the kind of poles, but just put them all under Category:Tents by shape.
- @4 + @5: I agree.
- @6: Would renaming "Bungalow tents" to "Wall tents" be a good idea? Then this category would be for bungolow and cabin tents as well.
- @7: What do you mean?
- 8. The new subcategories you already made, are useful. I would like to extend them like this:
- Tents by association:
- Nomad tents [new]
- Bedouin tents (moving from Tents by association)
- Chums
- Daboytas
- Kaïmas
- Tipis
- Yurts
- Nomad tents [new]
- Tents by use:
- Beach tents
- Bivouac tents
- Camping tents [new] [+ also at "Tents by association"?]
- Glamping tents
- Tourist tents
- Emergency management tents [new]
- Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter
- Improvised tents [here or were else?]
- SG-Zelte
- Entertaining tents [new]
- Circus tents
- Marquees
- Trade tents
- Weathering protection tents
- I am still struggeling with Category:Camping tents and Category:Tourist tents, because so many files would fit here. But if one wants to complete Tents by use, there might be no other option.
- Should this discussion be extended to Category:Tents, so that more people might join this discussion? (Originally it was only about Frame tents and now we are discussing the whole Category:Tents.)
- Tents by association:
- Please add your comments.JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 8. The new subcategories you already made, are useful. I would like to extend them like this:
- @JopkeB: What's the definition of "ridge tents"? Some seem to be triangular prisms (two "roof" rectangles, one floor rectangle, and two end-wall triangles) and some to be rather more house shaped, like wall tents. I had trouble finding a universal definition of "pup tent" as well. Actually, I don't have a clear definition of "wall tent" in mind either.
- Are beach tents any type of tent used on a beach, or a specific type? If it's the former, it could just be renamed Category:Tents on beaches
- I've been trying to figure out what to do with tents you've listed under "Nomad tents ". I'm not sure that's ideal, but I don't have a better idea for now. (Nomadic peoples' tents?)
- I still don't think "tourist tents" is a thing that exists separately from "camping tents." As mentioned in the separate CFD, I think we should just delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: and others
- I think a ridge tent is any kind of tent with a "ridge": a roof in a triangle, steeply sloping and one horizontal line on top; usually there is a rectangular floor. They might be small or large, with or without a wall. Images of tents with other shapes in Category:Ridge tents should be moved to others, maybe new categories (like pyrimade tents).
- A pup tent is a small ridge tent, only for one or two persons. I think it should be a subcategory of Ridge tents.
- I think a beach tent is any kind of tent, in any kind of shape, that is used on the beach. The category could be renamed or get a clear definition (I prefer a clear definition: in my opinion, the shorter the name of a category, the better; and if I search with Google for Tents on beaches, I still get Beach tents. For me this is an indication that 'Beach tents' is more commonly used.).
- Nomadic peoples' tents is fine with me also, but Nomad tents would be in line with Category:Nomad camps.
- Tourist tents: for the discussion see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Tourist tents. I am pro Category:Tents by use. If we would like this category to be complete (as far as that is possible), then Camping tents or Tourist camping tents or Tourist tents (or something like this) should be a subcategory. But I guess that at least half of the (images of) tents are used for camping by tourists, so there should be subcategories as well (like: Tourist tents on campsites, Tourist tents in nature (or Category:Wild camping), Tourist tents on temporarily campings at events - like festivals and protests). And it is a hell of a job to add this new category to so many files. Or maybe we could use Category:Camping as a subcategory of Category:Tents by use for this purpose? But that category is not only about tents. Who has a better idea?
- Again, I am not an expert on tents at all. I trust the information on EN-Wikipedia as long it is not contradictionary with other information, and I have my own interpretations, usually based on combining information from different sources. I am open to better ideas. JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: and others
- @JopkeB: I worry that images are being categorized at best according to their written descriptions, but not consistently, and I'm not sure some of these can be used consistently. This is in Category:Bungalow tents but this is in ridge tents. This is in Category:Ridge tents but this is in Category:Pup tents. Definitions using words like "small" don't tend to be very effective on commons.
- What kind of camping doesn't involve tourists? Category:Camping is a subcategory of Category:Tourist activities. Or you're saying there are tourists tents that aren't being used for camping?
- We could easily have Category:Tents by location for things like Category:Tents on beaches or Category:Tents at markets if we wanted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree about your worries that images are not consistently categorized here. Clear definitions and descriptions can be helpful but cannot prevent this problem 100%. This unfortunately applies to many other categories. Do you have suggestions how we can reduce this problem here?
- You are right that Category:Camping is a subcategory of Category:Tourist activities, and that we could easily make Category:Tents by location. But I'm not sure how this fits into this discussion. What exact changes should be made to the proposal? Should there be a Category:Tents on campings in Category:Tents by location as well? Should Category:Tents on beaches be in Category:Tents by use as well? JopkeB (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far
[edit]- Definitions in Commons (implemented on 24-6-2021):
- Frame tents: Pop up canopies or portable gazebos, especially used for entertaining. Large tents, bigger than bungalow tents, with or without walls, for many people.
- Ridge tent: any kind of tent with a "ridge": a roof in a triangle, steeply sloping and one horizontal line on top; usually there is a rectangular floor.
- A pup tent is a small ridge tent, only for one or two persons. It should be a subcategory of Ridge tents.
- A beach tent is any kind of tent, in any kind of shape, that is used on the beach.
- Actions:
- Add clear defintions to Category:Beach tents, Category:Frame tents, Category:Ridge tents, Category:Pup tents. (Implemented on 24-6-2021)
- Images that are in subcategories that do not fit there (any longer), that do not fit into the definition, should be moved to the correct categories. For instance, images of tents with other shapes in Category:Ridge tents should be moved to other, maybe new categories (like pyramid tents). (Implemented on 24-6-2021; no new category for pyramid tents yet because there are not enough files that fit in.)
- Extend Category:Tents with new subcategories or move subcategories as follows (I left out the categories still under discussion) (implemented on 26-6-2021):
- Tents by association:
- Nomad tents [new]
- Bedouin tents (moving from Tents by association)
- Chums
- Daboytas
- Kaïmas
- Tipis
- Yurts
- Nomad tents [new]
- Tents by use:
- Beach tents
- Bivouac tents
- Emergency management tents [new]
- Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter
- Improvised tents
- SG-Zelte
- Entertaining tents [new]
- Circus tents
- Frame tents
- Marquees
- Trade tents
- Weathering protection tents
- Tents by association:
Can I (JopkeB) execute these actions?
Outstanding issues
[edit]- What should be the parent category/categories of Category:Tents? Possibilities:
- Should "bungalow tents" and "wall tents" be two seperate categories or could they be merged? And if we choose for merging: what name should the merged category have?
- Should the category Category:Tents by use be complete, so also with Category:Camping tents and/or Category:Tourist tents? Problems:
- A vast majoritiy of the tents fit into this subject.
- Many types of tents may be used for camping/by tourists as well as for other purposes.
- A solution might be (1) to mention in the description of Category:Tents by use that tourist tents have not been included here because of the problems mentioned above + reference to other categories and (2) make a proposal to delete the current Category:Tourist tents.
Please add your answers, opions, corrections, agreements, disagreements, additions and so on. JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: IMHO, tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings" (side canvases are not "walls") but can be count among "structures" - light portable structures. In my language, the equivalent of the word "wall" can include masonry walls, wooden walls, sheet metal walls, solid plastic walls, but not draperies or canvases.
- Opened tents should be categorized also under "shelters".
- Tents designed for sleeping should be categorized also into some category related to housing/residence/staying – I don't know what is the best English word for the situation when somebody stay at some place and live and sleep there for several days or weeks.
- As regards "by use" criterion, some types can be used by tourist and hikers, also by anglers, sportspeople, festival visitors, soldiers, field workers and researches, homeless people and refugees etc. etc. But we can distinguish whether the tent is destined just for sleeping (overnight stay), or also for daily stay and activities, or just for a specific use (a depot, a dining tent, meeting tent, shopping tent etc.). "Tourist tent" is meaningful indication of the original (main) purpose, although the tent can be used by anyone. Similarly, "military tent" is a suitable designation for certain types and designs of tents, although those tents can later be used by anyeone for camping, scouting, civilian infirmary etc.
- Btw., some types of light tents are called "party tents", shouldn't be this term redirected to some of the existing categories? --ŠJů (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @ŠJů: , for your input, it is good to have perspectives from several persons and languages.
- I think you are right: tents generally don't fall under the standard definition of "buildings". We need other parent categories for tents. My suggestions:
- So "wall tents" would not be correct. What would be correct?
- What do you mean by "opened tents"? Is it about portable gazebos, pop-up canopies, marquees and weathering protection tents?
- I made already a new parent category: Category:Accommodations. I think that is the closest to what you mean by "some category related to housing/residence/staying".
- What would you suggest as subcategories in Category:Tents by use?
- Perhaps there should indeed be a Category:Party tents which redirects to one of the existing categories; OR without a redirect and be a subcategory of "Tents by use". Because the question is: to which current category should it redirect?
@JopkeB:
- I agree, Temporary structures and Portable structures/objects are suitable parent categories for tents.
- "Wall tent" seems to be an established term, although the meaning of the word "wall" is a bit broadened and transferred here. (My langague has the word "stěna" for the broader meaning and the word "zeď" for the narrower one). IMHO English understand the word "wall" also primary as a firm structure, and the other meanings (a tent wall or a cell wall) are secondary, broadened. However, it is true that a wall tent is more similar to a building than an "A" tent.
- With the word "opened tent", I meant tents without "walls", opened to one or more sides. However, my comment apply especially to such tents who have a character of canvas "shelters" (not only an opened entrance).
- The word "accomodation" evokes to me a place where a person stays as a guest and is provided by any host. It seems less suitable for own house, flat or tent of any person.
- "By use" structure should be based on the current state, with possible adjustments. As regards "party tents", I'm not able to judge whether they are included or covered by some of existing categories. We would have to find several such photos and assess whether they are placed in the appropriate category, or it is appropriate to move them, or rename the category, or create a subcategory, or create just a redirect. --ŠJů (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@ŠJů: and others!
- 1: As ŠJů pointed out: tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings". So now (26-06-2021) I think the parent category of Category:Tents to indicate mobility/portability should be Category:Portable structures. Explanation: (1) a tent is a structure; (2) there is no category Mobile structures (and Category:Mobile buildings has no mobile parent category, see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Mobile buildings), so the only suitable category is Portable structures.
- 2: So if we would like to, we can use "Wall tents" as a category.
- 3: It will not be simple (in use) to have a category for Opened tents according to your definition: not all tents in Category:Frame tents are opened, so you have to make a new category with a lot of photos of frame tents and perhaps some others. The more categories a photo should be placed in, the higher the risk is that one or more will be forgotten. How necessary is it to have this new category, what would be the use of it? I am in favor or KIS: Keep It Simple, especially for end users.
- 4: "Accommodation" is for all kind of places to live, work, stay, etc. in. In Category:Accommodation buildings there is also the subcategory Category:Residential buildings, so I think tents will fit in Category:Accommodations too.
- 5 Photos of "Party tents" can at least be found in Category:Frame tents and probably in the categories by country. How would you define a "party tent"?
JopkeB (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion was not only about Frame tents, but also was about its (great-)parent category Category:Tents.
- The Common definition of Frame tents have been kept: "Pop up canopies or portable gazebos, especially used for entertaining."
- New subcategories have been made for Category:Tents to have a better subdivision: Category:Tents by association, Category:Tents by appearance and Category:Tents by use, and new subcategories for those as well.
- Bungalow tents and Wall tents seem to be about the same type of tents, perhaps even synonyms; another term about this same type of tent is Cabin tents. A "wall" may not be a good term for canvas, so "Bungalow tents" will for now be kept and also be used for cabin tents and wall tents.
- Category:Tent trailers is no longer in Category:Frame tents but in the main category Category:Tents.
- About the parent categories of Category:Tents:
- It should not be Category:Mobile buildings but Category:Portable structures because a tent is not a building, though it is a structure, and there is no Category:Mobile structures.
- It should not be Category:Temporary buildings but Category:Temporary structures for the same reason.
- Because of the staying/housing/accommodation aspect of tents Category:Accommodations has been added.
- There will be no subcategory about the kind of poles, there is just Category:Tents by shape.
- There has not yet been made a Category:Camping tents or Catego:Tents on campings as a subcategory of Category:Tents by use because about half of the current images about tents would fit in. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Tourist tents. But now Category:Tents by use is incomplete. This problem is still open for good suggestions.
- Category:Beach tents should not be renamed to Category:Tents on beaches because it has now a clear definition, "Beach tents" is shorter than "Tents on beaches" and "Beach tent" is more in use in common parlance than "Tents on beaches".
- See also 2. Actions (above, under Conlcusions so far).
Category:Tent-roofs could be confused for "roofs of tents" and is also somewhat confusing with Category:Roof tents. Could we rename to Category:Buildings with tent-roofs? Additionally, we could rename Category:Roof tents to Category:Automobile roof tents or something similarly clear. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the name Category:Tent-roofs is confusing. I also thought that this category is about roofs of tents (and made it a subcategory of the new Category:Tent parts). But looking at the photos I guess this is about tents that only exist of a roof, without panels or walls. Am I correct? If yes: there should be a description for this category. And could Category:Weathering protection tents be a subcategory as well?
- As ŠJů pointed rightly out on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/04/Category:Frame_tents#Outstanding_issues: tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings", so I would prefer Category:Structures with tent-roofs instead of Category:Buildings with tent-roofs.
- I am OK with Category:Automobile roof tents instead of Category:Roof tents. That indeed would be a better name, and more clear.
- JopkeB (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
What to do with tents that are attached to automobiles, but are not upon the roof (see picture)? Can they be included in Automobile roof tents or should we change this category to just Category:Automobile tents or Category:Tents attached to automobiles? JopkeB (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Tents supported by vehicles might also be eligible; this might function as the parent category of the current categories Category:Roof tents and Category:Tent trailers. JopkeB (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Tent-roofs should be renamed to Category:Structures with tent-roofs.
- Category:Weathering protection tents can be a subcategory.
- Category:Roof tents should be renamed to Category:Automobile roof tents.
- There will be a new category Category:Tents supported by vehicles to inlcude images of tents that are attached to automobiles, but are not upon the roof.
- Category:Automobile roof tents will be a subcategory.
I made these changes. JopkeB (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
An unnecessary and redundant duplicate of Category:Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved to the said category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- In such cases there's no need to bring to discussion, just make one of them a redirect to the other. —capmo (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: converted to redirect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- For one subcategory here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quirino Highway (Talipapa and Sangandaan, Quezon City section) (all images there are redundant and unused anyway). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
A redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved to Category:Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church of Guiguinto. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant and excess subcategory encouraging redundancy and repetition. All of its 35 files have been moved to Category:SM City San Fernando (but may fulfill no COM:FOP Philippines) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. Its only occupants, 37 image files, have been moved at Category:SM City Marilao (but some of the files now moved there pose no FOP issue). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary category encouraging redundancy and repetition. Its only contents – 4 files – have been moved to Category:Main gate of Bulacan State University – Main Campus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted works. Czech painter who died in 1986 - his works are under copyright until 2061. Vachovec1 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Vachovec1: Use COM:DR for the files uploaded and notify their uploader. The category itself doesn't need any consensus or license, CfD does not make sense. Each image must be assessed separately to see whether it has true information and whether it has been released under a free license. The main problem is that the uploader of the current 4 files declares himself to be the author and copyright holder, claiming that he created these works himself in March 2021, 35 years after the painter's death. However, it is certainly not excluded that any uploader obtains the consent of the authorized copyright heir. --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Art works by František Kleiner, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
empty. no archives MiguelAlanCS (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not empty now. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Unclear scope created by since-locked LTA DannyS712 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Management consultants by country. E4024 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- agree. Nationality of persons is impossible to determine and "by country" is usualy used on categories of professions. Elly (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was move Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"Management consultants" cannot be a subcat of "Category:Adviesorgaan". We have a "Dutch problem" around management consultant cats. E4024 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Antoine.01: I agree that "Category:Adviesorgaan" is (1) not a good name for a general category (it should be in English or it should have Belgium/Netherlands/Suriname or so in the name; in this case it looks that it is about Belgium) and (2) it looks like it is about law (because its parent categories are about law) and therefor not an approprioate parent category for "Category:Management consultants", because these consultants are about business economics, not about law. So my suggestions are: (2) remove "Category:Adviesorgaan" as a parent category from "Category:Management consultants" and (1) start a discussion about "Category:Adviesorgaan". (I pinged Antoine.01 as well because he added "Category:Adviesorgaan" to "Category:Management consultants".) JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Problem of inconsistent categorization is resolve here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Rename Category:Mountains in Corinthia Regional Unit. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Just because a peak is called "Mount Foo" (Mount Rainier, Mount Vesuvius, Mount Everest, etc.) doesn't change the fact that it's actually a mountain. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, please rename. -- Schuppi (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Bickett-Richards Cemetery and delete or redirect; the name is incorrect. See, e.g., Upper Arlington Historical Society page. Postdlf (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merged. Category:Bickett-Richard Cemetery is retained as a redirect, because many Google hits Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Fournoi Korseon or Category:Fournoi Islands? Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- EN has it under Fournoi Korseon not Fournoi Islands so the former seems more sensible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- rename, solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fournoi Korseon. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:Human Rights Day seems redundant with Category:International Human Rights Day. The wikipedia article is at en:Human Rights Day. Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Human Rights Day. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not know whether Fanny Hill was a real person or fictional character, but in any case I believe she and the book about her must be categorized separately. Now we even have a film and an actress playing her. E4024 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Fanny Hill (novel) since there are other meanings on Wikipedia and 2 hills. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose @Crouch, Swale: we don't do DABs just in case. At the moment, Commons has no other categories for other "Fanny Hill"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China is almost exclusively referred to as China. The cultural region is called Greater China. Therefore, this category should be merged to People's Republic of China. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw the nomination. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
We should clean up the China-related categories. Currently, this meta-category is focusing on the cultural region, while most of its sub-categories are focusing on the People's Republic of China (PRC). The China region also includes Taiwan, which the PRC doesn't, despite the PRC government's claim of Taiwan being its 23rd province. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- One probable option is to rename the meta-category to China (region) and focus all the subcategories to the PRC. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes china (lower case) can also mean pottery though that derives its name from the place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
We should rename this category China (region), and we should create a dab page under China. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- The use of the word 'region' is problematic in this as 'region' is usualy associated with a local part of a country. Not the reverse. Sometimes countries are grouped together as 'Balkans', 'Baltics', Middle-East, etc, but never with the mention of 'region'. By the way: Taiwan was most of the recent times historicaly independant of the Chinese mainland: 1683 - 1895 Chinese, 1895 - 1945 (before a Dutch colonial period): Japanese, After 1945, the communist party never did get a foothold in Taiwan. The original population was related to the Philipine people. The nationalist goverment had a strong en:Sinicization proces.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I assume Category:National Museum, Beirut is redundant with Category:Beirut National Museum. The wikipedia page says "National Museum of Beirut" but the museum's website says "Beirut National Museum". -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: In similar cases, I tend to support enwiki (and Wikidata) solution which seems to be more persistent and ideally should reflect worldwide view. Besides, museum's website is not working--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted in favor of Category:Beirut National Museum. --rimshottalk 15:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Realme is not a sub-brand of Xiaomi. See en:realme Larryasou (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 15:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Realme is not a sub-brand of Xiaomi. See en:realme. Larryasou (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 15:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Nadzik (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as empty in November. --rimshottalk 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as empty in November. --rimshottalk 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Wrong name. Should be "American Theatre (Butte, Montana)". Johnj1995 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I carried it to Category:American Theatre (Montana). Indeed there is no pressing reason to disambiguate, it could even be "Category:American Theatre" but "American Theatre" is too wide a concept. If you do not agree with the move, I can ask an admin to revert it, but I took this initiative to help you, Johnj1995; maybe you are not aware, but sometimes these discussions lag for years. Shall I close the discussion as "done"? --E4024 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:American Theatre (Montana), no objections. --rimshottalk 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Wrong category name, replaced (Category:AS4350-1), this empty one must be removed [18][19]. 攝影師 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
An extra category, created by me through inattention, it turns out that the correct category has already been. 攝影師 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be the same as Category:Ahoy Rotterdam. I tried redirecting the category, but was reverted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to move all the relevant files but got reverted too. nl:Rotterdam Ahoy is the name of the venue, I don't know why people keep using Ahoy Rotterdam, maybe because that is the old name. It should be Rotterdam Ahoy. DutchTina (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Ahoy Rotterdam should be moved to Category:Rotterdam Ahoy, not the other way around. It looks like the category Ahoy Rotterdam was made a long time before the other one, so that's probably why everyone keeps using that as the name. But it's not the correct name.―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and of course a similar thing should be done for all the subcategories that also have Ahoy Rotterdam in their name. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: files have been transfered, the Category:Ahoy Rotterdam has been deleted, and this discussion can be closed. -- Mdd (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Scientific laws. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Scientific laws Estopedist1 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This redirect should be deleted. Luckily, not all scientific problems are unsolved. Below Category:Unsolved scientific problems, all categories concern *unsolved* problems, so its name is appropriate. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
He or she says these images require review. But it doesn't say who should review them, or how those reviews should be conducted.
Why are the images here? Unstated. But some of the images look like they were once of a famous, notable person, and a fan, that have been cropped, to remove the non-notable fan. Examples: File:Abbie Cornish (37670707932).jpg, File:Alicia Witt (26780367076).jpg.
Checking the revision history of some of the images seems to indicate the category creator was not responding to requests from those non-notable fans. He or she seems to object to photos that include both notable people and their non-notable fans.
Why are the other images in here? Who knows.
I hope this category did not lead to any actual deletions. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- would u spend a minute reading the hatnote and the talk page first?
- "This category is a temporary holding area for images that require review for a potential COM:BLP deletion. See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself."
- Category talk:Pending removals to be checked
- --RZuo (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like the work wasn't finished and someone still needs to do it. I wouldn't advise deleting the category until the issue has been resolved. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Pending removals to be checked, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
empty, no images MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Kaiser Permanente announces $32 million for housing and homelessness in Sacramento, California (February 20, 2020)
[edit]Unnecessary category for two photos of a single, unnoteworthy event Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Photos of the collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna require written permission for use, see https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/en/press_/film_and_photo_permission. I dont'think that publication of images under free licenses required by the Commons is legitimate without such a permission. There are charges for taking or publishig images and films (https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/jart/prj3/nhm-resp/data/uploads/Presse/Preisliste_EN.pdf), so free use is obviously not allowed. Vesta(talk) 13:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Collections of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Synthwave.94 has marked the category with speedy deletion as a Empty category three times[20][21][22]. User:Tuvalkin has disputed the speedy deletion[23][24][25].
The argument that Sythwave.94 makes on AN/U is that the criteria for speedy deletion "unused and empty categories must be deleted"[26], however it states "it may be speedily deleted", not must be. While Tuvalkin has stated that it is used a maintenance category[27]. I can see the use of the category if someone does upload a photograph (not knowing FOP or ignoring it) and adds the Danse de la fontaine émergente category. --Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also in 2015 there was a CfD which resulted in the category being kept, with warning placed on the category page. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That was over files in the category rather than the category its self but now its empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That discussion was pretty much not simply about the files (which everybody agrees should be deleted) but how it is important to keep the category in order to make it easy to spot and then delete said files. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That was over files in the category rather than the category its self but now its empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: From a practical point of view, having categories to catch pictures that are likely to be copyright violations seems like a good plan. It makes it easier to find them, and could allow our upload mechanisms to warn users of the problem during the upload process. CSD C2 allows for this, since it only applies where the category is not only empty, but
unlikely to be ever meaningfully used
. Using the category to catch likely copyright violations is meaningful, so CSD C2 doesn't apply. --bjh21 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per Bjh21. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per Bjh21. This really is a non-issue. If there's been repeated copyright issues with these images in the past then as BJH states this makes a great maintenence tool. –Davey2010Talk 13:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. Exceptional case, when we keep empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Archdiocesan Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament (Santa Cruz Parish Church of Nuestra Señora del Pilar) 2019
[edit]An unnecessary duplicate of Category:Santa Cruz Church (Manila), only made "different" by the use of the titular designation which is irrelevant in Commons if the designation also refers to the church. All files have been moved to either Category:Exterior of Santa Cruz Church (Manila) or Category:Interior of Santa Cruz Church (Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: category redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Misspelling Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Explain further or close this. We don't delete things because they're misspelled, we fix them.
- You've already moved this category to Category:Har Raipur (Tin koni) Bathinda. Presumably that's the spelling fix you want, so we're done here. Category:Har Haipur (Tin koni) Bathinda is now a redirect to that new target. Redirects are good: even if they're the wrong spelling, they can help someone who falls into that same wrong spelling to find the right place. Only if they're actively harmful would they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley It's was just a spelling mistake by the uploader. I am not sure if it's a helpful to keep this category. It's not like a common misspelling on the name. But if it's alright to keep then sure. I have no issues. Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request Choclo is a common name for large kerneled corn in the Andes but there are many varieties from many countries. I believe its best to categorize photos of corn by country of origin- not the common name which can be confusing and ambiguous and lead people to miscategorize varieties. Not all Peruvian corn is choclo and this common name shouldn't include varieties of corn from Mexico like this category originally had. It just makes it easier to draw a line between varieties (so you don't have to) and organize. --ThayneT (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:National Museum Riyadh redundant with Category:National Museum of Saudi Arabia? Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: merge, it is very likely Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:National Museum of Saudi Arabia. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is it relevant to group esperantists by cultural region? Delete this and Category:Esperantists by region nad Category:Esperantists of the Americas -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Any person who is "of Latin America" or "of the Americas" is also "of" a specific country, so country categories should suffice. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6@Themightyquill: so I guess we should delete whole tree of Category:Esperantists by continent? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. It's useful to group people by continent to avoid having to wade through by-country categories. The category being discussed here is different because Latin America is a region that crosses continent boundaries. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6@Themightyquill: so I guess we should delete whole tree of Category:Esperantists by continent? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Mobile buildings redundant with Category:Portable buildings? The latter is a subcategory of Category:Portable structures but the former has no mobile-related parent category, aside from Category:Manufactured homes. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd expect something mobile to have wheels, or to be some kind of sled or watercraft, while something portable just needs to be able to be transported easily, e.g. by means of a vehicle. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it depends on what "easy" means in this context. It isn't super hard to move a "mobile home," but "mobile" is sort of a misnomer since they can technically move regular houses. It has to do with money and time more then anything. So categories like Category:Portable structures and Category:Caravans (mobile home) just get at better as to what these categories are specifically about. Another way to do it would be to create categories based purely on architectural/material terms. For instance Category:Demountable structures or Category:shipping container buildings Etc. Etc. Something along those lines gets rid of the potentially ambiguous value judgements that I just don't think people having to categorize media should have to do deal with, let alone can. Like what qualifies as a "mobile building." (You could almost include teepees and sheds/backyard storage buildings in that BTW, but it would be ridiculous to do so because there's obviously a real life difference between a metal shed and a Manufactured homes that really negates any need for them to share a parent category like Category:Mobile buildings). --Adamant1 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Portable buildings. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Category:The National Museum of Computing UK redundant with Category:National Museum of Computing ? Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Category:The National Museum of Computing UK is wrong (that's not the title), although Category:National Museum of Computing, UK would conform to our usual naming and is arguably clearer than Category:National Museum of Computing 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, but under Category:National Museum of Computing. No need for comma qualifier if only such museum exists--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged into Category:National Museum of Computing. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between a Lit à la française and a Four poster bed? Can these two categories be merged OR have both distinctive definitions, explaining the differences? JopkeB (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bohème21: Would you please give your reaction to my question, since you started this category? (You may answer in French.) JopkeB (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Canopy beds, and now the en WP article, have galleries which needs updating with this information. Also the Wikidata is wonky; for that cat, it describe a canopy bed as "similar" to a four-poster. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: I gather from your changes in EN Wikipedia, especially the caption under the first photo in the gallery ("Four-poster bed or Lit à la française"), that you think both categories are the same. Is that right? Can I merge both categories? JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have changed the English and Dutch definitions in Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fix, JopkeB. A "lit à la française" seems to be a fourposter with a full-size tester or canopy (also a rather infamous etching, which does not depict a lit à la française, but was nicknamed after it anyway). A borderline case might be a lit à la Dauphine, which is not a "lit à la française" and would have four... metal poles, as they are curved, thus not really (wooden) posts, and a small canopy, so I think the correspondence is probably close enough. "Category:Half-tester beds" is English for at least some sorts of "lit à l'ange", specifically the "lit a demi-ciel". This MET article[28] is useful, and cites two sources for naming: Le Mobilier domestique. Vocabulaire typologique, 1987, by Nicole de Reyniès, which I cannot access, and the Dictionnaire de l'ameublement et de la décoration depuis le XIIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours, 1887,by Henry Havard, which is available online:[29][30][31][32]. To call this work digressive and completionist is understatement; it runs to the better part of a thousand pages, per volume, of which there are four. And the vocabulary is words like "lampas" (that's the English translation), and he assumes the reader knows it. And having read most of the article on beds, which even the author says might be accused of being a bit overly long and detailed, and the shorter and more useful following articles on the various types, I conclude that beds were a dominant status symbols in the French court for some time, bed innovation went wild, and the ontology is arcane and not entirely consistent, and more elaborate than is likely to exist in English especially given the use of French loanwords. Worse, some of these phrases have completely separate modern meanings (e.g. a "lit à l'italienne" is modernly two beds joined together). I will attempt to reach some more useful conclusions soon; I'm pretty sure some of the categorization I've done is wrong because it's overbroad. Help would be welcome, so I'm pinging the MET's W-i-R. Another mildly useful source in French.[33] HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: Thank you for your research. So there is much more to it than I initially thought. I'll wait to make any changes until there are more conclusions. JopkeB (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fix, JopkeB. A "lit à la française" seems to be a fourposter with a full-size tester or canopy (also a rather infamous etching, which does not depict a lit à la française, but was nicknamed after it anyway). A borderline case might be a lit à la Dauphine, which is not a "lit à la française" and would have four... metal poles, as they are curved, thus not really (wooden) posts, and a small canopy, so I think the correspondence is probably close enough. "Category:Half-tester beds" is English for at least some sorts of "lit à l'ange", specifically the "lit a demi-ciel". This MET article[28] is useful, and cites two sources for naming: Le Mobilier domestique. Vocabulaire typologique, 1987, by Nicole de Reyniès, which I cannot access, and the Dictionnaire de l'ameublement et de la décoration depuis le XIIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours, 1887,by Henry Havard, which is available online:[29][30][31][32]. To call this work digressive and completionist is understatement; it runs to the better part of a thousand pages, per volume, of which there are four. And the vocabulary is words like "lampas" (that's the English translation), and he assumes the reader knows it. And having read most of the article on beds, which even the author says might be accused of being a bit overly long and detailed, and the shorter and more useful following articles on the various types, I conclude that beds were a dominant status symbols in the French court for some time, bed innovation went wild, and the ontology is arcane and not entirely consistent, and more elaborate than is likely to exist in English especially given the use of French loanwords. Worse, some of these phrases have completely separate modern meanings (e.g. a "lit à l'italienne" is modernly two beds joined together). I will attempt to reach some more useful conclusions soon; I'm pretty sure some of the categorization I've done is wrong because it's overbroad. Help would be welcome, so I'm pinging the MET's W-i-R. Another mildly useful source in French.[33] HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Canopy beds, and now the en WP article, have galleries which needs updating with this information. Also the Wikidata is wonky; for that cat, it describe a canopy bed as "similar" to a four-poster. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've come to the conclusion that the terms used by French nobles in the 1700s are pretty useless for categorizing canopy beds, with a few exceptions. These were fashion terms, and their meanings changed as the fashions changed. For instance:
- "lit à colonnes", "lits à pavillon", and "lit à quenouilles" are used by some as synonyms, but others draw distinctions. Different distinctions.
- Historic sources use "lit à duchess" and "lit à l'impériale" both as two independent traits and as synonyms. "Lit à la duchess" seems to originally have meant any bed with its headboard against wall, which was later called a "lit de bout". "Lit à l'impériale" implied both specific shapes of some, including one that seems the same as a "lit à la polonaise", and also any dome or dome-like shape, and had subterminology. Or just a "flying canopy". Whatever that is. "Lit en dôme" may mean something different sometimes, "lit à la dauphine" is sometimes a synonym and sometimes seems more like a "lit a la polonaise".
- "lit a l'italienne" can mean anything from a way of tying the drapery to a type of bed recently adopted from Italy, like, say, a domed bed (see above), or a bed with Ancient-Rome-style decorations. Or a bed with symmetrical head-and foot boards, also called a "lit a deux dossiers" or "lit de travers"
- a "lit de baldachin" can be any bed with it's side against the wall. But once that starts getting called a "lit a la romaine", it means any canopy bed.
- A bed with raised ends and one raised side may be a "lit a la turque", a "lit a la sultane", a "lit a la romaine", a "lit à l'anglaise", or several other things.
- The Empire beds are often named after objects. Like that giant ceiling-mounted fake shell suspending the drapes (lit à coquille), or the fake carved giant tulip (lit a tulipe), of the three giant arrows, as long as the bed is wide, sticking out from the wall as if shot into it and supporting the canopy (lit a flèche). At least this is clear, but these are too rare to be useful.
- a "lit d'ange" needs a full-width non-full-length canopy (a "lit a demi-ciel"), and may need not to have a footboard, or sometimes it does have a footboard, And it may or may not need an exposed frame with carved crown moulding around the canopy. And it may nearly mean "lit de parade" in some periods.
- "lit d'alcove" means a "lit à balustre", until balustrades go out of fashion and it comes to mean a bed in a niche in the wall, as at Category:Alcove bed. "Lit à balustre" is sometimes a synonym for "lit de parade", "lit de paré", "lit de parement". But sometimes not, when the fashion is not for balustrades.
- So... I am strongly in favour of not using any term that does not directly describe something we can see in the pictures (suspension methods are particularly hard to see). And having category names in English, since they will be descriptive, and putting in the French terms in the notes, where inconsistency can be documented. As an example, I've made Category:Beds behind balustrades.
- I suggest starting with beds by time period. There is a sharp divide between the medieval canopy beds, with suspended canopies and no exposed bedframe, and the Renaissance beds, with exposed frames that have lots and lots and lots of fancy woodcarving. This was caused by the invention of bed bolts and removable-slat bed bases, making the bedframes portable, and by the rich people becoming more sedentary. In the 1700s, the fashion changed a lot. Things like flat-panel fixed corner drapes went in and out. So dividing by fashion will divide by time and vice-versa. There was already Category:Medieval beds, and I made Category:Renaissance beds as non-controversial. I suggest that we divide the rest into "Ancien-Regime and Restoration" and "Empire". The periods of French history really make a difference. Republican beds were presumably not particularly ostentatious; if I find any I'll deal with them. I'd suggest sorting by time period first, and then sorting by style if needed. Time period and style correlate strongly, so that would make the work much easier. Potential sub-sorting could be by canopy shape (round or rectangular), size (oversize, full-size, full-width but short, and [rare] full-length but narrow), and location (end, side, center). There are also medieval beds with curtains but no canopies, and some late ones with dagged valences; I'd suggest a cat for them in case of overcrowding of Category:Medieval beds.
Opinions? HLHJ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, you did a lot of research!
- Odd that the French terms vary so much over time; I agree that we can not use them for (new) categories, unless they are still used nowadays with clear definitions. But in general I would like them to be in English.
- I agree that we should using terms that do directly describe something we can see in the pictures. I am fine with sub-sorting by canopy shape (round or rectangular), size (oversize, full-size, full-width but short, and full-length but narrow), and location (end, side, center).
- Yes, beds by time period or style is also a good idea. Then there is an extra entrance on period/style as well. I prefer by style because that is more specific (and for me more clear) than time period. For instance: the 20th-century or the period after WW-II might be time periods, but there are many styles involved, even coexisting at the same time.
- About the Renaissance beds: nearly all of them are four poster beds. Should we add Category:Four poster beds to the category or to each file?
- I am not familiar with all the different styles in France and the differences between them, so I trust you in dividing the rest of the beds into these styles.
- I am not at all against sorting by style, but I'd be a lot easier to do period first. Some Ren beds have separate canopies, on four posts that are NOT the bedposts (the earlier suspended-canopy beds had separate canopies, and amalgamating them was an innovation). Should they be separate? Or do we count them all as four-posters? If so, add to category. If not, add to subcat. HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@HLHJ: What is the status of this discussion? I lost track. Which questions are still wating for an answer? What is yet to be done? How can I help? Is the overview at Category:Canopy beds still good or should categories be renamed, be merged or should there be extra categories? And the key question: Can Category:Lit à la française and Category:Four poster beds be merged? JopkeB (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Difference between a Lit à la française and a four poster bed
[edit]- @JopkeB and HLHJ: Bonjour, no, they can not. Merci JopkeB pour ta persistance et à vous deux pour votre engagement. Je ne prends que tardivement connaissance de la question en tête de discussion et vous prie de m’en excuser. Il n’y a, à l’exception de leur caractéristique de « lit de bout » et de « lit à baldaquin » (ou « lit à dais ») et de leur forme cubique, pas de similitude entre
- le lit à la française, lit de bout à dais (ou à baldaquin), appartenant au type de lits « à rideaux », est monté sur une structure cubique d’une extrême simplicité (en bois, voire en fer !). Il est l’œuvre d’un tapissier. La structure qui n'est d'aucun intérêt est entièrement « encourtinée », c’est-à-dire dissimulée par les tentures.
- le lit à colonnes (ou à piliers), lit de bout à baldaquin en bois massif (généralement en bois de chêne) est l’œuvre d’un menuisier spécialisé en association avec un sculpteur. Les colonnes, richement sculptés restent visibles même quand le baldaquin est garni de courtines (rideaux). On peut distinguer deux formes :
- lit de bout à quatre colonnes
- lit de bout à un haut chevet de tête et deux colonnes, abusivement appelé lit à « quatre » colonnes (correctement lit à colonnes ou lit à piliers).
- en conclusion : le premier se distingue par la qualité des étoffes couvrant une structure médiocre (dissimulée), le second par celle des piliers sculptés (exhibées).
- Catégorisation : ces deux types de lit sont à catégoriser au même niveau sous la Category:Canopy beds. Bonne continuation, --Bohème21 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dear @Bohème21: , Thank you for your explanation. I understand that:
- 1) The categories about Lit à la française and Four poster beds cannot be merged.
- 2) You can recognize a photo with a Lit à la française by the curtains: they totally hide the four posters. So the gallery on Category:Canopy beds shows a wrong photo of Lit à la française, File:ChenonceauChambredeDianedePoitiersBed.jpg is wrongly categorized as Lit à la française. Is that true? Fixed on 12-7-2021, JopkeB
- 3) The opposite is a Lit à colonnes: a canopy bed in solid wood with richly sculpted columns that remain visible even when the canopy is adorned with curtain walls. So there are a lot of photographs wrongly categorized as Four poster beds and should be in Category:Lit à la française. Is that correct? I tried to fix this also on 12-7-2021, but I am not sure whether all the Lits à française are now out of the category Four poster beds; some fullfil the description but have nice woodcarving as well. JopkeB
- 4) A Lit à colonnes might have two forms: four posters or two posters. Are the two-posters indeed called Lit à l'ange (for a small canopy) and Lit à la duchesse (for a large canopy)? But on the photos in their categories you cannot see the posters; is this correct? If not: Can you show me photos of true two-posters beds?
- Dear @Bohème21: , Thank you for your explanation. I understand that:
-
Lit à la française -
Lit à colonnes/Four poster bed -
Lit à l'ange -
Lit à la duchesse
- 5) Category:Lit à la française should in your opinion not be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds (though it has four posters, you only don't see them), but be a subcategory of Category:Canopy beds.
- Is my understanding of your explanation correct? JopkeB (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: , bonjour, 1) correct ; 2) true x 2 ; 3a) correct lit à colonnes (common use) or lit à piliers (prefered by some historiens of decorative arts) ; 3b) Correct, due to forced mass categorization? 4a) normally the headboard of a four-poster bed is placed between the two posts. Instead of those you may find a very high sculptered board supporting the (wooden) tester. Difficult to distinguish on the available files. I guess there are not many. Keep them in the four-poster category. Do not confuse with some duchess reinforced with 2 front posts added for security. 4b) The dangerous overhanging lit à la duchesse canopies are usually fixed on such high boards or wall-mounted and often secured by chains (suspended). The lit à l'ange is a shorter version of the lit à la duchesse. 5) Correct. It should be under Cat:Canopy beds. It has not necessarily posts but can be mounted on any cuboid structure. Artistic value is not required. It takes me time to write in english. I hope it is not too lousy. Regards, --Bohème21 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pardon d'avoir détruit des catagorizations que je n'ai pas compris; j'éviterai de le repeter, en essaiant de les décrire tant que personne ne comprendrait pas. Please also pardon my French, especially if I fail to write in a polite tone. I am not trying to be rude!
- La difference entre les lits de menuiserie compliquées et les lits tapissées est importante et facile à reconnaitre dans un photo, et je trouve que c'est une bonne distinction de categorization. Category:Renaissance beds contient beaucoup de lits à colonnes de menuiserie compliquées d'un autre époque. Mais plusières ont des ciels séparées, et non part des lits; par example, la "Great Bed of Ware" ci-dessus ("Lit à colonnes/Four poster bed").
- "Post" ne me semble pas tout a fait d'être synonyme de "colonne". "Post" serait aussi traduit par "quillion", ou "pillier", une autre nom de membre de compression. Dans l'usage quotidienne de "four-poster bed", des "posts" encourtinées seraient probablement inclus (l'OED dit simplement "[bed] having four posts to support canopy", et "bedpost" est décrit ansi: "upright support of bed". "Post", c'est plûtot "fencepost" que la menuiserie élegante). Category:Lit à la française se décrit comme "Lit de bout à un seul chevet et dont le dais, supporté par quatre piliers droits, est de même dimension que la couchette." Un "Lit de bout", c'est un lit avec le bout contre le mur? Category:Four-poster beds dit:
English: Distinguish Category:Canopy beds with a ceiling (canopy) fixed on the wall, with or without posters, see on the left and Category:Four poster beds with a ceiling on four poles (posters), see on the right.
[Distinguish Category:Canopy beds with a ceiling (canopy) fixed to the wall or ceiling, with or without posts (as on the left) and Category:Four-poster beds with a ceiling on four poles or posts (as on the right).]
Français : Différencier Category:Canopy beds (lits à baldaquin) avec le ciel de lit fixé au mur, avec ou sans colonnes, voir sur la gauche et Category:Four poster beds (lits à colonnes) avec le ciel de lit reposant sur des colonnes, voir sur la droite.
- Alors, un ciel fixé au mur ou bien au plafond, mais avec quatre colonnes/posts quand-même (ça existe, ça?), n'est pas un "Four-poster bed"? Les definitions de Henry Havard de "lit à colonnes" ne me semblent aussi pas tout a fait en accords avec eux-mêmes. Ils nous faut des définitions plus claires.
- "Four-poster beds" may be unclear in French. I'm starting to think there isn't a good direct translation. The English term does not seem to have the same meaning as any French term. Well, no French term whose meaning is agreed upon by the sources I've read. Unless we resort to pure descriptions, making some terms clear in multiple languages may require some careful operational definitions. Four-poster bed = any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members? un lit avec, ou sous, un ciel soutenu de quatre soutiens verticales?
- Je suis prêt a traduir des définitions françaises en anglais, si vous êtes prêtes a lire et corriger, mais evidement je n'ai pas tout compris. Un travail collaboratif serait ansi peut-être necessaire. HLHJ (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your English is fine, @Bohème21: , I can read it without the need of a translation program. I fixed some badly categorized files, see above in green.
- I can very well live with the definition: Four-poster bed = any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members. It is clear and easy to understand. Perhaps we should make a subcategory for Four-poster beds with woodcarving, for instance for des lits à colonnes de menuiserie compliquées. And make a category for Side-mounted canopy beds (including or instead of Lits à la turque), as a subcategory of Canopy beds (but this may be part of the broader discussion). JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your English is fine, @Bohème21: , I can read it without the need of a translation program. I fixed some badly categorized files, see above in green.
Other canopy beds
[edit]- Sans vouloir offenser personne, je tiens à dire que le classement des lits à baldaquin dont HLHJ souligne à juste titre les difficultés ne peut pas être fait sans compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière.
- Hors sujets et suite de la discussion : Il me semble que les autres questions abordées ci-dessus (classement par période, époque, etc.) sont hors sujet sur cette page concernant les lits à la française. Je propose de les transférer pour une discussion plus générale sur Category talk:Canopy beds (où j'y répondrai volontiers), ce qui permettra, avec votre consentement, de clore cette discussion. Bonne continuation, --Bohème21 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Vous avez raison, Bohème21, je trouve aussi q'un séparation des discussions serait ûtile. Je ne suis pas offensé; être offensé d'un qui n'essaie pas à offenser? Que j'evite un tel stupidité. Et puis, mes modifications étaient agaçantes. Si les catégories ne sont pas compréhensibles sans la compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière, ils ne sons pas convenables à Commons, mais las compétence et les connaissances sérieuses sont bien necessires à la formation de ces categorisations, et j'espère qu'on profiterons de vos connaisances. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. I created a discussion page, see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy_beds (a discussion page has more reach that a category talk page). Please check whether all the points to be discussed are mentioned and are well worded. JopkeB (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Vous avez raison, Bohème21, je trouve aussi q'un séparation des discussions serait ûtile. Je ne suis pas offensé; être offensé d'un qui n'essaie pas à offenser? Que j'evite un tel stupidité. Et puis, mes modifications étaient agaçantes. Si les catégories ne sont pas compréhensibles sans la compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière, ils ne sons pas convenables à Commons, mais las compétence et les connaissances sérieuses sont bien necessires à la formation de ces categorisations, et j'espère qu'on profiterons de vos connaisances. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Suite lit à la française
[edit]@JopkeB and HLHJ: : bonjour. Pour information, suite aux interrogations de JopkeB concernant la structure du lit à la française, j'ai posé là un lien vers une rare photographie de l'intérieur d'un tel lit. Cordialement, --Bohème21 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@JopkeB and HLHJ: : bonjour, voici un article avec une autre image montrant la structure d'un lit à la française en cours de restauration, entièrement dégarnie. On voit bien que c'est un travail de menuiserie (sinon de "charpente") plutôt grossier et en rien comparable aux bois de lits sculptés des four poster beds. Cordialement, --Bohème21 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merci,Bohème21, c'est bien utile, cet article! Je crois que l'ontologie est plus simple, ici. "Post" désigne pour la plupart plutôt un travail en charpente grossier ("pole", c'est plutôt rond, mais on ne dit pas "four-pole bed"). "Pillar", "column", ou, si courte, "baluster" sont plutôt des travails en menuiserie fins (mais on dit "a four-poster bed with turned and fluted columns" et non "four-column bed"). "Upright", c'est génerel: une element structurelle vérticale. C'est possible qu'on dit "four-poster", même pour le Great Bed of Ware, par ce que la charpente du moyen-age etait si simple; on pourrait demander aux lexicographes. Égale, "four-poster" ne dit rien du grossière ou visíbilité du menuiserie (même pour les lits stupidement prétensieuses[34][35]). Seulment que le ciel peut être supporté de dessous aux quatre coins. HLHJ (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
-
The Great Bed of Ware, commonly called a four-poster, although it has ornate pillars and a solid full-height headboard. English Rénaissance. -
A simple bed of the same period, also English; would also be called a four-poster
Conclusions
[edit]- There is a difference between a Lit à la française and a Four poster bed. These two categories cannot be merged.
- Lit à la française: a simple bed with a full-size canopy, the curtains totally hide the posters (when there are any posters). Done
- Lit à colonnes: a canopy bed in solid wood with richly sculpted columns that remain visible even when the canopy is adorned with curtain walls. A Lit à colonnes might have four posters or two posters. Done definition is in Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy beds#Proposal, preliminary conclusions
- Four-poster bed: any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members. Done definition is in Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy beds#Proposal, preliminary conclusions
- Category:Lit à la française should not be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds because it has not necessarily four posts and it can also be mounted on a cuboid structure.
- The discussion about other sorts of canapy beds has been transferred to and continued on Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy beds.
HLHJ and Bohème21 do you agree? Please give your opion. --JopkeB (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Since there was no answer for over two months, I close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Category:Lit à la française should not be merged with nor be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds. More conclusions: see above. --JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Empty category for a nonexistent country. Liz (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- There was a 12th-century Kingdom of Africa, see w:en:Kingdom of Africa and articles in other Wikipedia languages. However, the category text specifies a modern non-existent kingdom. We should change the text and include File:Regnonormanno1160.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete currently misleading. If we will have more files about this historical kingdom, then we can re-create the category--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Flags and coat of arms uploaded by User:DownTownRich. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted empty category, apparent hoax/troll -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Notice This is one of the category-for-discussion (CFD) which falls into WikiProject Chemistry. For more CFDs, see Commons:WikiProject_Chemistry/Deletion_requests#Categories_for_discussion
Es gibt bisher nur zwei bekannte Minerale, die die oben genannte Bedingung der Zusammensetzung erfüllen: Ertixiit (Na2Si4O9) und Natrosilit. Zählt man die wasserhaltigen Minerale dazu, gibt es weitere 8 Minerale: Chesnokovit, Grumantit, Kanemit, Kenyait, Magadiit, Makatit, Revdit und Yegorovit.
So far, there are only two known minerals that meet the above-mentioned condition of composition: Ertixiite (Na2Si4O9, no category) and Natrosilite. If you add the water-containing minerals, there are another 8 minerals: Chesnokovite, Grumantite, Kanemite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Makatite, Revdite und Yegorovite.
Greetings Ra'ike T C 20:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are two questions here: Should this category exist? What should be included in it?
- The first is obviously yes (we can close this now). As the nominator themself notes there are valid members for this category. Two of them are already here: Kenyaite and Magadiite. The fact they're subcategories, not images here directly, doesn't change that. Yes, they're rare - but that's just not relevant.
- Secondly, the question can be re-stated as "What is a sodium silicate mineral?" or more clearly, "Do we take a broad or narrow definition?" A mineral that's purely a sodium silicate is obviously included. However what else is allowed? Hydration? - I would certainly say yes. Any WP:RS definition of "sodium silicate mineral" begins by listing the three best known: Kanemite, Kenyaite, Magadiite. Combinations with metals other than sodium? - I would say no. At present we have Albite here and that's always described as a "sodium aluminium silicate". This is a common and even more well-known mineral as one of the textbook standards for plagioclase feldspars. The whole point of which is that they're a continuum of metals substituting for each other. They're an important group, but we should categorise them under Plagioclase etc., not here.
- There is another possibility: we have many minerals where there is a "doping" effect: ruby and sapphire are varieties of corundum or aluminium oxide which only differ in having minuscule quantities of particular metals. Although they're best known under the specific names, they're also validly regarded as "corundum". Minerals are not reagant grade in their purity, Commons should be realistic in this. I don't know if there's anything similar for sodium silicates, as varieties of minerals within this category. If such do exist, I'd support their inclusion here. But my mineralogical knowledge doesn't stretch that far for sodium silicates. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I created this category simply because there were two very distinct types of images in Category:Sodium silicates - photos of minerals and chemical structure images of chemical compounds. I believe the two types of images warrant separate categorization, so I moved the mineral photos to their own category. If there is a better way to categorize the photos of minerals that were in Category:Sodium silicates that does not require Category:Sodium silicate minerals, then I do not object to deletion of this category. I do not know enough about mineral classification to have a strong opinion of the best way forward in that regard. Marbletan (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ra'ike: Any reactions to the comments above? --Leyo 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo: Was soll ich dazu noch sagen? Wenn die beiden mineralogischen Leichtgewichte glauben, dass diese Kategorie so unglaublich wichtig ist, dann sollen sie sie behalten (auf Commons wird sowieso jeder Müll behalten). Ich hatte diese Löschdiskussion ehrlich gesagt auch schon vergessen, denn selbst bei den normalen Mineralkategorien gibt es so viel zu tun, dass man nicht wirklich hinterher kommt. Mehr als die oben genannten Argumente habe ich nicht, aber die Category:Silicate minerals nach chemischer Zusammensetzung zu unterteilen halte ich immer noch für absolut sinnlos, weil ein Fass ohne Boden. Allenfalls kann man sie noch nach ihrer Kristallstruktur unterteilen. Diese findet man ja auch in Category:Silicates (Inosilicates, Cyclosilicates, Phyllosilicates,...) -- Ra'ike T C 21:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo and Ra'ike: Generell muss man sagen, dass die Category:Silicate minerals ein großes Durcheinander an Unterkategorien hat. Es ist also zu begrüßen, das zu vereinheitlichen. Stellen sich zwei Fragen: 1. nach was soll man vereinheitlichen und 2. hilft diese Kat dabei. Zu 1.: die übliche Unterkategorie für ähnliche Kategorie scheint mir die Einzelmineral-Kat zu sein, keine zusammenfassenden Kategorien nach chemischer Zusammensetzung. Daraus folgt für mich für 2. dass diese Kategorie außerhalb der sinnvollen Kategorisierung ist und daher gelöscht werden sollte. --Orci Disk. 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statements. What about the current subcategories (Ertixiite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Natrosilite)? Should they be moved to Category:Silicate minerals? --Leyo 10:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, because they're sodium silicates. The point is that such minerals are rare, not unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Every sodium silicate mineral is also a silicate mineral. "Sodium silicate mineral" is also a bad discription, because it mixes chemical and mineralogical nomenclature. How rare minerals are is completely irrelevant. Orci Disk. 11:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ja, die können einfach in die Oberkat. -- Orci Disk. 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, because they're sodium silicates. The point is that such minerals are rare, not unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statements. What about the current subcategories (Ertixiite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Natrosilite)? Should they be moved to Category:Silicate minerals? --Leyo 10:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo and Ra'ike: Generell muss man sagen, dass die Category:Silicate minerals ein großes Durcheinander an Unterkategorien hat. Es ist also zu begrüßen, das zu vereinheitlichen. Stellen sich zwei Fragen: 1. nach was soll man vereinheitlichen und 2. hilft diese Kat dabei. Zu 1.: die übliche Unterkategorie für ähnliche Kategorie scheint mir die Einzelmineral-Kat zu sein, keine zusammenfassenden Kategorien nach chemischer Zusammensetzung. Daraus folgt für mich für 2. dass diese Kategorie außerhalb der sinnvollen Kategorisierung ist und daher gelöscht werden sollte. --Orci Disk. 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per arguments presented in the nomination and in the discussion. --Leyo 13:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Quirino Highway (Caloocan City section). Unnecessary category encouraging redundancy and replication. All 27 files have been transferred to Category:Arnaiz Avenue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also
- Category:Arnaiz Avenue (Makati City section) - all files have also been moved at Category:Arnaiz Avenue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
If I'm not correct, this word also means people or women from Venezuela, and that's why we have so many images unrelated to the airline here? Maybe I have it wrong. Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to disambig. Category:Venezolana (airline) and Category:People of Venezuela Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with above. Sensible approach. Ardfern (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed to a disambiguation page per discussion. GeorgHH • talk 15:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Move to Category:Churches in Reinbek. It's a subcategory of Category:Churches in Kreis Stormarn. Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Churches in Reinbek. GeorgHH • talk 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of this category? If fully implemented, it would contain about a million or more photos. Delete, and delete the subcategories. MPF (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are many categories with 'a million or more photos', and they are sub-categorized to sort them, which is exactly what should be done here if there are enough files to warrant sub-cats (as some already exist). As for the point of the category, it is simply part of the general "'quantity' 'item'" category scheme. 'Counting' categories have been discussed before and while debated, ultimately they were kept. Josh (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral part of a Category:Animals by quantity scheme--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it's part of the whole category-tree, for example ...
- Greets Triplec85 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Similar category trees exists: Quality images, Featured pictures, Valued images, date categories, color categories, shape categories, ... . Why not cardinality categories? --XRay 💬 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I see it similar to Triplec or XRay. There is now a very extensive and constantly expanding category tree on this topic. Should you delete every single category now? There will be people looking for pictures with, for example, exactly 2 dogs. That's what these categories are for.--Geoprofi Lars (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support And it has a deeper structure that fits with the whole category tree:
- For all these categories, the Category:1 animal is the useful, appropriate main category
...
- All Categories by quantity always go from 1,2,3,4 ... to about ~ 12, some more ... and end with many.
- This whole structure from beginning from 1, ..., to many should of course be kept. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- All Categories by quantity always go from 1,2,3,4 ... to about ~ 12, some more ... and end with many.
@MPF, Triplec85, Geoprofi Lars, and Estopedist1: Closed (no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Please delete this to pave the way for move of Category:Cagayan de Oro City to this name (to align with the title of enwiki article) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 12:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 and HueMan1: can we retain Category:Cagayan de Oro as a redirect?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: "City" suffix here is unnecessary. There are no other places in the world with the same name, and therefore the most practical and logical name is w:Cagayan de Oro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: "City" suffix here is unnecessary. There are no other places in the world with the same name, and therefore the most practical and logical name is w:Cagayan de Oro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 and HueMan1: can we retain Category:Cagayan de Oro as a redirect?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Should Watermills be a subcategory or a supercategory of water wheels? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC) @Elkost:
- Watermills are mills powered by water: they grind something, most commonly flour. All (sic) watermills have a water wheel, however water wheels are also used for many other industrial processes that for not involve milling: mine drainage, sawmills, industrial workshops, blowing air at furnaces.
- Watermills hould be the subcat, not the supercat of water wheels. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Categorize Category:Watermills under Category:Water wheels | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
- Comment This topic has been re-opened with a new CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Watermills. Josh (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a feeling like this is an invented plate name. I would prefer to have the original (local language) name of this dish, in case it has one. Probably this is more a definition description than a proper name. (Like "porotos partidos" in South America, or "etli bezelye" in Turkish) This cat must be re-named independently from my concerns, due to wrong use of capital letters. Therefore take the opportunity to find a better name, please. Users that know the Philippine cuisine? E4024 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Estopedist1 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Piedmont University as Piedmont College became Piedmont University in April 2021 (see https://nowhabersham.com/piedmont-college-changes-its-name/). TSventon (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The en wiki category has been speedily updated to en:Category:Piedmont University. User:E4024, please could you close this nomination as well? TSventon (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not sure of that. When an institution is known for a certain name, an official name change is not an issue for WPs. They can and must record the change but may prefer to continue using the old name for a while. (I know this is not WP and I read what you wrote above.) In Commons we have a mixed-sex high-school under a "Girls" name (I made it) because everybody knows that school as such. When the common name changes we may change it here, not when an official signed a document to change it. I have no objection to move this cat but let us expect someone else to do the needed. You may write a note at the Administrators Board to ask help. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support: to be renamed per enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not sure of that. When an institution is known for a certain name, an official name change is not an issue for WPs. They can and must record the change but may prefer to continue using the old name for a while. (I know this is not WP and I read what you wrote above.) In Commons we have a mixed-sex high-school under a "Girls" name (I made it) because everybody knows that school as such. When the common name changes we may change it here, not when an official signed a document to change it. I have no objection to move this cat but let us expect someone else to do the needed. You may write a note at the Administrators Board to ask help. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Category moved to Piedmont University. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This province (like all provinces of France) were replaced with departments in 1790. We already have categories for the present-day regions but adding categories for the historic provinces would make every single category a mess. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- delete, according to Ricky81682. --Bohème21 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I propose deleting this category. It seems to be duplicated by its own subcategory. Auntof6 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
We do not categorize images by quality. Coats of arms of users and Special or fictional coats of arms already do what is to be done. If someone wants to create a collection of bad coats of arms, the right way to do that is with a gallery on a subpage of the userpage. (I would probably add File:Coat of arms of Transkei.png and File:Sade-Blason-Net.gif, and give and honorable mention to File:OSDLPR CoA.svg.) Watchduck (quack) 10:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- What does "fake" mean? Is that the same as "fictional" (in which case, merge) or does it mean "poor quality", as for the pejorative comment "Extremely poor job or Photoshop fakery, obviously made by children or teenagers." on this category page? Some of these images are in multiple of these cats.
- It is also impossibly difficult to determine "fictional" status for some arms, even WP:N notable arms such as Sealand or Melchizedek, where these are granted from some micronation outside the medievally-established European colleges of arms. Then we have the sheer fakes, such as File:Trump coa.svg.
- I don't think we need this cat. Some, such as File:Watchduck.svg legitimately belong elsewhere. There might be some which we delete as poor quality and thus outside COM:SCOPE. But the closest I can see to that would be this series, File:Mcqueen 3.jpg, and even then I'm reluctant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the coats of arms and flags are nothing but jokes. They are not even fictional coats of arms, they are not coats of arms at all. drawings made by children, or jokes made by teenagers. A fictional coat of arms is invented and has no legitimacy, but at least it's really a coat of arms that respects the rules of the art. It's not the case here.
- (comment by Djampa)
- All of the content here is within COM:SCOPE and should be kept. Any content here which fails COM:SCOPE (I agree, that's possible) should be deleted, item by item, on the basis of each item. We don't need a category to contain, "Stuff you have a problem with, but won't delete." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It is generally accepted, that users who contribute educational content, can also upload a small amount of personal files. The users behind the first three files have not made any relevant contributions, and I would not mind deleting all their uploads. The users behind the last two files (including my humble self) have made relevant contributions, so there is nothing wrong with a few brain farts in between. It would be incredibly pointless, if we spend our time debating the realness or fakeness of File:Escut Barcelona.svg, File:Blason armes muettes.svg or File:Awesome arms.svg.
I have created a deletion request for most of this stuff: Commons:Deletion requests/uploads by users with personal files only
That should solve the discussion. This category can be deleted. --Watchduck (quack) 21:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Djampa there is no rule saying that it is forbidden to have fun on Wikipedia and Commons. In fact I bet Wikipedia would have failed as a project if it was run by grumpy old folks that try to eliminate fun. So if a user wants to create a {{Userpageimage}} and add it to his or her userpage like here User:Watchduck or create a special file to be used as an award or to use as fun in a discussion then it is fine with me. Especially if it is added to Category:Coats of arms of users so that it is clear that it is a user COA then I see no problem. --MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete we already have category:Special or fictional coats of arms and Category:Coats of arms of users--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: already done by Túrelio. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
| Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeuge (Sd.Kfz.) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Vehicles by Sonderkraftfahrzeug number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| malformed initial name, new name fits actual function of category as an index of SdKfz numbers | |||
| Josh (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
- @Joshbaumgartner: I think you should close this discussion to rename this category with no objections. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
We also have Category:Gallery pages about animals and I cannot see the difference. E4024 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- One reason for that is many things that are actually in one of these cats might well be in the other instead (per description ). --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- confusing, parent is Category:Gallery pages about nature--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Estopedist1: See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Gallery pages about animals. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
We also have Category:Gallery pages of animals and I cannot see the difference. E4024 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The idea is that the use of ABOUT is to leave room for things related to animals. Galleries OF animals are normally very specific.--Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was almost suspecting that in the case of OF, the animals were making galleries (of themselves :). --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you think this separation is so important, useful and other people (those more intelligent than me :) will not get confused about which image to hang at which wall, no problem for me if you wish to close this discussion. I will try to keep away from these galleries not to make mistakes... E4024 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are 14 Categories named Gallery pages about ..., and it seems you are the first to have a kind of problem. I could search for a good example, but I prefer a closure of this discussion ... Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I took the following hatnote from the "Category:Gallery pages of animals" and bolded it for you: "List of galleries of animals by their common (English) names, and things related to animals." When you have two identical cats, you have two problems, not one. E4024 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good point! The note for this very early category (2014) should be modified to avoid ambiguïty since the creation (by me) in 2016 of the Category about animals. talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) --Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I took the following hatnote from the "Category:Gallery pages of animals" and bolded it for you: "List of galleries of animals by their common (English) names, and things related to animals." When you have two identical cats, you have two problems, not one. E4024 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am often confused about which preposition to use on Commons, or what the differences are between/when to use 'of', 'about', 'from', 'in', etcetera. I too did not know the difference between gallery pages of and about a subject. So can there please be one central Commons page where the differences are explained for non native English speakers? (Not only for gallery pages but for categories as well?) --JopkeB (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 14 Categories named Gallery pages about ..., and it seems you are the first to have a kind of problem. I could search for a good example, but I prefer a closure of this discussion ... Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- The idea is that the use of ABOUT is to leave room for things related to animals. Galleries OF animals are normally very specific.--Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Merge Keep Category:Gallery pages about animals because that is the broader one (the parent/main category). For who are we making this seperation? Only for the few editors who know the difference? My focus is on end users. Now you have always to look at two places whether there is a category for the gallery you are looking for. I prefer one place. @E4024 and Jacquesverlaeken: Do you agree? Then we can close this discussion and implement the solution. --JopkeB (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely in agreement, as it meets my comments and yours. Note that there are similar issues for locations (in or at or of ...). Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Gallery pages of animals to Category:Gallery pages about animals. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
|
Reasons for discussion request : Typo in the category name. The correct category is Category:SNCF Class X 73500, TER Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.
--Remontees (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted as an empty category Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty and useless category JDrouette (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:The center of the revolutionary movement at the locomotive depot in Chelyabinsk 1903-1919
[edit]An erroneous category created by me. Please delete. 攝影師 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
erroneous duplication of a category, there is already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chelyabinsk_Military_Aviation_Institute_of_Navigators 攝影師 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category after new structure JDrouette (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar category already exists JDrouette (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Useless category subcategories have been moved JDrouette (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category items have been moved JDrouette (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar category already exists JDrouette (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Category already existing JDrouette (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The series is based on a very old reference, and is not used in sources that I can find post 2005 molecular phylogenetic studies; delete Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
he series is based on a very old reference, and is not used in sources that I can find post 2005 molecular phylogenetic studies; delete. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Wat is the difference between Category:Neighborhoods in Rotterdam and Category:Neighborhoods of Rotterdam? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- May be merged!
Antoine.01
overleg(Antoine) 14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Performed by Antoine. I close the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
versehentlich erstellt - Bild gehört in Kategorie Kleinzschocher Andreas Wolf 01 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Please look at the CfD just above this one. Commons is fast becoming "Ukraine Commons". E4024 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- What would you like to discuss about it? --Sanya3 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may ask their opinion to the very few user(s?) that are trying to convert Commons into a showcase for Ukraine, as we happen to see all the time out-of-standard cats for that country. I appreciate people who try to take care of their countries but this must not turn into a "my country should have a different place in Commons". BTW when I opened this CfD I only saw "Ukranian women" in there; everybody agrees that Ukranian women are beautiful but that does not have to bring together a special treat for them in Commons. This last sentence may join the two category discussions, about "adult women and young women of Ukraine" (women are women BTW, and girls are girls) I guess. --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are free to create categories for any country you like. For example, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist only for Japan on Commons, because somebody took care to create all of them. I primarily create categories for Ukraine, although I have also created hundreds of categories for the United States, Russia and other countries. As well as many general categories as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion about a particular user, but I hope you get the message. --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not really sure what your point is, other than you are unhappy that some users are creating categories for Ukraine.--Sanya3 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- And some users say no to this attitude. If I (or anyone else) do not want to understand something, nobody can make me (them) understand. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not really sure what your point is, other than you are unhappy that some users are creating categories for Ukraine.--Sanya3 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion about a particular user, but I hope you get the message. --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are free to create categories for any country you like. For example, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist only for Japan on Commons, because somebody took care to create all of them. I primarily create categories for Ukraine, although I have also created hundreds of categories for the United States, Russia and other countries. As well as many general categories as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may ask their opinion to the very few user(s?) that are trying to convert Commons into a showcase for Ukraine, as we happen to see all the time out-of-standard cats for that country. I appreciate people who try to take care of their countries but this must not turn into a "my country should have a different place in Commons". BTW when I opened this CfD I only saw "Ukranian women" in there; everybody agrees that Ukranian women are beautiful but that does not have to bring together a special treat for them in Commons. This last sentence may join the two category discussions, about "adult women and young women of Ukraine" (women are women BTW, and girls are girls) I guess. --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
No clear purpose to or suggestion for nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of this category. Test creation? Achim (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonsense. --E4024 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Groynes and Category:Groyne beacons? Can Category:Groyne beacons be merged into Category:Groynes? JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Beacon at the end of the groyne is a structure designed to be seen at High tide to warn watercraft that a groyne is just below the water and designates the end of the groyne so is really not part of the sea defence but a marker to designate its location and so there for is the difference between the two objects. Kolforn (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Also for your quick answer. This is very helpful. JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Both categories should be kept. I have added a description in Category:Groyne beacons according to the definition of Kolforn. JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to "Category:Hartmut Becker (actor)" to match other categories about actors. Thanks in advance. 109.79.98.241 22:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know how to change the name without losing the wikibox. If you have an account do as you please. --Hiddenhauser (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've moved the category. --Magnus (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Renamed by Tsungam. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 00:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, and I marked it for speedy deletion. And now I'm pinging an admin who is active at this moment. Danke schoen. --E4024 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
this cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Judithcomm. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
this cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Judithcomm. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Md. Aftab Uddin Aftab0199 (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the category? If Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Md. Aftab Uddin is closed as delete then it will simply be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The result was deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category, created by an indeffed editor while evading the block. — kashmīrī 01:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by Ymblanter. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Please delete: the category already exists at Category:88 High Street, Arbroath. (My mistake). Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Flags 2A02:2F05:110B:4400:B51C:8256:CF04:3F97 20:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a redirect. Seems like an appropriate one to me. What is your problem with it? - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The rationale is "Category:Flags"? Erm. Regardless, this is a valid redirect someone may use. No obvious (or stated) reason to delete it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
My mistake[36][37] POS78 (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion," this was actually a proposal for deletion. I nominated it properly. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
My mistake[38][39] POS78 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion," this was actually a proposal for deletion. I nominated it properly. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently empty; never contained more than 1 image (not specific to book) and not likely to either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad alternative to Category:Providence, Rhode Island in the 21st century (extra comma) Filetime (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty and useless category. --Lambiam 11:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Tavio -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
rrtytjtjytyjtjyjtjjyjjrjtjtjjtjy 2A01:CB19:554:C400:B0B9:E73C:7E4E:A25D 12:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
U.S. 60 does not go through Mississippi. Category was created because a single file was miscategorized, category is now empty. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Just delete it as an empty category. Krok6kola (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin. I can't delete stuff. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad name: Rotterdam is a city, "the" is not good. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or in the Rotterdam surroundings? JopkeB (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, caused by a copy/paste error from parent country category ;) --ErickAgain 14:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick answer. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or Aerial photographs of bridges in the Rotterdam surroundings (or something like that, area might also be good)? I saw that you also put the Spijkenisserbrug to this category, on the very outskirts of Rotterdam, more Spijkenisse (another municipality, now Nissewaard) and Hoogvliet (a neighborhood on the outskirts of rotterdam) than Rotterdam in my opinion, hence my question. JopkeB (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam all bridges are located inside the municipality of Rotterdam (Hoogvliet is part of Rotterdam) Being on the outskirts or in downtown Rotterdam does not matter in this case. Some bridges may be located on the border but are still partly inside. These shared bridges can be put in two categories. Any bridge completely outside Rotterdam should be placed elsewhere. --ErickAgain 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
- OK, I performed the changes. I close this discussion. If you ever make a similar mistake in the future, you might rename that category yourself: scroll at the top in "More" and follow the form. JopkeB (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam all bridges are located inside the municipality of Rotterdam (Hoogvliet is part of Rotterdam) Being on the outskirts or in downtown Rotterdam does not matter in this case. Some bridges may be located on the border but are still partly inside. These shared bridges can be put in two categories. Any bridge completely outside Rotterdam should be placed elsewhere. --ErickAgain 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
- Thank you for your quick answer. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or Aerial photographs of bridges in the Rotterdam surroundings (or something like that, area might also be good)? I saw that you also put the Spijkenisserbrug to this category, on the very outskirts of Rotterdam, more Spijkenisse (another municipality, now Nissewaard) and Hoogvliet (a neighborhood on the outskirts of rotterdam) than Rotterdam in my opinion, hence my question. JopkeB (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I renamed this category to Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam and moved the subcategory and files to this new category. JopkeB (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we either move this to (or have a redirect from) the gender-neutral Category:Line workers? Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. It's already at en:Lineworker on English wikipedia. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Lineworkers would be fine. If no one objects in the next few days, I will close it and that is where it will go (or someone else can feel free to beat me to it). - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete Category - it's empty Mef.ellingen (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: yep. --JuTa 21:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Was created by mistake, already exists as Category:UC Davis College of Engineering Kritzolina (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
We all make mistakes Kritzolina but there is usually little need for discussion. Next time, use {{Bad name}} to delete your errors. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Themightyquill, I did not find the right template and just wanted to make sure it gets deleted - it is the first time I needed to do this, will try to remember how to do it correctly, in case I should need it again. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Reasons for discussion request: There was no other Wilde Rodach found, so new Category:Wilde Rodach was created, all contents of the old Category:Wilde Rodach (Rodach) was moved to new category and now, the old category should be deleted. --Silvicola (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"Apples and pears" cat opened by a newcomer. Delete immediately. E4024 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am really sorry. I wan to make it like Category:International relations by organization please help me. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Relations of Iraq and the People's Mujahedin of Iran. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears that this category is a typo and that the correct stage name for this DJ is "Jay Frog". That spelling already has a category created for it containing all the images in this one and more. Since this category is redundant, can you please delete it and/or redirect it to the correct spelling? Thanks in advance. 51.37.110.14 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Jay Frog. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty category involved in a DW-related DR (COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist maps of Doña Remedios Trinidad). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The category can be deleted according to the opinion of the participant who proposed the renaming, the files were redirected to the proposed category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Monument_to_Gabdulla_Tuqay_(Chelyabinsk) 攝影師 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Monument_to_Gabdulla_Tuqay_(Chelyabinsk). -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a typo in the category name. The Latin book title says "... juxta systema Tournefortianum ..." (not "systems").
(And the last word, "paulo", does not really make sense as long as the following words are omitted. The adverb "paulo" just qualifies those; on its own, it's quite pointless.) Martinus KE (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Martinus KE, thank you; in this case (evidence of typo errors) it's better to proceed to fix the category name, no discussion needed. --Marcok (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done fixed. Next time {{Move}} can be used. --Marcok (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Hortus Romanus juxta systema Tournefortianum. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Category with typo, files redirected to the corrected one Robot8A (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Saladern (Savallà del Comtat) -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la catégorie au profit de NStCM ABe 2/4 and Be 2/4 par cohérence avec https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/tmnstcm0415f.pdf --Remontees (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not add new discussions on top of the list but at the bottom. I am now marking this as empty for speedy deletion. Merci beaucoup. --E4024 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you can also do it yourself by adding {SD|C2} (use a couple of {}) on the empty cat. --E4024 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two categories:
- Category:Paintings with signatures (lower left)
- Category:Paintings with signatures (bottom, left), which is a child of the one above
Also between these two:
- Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right)
- Category:Paintings with signatures (bottom, right), which is a child of the one above
I thought the difference might be that one is for signatures that are right in the very corner, but a few checks showed that that doesn't seem to be the case. If there's no difference, these should be merged. If there is a difference, an explanation at the top of each would be helpful.
FYI, there for the "upper" categories, there is only one for each side (upper left and upper right). Auntof6 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- These are 9 years old, no one asked this except you.^^ Explantions:
- The position of the text means the position of the signature(s). If it's "bottom", then there is a broader space. I hope, you understand the differences now. The positions are now integrated in each category (sortkey “!”). Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of graphics software.
- Best greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mateus2019: I must be missing something, because I still don't see the difference. In the illustrations, I see little or no difference between the two for the left side; the bottom left one just looks a little smaller. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The pair "bottom left” und "bottom right" or the pair "lower left" and "lower right" categories may be deleted. --Mateus2019 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mateus2019: I must be missing something, because I still don't see the difference. In the illustrations, I see little or no difference between the two for the left side; the bottom left one just looks a little smaller. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree to merge, please one of you two do the needed and let's not lose time with this discussion. Consensus is clear. E4024 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference either, so I would suggest we go ahead with the merger. @Auntof6: Do you have any preference between the terms lower and bottom? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lower would be a better match for the term upper in the related categories, so I think that would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference either, so I would suggest we go ahead with the merger. @Auntof6: Do you have any preference between the terms lower and bottom? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right) and Category:Paintings with signatures (lower left) -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Does this category make any sense? Ies (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not to me, especially being categorized under Category:Dogs... --E4024 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- There were 23 images of various dogs apparently taken by someone named Andrew Branch at unsplash.com that were batch uploaded and put into Category:Dogs. I created this category (though a better name would have been something like, Dog photos by Andrew Branch at Unsplash) simply to group them together and slightly reduce the number of images in this far overcrowd category, which is 1,641 as I write this. I had thought about moving them into Category:Unidentified dogs, but that is even more overcrowded, currently containing 4453 images. If there's another way to handle groups of nondescript images having only the same general subject and coming from a common source, please let me know. Feel free to do anything with this category and/or the images within it. Waz8 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I moved it to Dog photos by Andrew Branch at Unsplash then moved that to Category:Unidentified dogs. I don't believe there's any reason to keep the redirect. Waz8 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted redirect. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems to duplicate Category:Mudéjar architecture in Aragon and could be merged. Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly. Nothing to discuss. Just go for it. "Mudéjar architecture in Aragon" is good enough. --E4024 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Mudéjar architecture in Aragon Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie bitte löschen, fehlerhafte botanische Bezeichnung, Tippfehler, Wunsch des Hochladers, Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 18:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Clerodendrum colebrookianum. Pimpinellus Next time you make an error, you can simply use {{Bad name}}. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Men by name with microphones or similar. This would follow the Category:People by name pattern. Senator2029 20:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Men by name with microphones. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
empty category أمين (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@أمين: obviously, when images are deleted, the categories are empty. Empty categories are unnecessary. Lotje (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between "transport ships" and "cargo ships"? Can the category:Transport ships be integrated into Category:Cargo ships? JopkeB (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it be intended the relevant category for en:Troopship? But I agree, the current category name doesn't work. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are right. I did not look well. And troops are not cargo, so merging this category into Cargo ships is no option. Either a good description should be added or this category should be renamed to Category:Troopships. I prefer the latter because then the name is in line whith ENG Wikipedia and immediately obvious at first glance. JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Troopships. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
To me the name is not correct. The images in this category are not Ancient ( ± 3200 BC - ± 600 AD) but much younger. I propose: Antique toys on stamps. JopkeB (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense since it's a subcategory of Category:Antique toys. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks for your contribution. JopkeB (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This category has been renamed to: Category:Antique toys on stamps. JopkeB (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Studies and Category:Home offices? How can you see in an image that it is one thing or the other? JopkeB (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: The meanings seem to be almost identical, maybe with some nuances of connotations and different historical and etymological background of the words. --ŠJů (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to @ŠJů: . In his answer I do not read a difference that you can see on images. So my next questions are:
- Can these two categories be merged?
- If so: which one should be kept? It seems to me that Category:Home offices has a slightly broader definition and that that one should be kept for that reason. Am I right?
- If not: what exactly are the differences? How can we define both categories in such a way that it is clear for each image in which category it fits?
- JopkeB (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I like the romantic nostalgia of the word "studies" but it also presents the problem of confusion with study as a type of research, like scientific studies. So I guess I accept the idea to merge to home offices. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There should be one category for Studies and Home offices alike because you cannot tell whether an image shows one or the other. Category:Home offices is kept because it has a slightly broader definition and there cannot be confusion with study as a type of research, like scientific studies. I implemented this conclusion. JopkeB (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Creating an empty category feels absolutely pointless. Had it been populated immediately then I would not have an issue. There are few pictures of this person that have suitable licencing, if any. The sole [ictiure of her was a struggle to find for its uploader Timtrent (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are two images in the category now. I might not have created it, but I don't see any reason to delete it. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem described in the nomination statement is now resolved. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
inappropriate 80.229.137.112 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why inappropriate ? There is already Category:LGBT-related logos, so why not Category:Anti-LGBT logos ? --Tangopaso (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anon-ip has nominated all or many of the included files for deletion. I assume they find the content offensive, rather than there being a problem with this categorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be an LTA nomination. Either way, this would be dealt with by discussing the individual images, not the category (which could then be deleted as empty if necessary). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. So, NoFoP-Romania is correct category name. So, FoP-Romania Category should be deleted. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove duplicate category, Wikidata merge cannot take place Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support for deletion. Same as parent category Category:Oulunkylän seurahuone --Zache (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Zache and Susannaanas: Is a redirect alright, instead of a deletion? It seems plausible that someone would know the address but not the building's use. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was: merged, the redirect retained. Wikidata entries merged Estopedist1 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't make former members cats.We cannot follow people's "membership" registers... Delete immediately. E4024 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above: we have Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran members that's enough -Killarnee (C•T•U) 21:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete ok, as creator of the category. --Ruwaym (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Redundant with Faunce House. None of these photos depict the interior space which is the actual Campus Center. Filetime (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty category POS78 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion" (was actually proposed for deletion), but I'll fill it. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@POS78 and Orijentolog: the category is not empty anymore. The category is also part of a larger category/template scheme, and so should be kept?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: yes, I filled it but I forgot to properly close discussion. Thanks for notice. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of the category to "Category:Jens Winter (actor)" to match other such categories on commons. Thanks in advance. 109.78.160.164 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- same as Category:Hartmut_Becker_(Schauspieler), do as you please because i don't know how to change the name without losing wikibox--Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Done, see Category:Jens Winter and Category:Hartmut Becker (actor) Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DanielleJWiki: To be clear, the contained images of this category (and those in related CFDs) should simply be removed, not moved anywhere else? - Themightyquill (talk)
- @Themightyquill: I suggest to simply remove. It seems that all images have already provided with {{Institution:Maastricht University Library}} and hence automatically bunched to Category:Images from Universiteitsbibliotheek Maastricht--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this duplicates Category:J/80 (keelboat) Mike Peel (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Veto, see images! These are two different boat types, unfortunately merged in Wikidata. There is the problem! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- This could be noted in the category description (and fixed on wikidata) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kept per discussion Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Politician? Doctor? Military? Personal promotion? Hoax? E4024 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Deleted' by wdwd as empty Gbawden (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Kategorie bitte löschen, Wunsch vom Hochlader, Doublette zu einer älteren Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 10:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by wdwd. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Not used; if any materials relate to this, the existing Category:Yoga therapy will be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Category is unused; it only ever contained one image, and that was not specific to the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Standarizing a set of categories inside this project. No longer needed as all the images have been allocated to other tags. Theklan (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Category created in order to fill it with fictitious flags that have now been mass deleted TU-nor (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Please delete the category I created with an error in the name. 攝影師 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
An empty category for an unnotable individual. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We had some discussion at Category talk:Mature women, but -as many times happens- people just tend to impose their own categorization scheme without deigning to discuss with others. I wonder why we live in a society if we do not care to listen to other people. Whatever, as the cat talk page discussion was ignored by many, maybe this CfD may attract some attention to make a "consensus-based" categorization in the area of women (and men). E4024 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women. --E4024 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women Estopedist1 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
i'd like to ask whether this cat tree should use the name "Düsseldorf-Benrath" or just "Benrath". for the Category:Districts of Düsseldorf, the current naming format looks pretty neat, but for other Category:Districts of cities in Germany, it seems the naming format doesnt have to be strictly "city-district" even for other major cities like berlin. the cat tree should be harmonised based on the conclusion of this cfd. RZuo (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Velopilger: You created at least one of the parallel categories, and you are apparently from Benrath/Düsseldorf-Benrath. Can you contribute your thoughts here? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that the best variant of the category is simply Benrath, since this is the original name and it is unnecessary to tie the word Dusseldorf to it.Алексей Потупин дипломированный географ 1974 (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC) (Velopilger).
this category and relevant subcats are moved to names using "Benrath", as per discussion and the fact that many existing subcats are simply "Benrath".--RZuo (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Overalls, bib overalls, coveralls, boilersuits - What are their definitions and differences? And why is there a difference between Commons and ENG-Wikipedia? In the ENG-Wikipedia Overalls, bib-and-brace overalls and dungarees are all the same: a type of garment that is in Commons referred to as bib overalls. Can we please avoid confusion, especially for non-native English speakers and volunteers who categorise pictures, by giving clear definitions, preferably the same as in Wikipedia? I also see pictures of bib overalls in the category:Overalls, so that should be an action after we have concluded this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is good that you bring this up for discussion. There are problems with these terms when translating. In many languages (German, Spanish, Swedish, probably others too) the word overall (spelled overol in Spanish) is clearly seen as an originally English word but refers to what would rather be called a jumpsuit in English, while what is called overalls or bib overalls in English are not called overall(s) in many other languages. As far as I know, there are also some differences between British and American English. There are also confusion in the descriptions of images here which are obviously drawn to describe what a form of clothing is called, see File talk:Overall (clothing).jpg. Ove Raul (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ove Raul: Thanks for you explanation. This is helpful.
- @Ove Raul: Thanks for you explanation. This is helpful.
Suggested definitions
[edit]For Commons I suggest these definitions and synonyms:
- Bib overalls (plural, as in trousers) = bib-and-brace overalls = overalls = dungarees:
One-piecegarments consisting of trousers with a bib and having straps extending from the bib to the back. Worn as work clothing by construction workers and all kind of other workers, and also as outerwear, for instance by feminists in the 1970s and 1980s. - Boilersuit (singular) = coveralls (plural): Loose fitting garment covering the whole body except for the head, hands and feet. A boilersuit is worn as work clothing, over outerwear, especially intended for dirty jobs, for instance for factory workers and in cleaning jobs.
- Jumpsuit: One-piece garment with sleeves and legs and without integral coverings for feet, hands or head. Worn as outerwear work clothing by prisoners, pilots and astronauts, and also by women as just outerwear.
-
Bib overalls -
Bib overalls in fashion -
Boilersuit -
Jumpsuit (pilot suit) -
Jumpsuit as outerwear
.jpg)
Please give your opinion, corrections and additions. After the definitions are good, we can think about the category structure. JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think these definitions are good. English is not my first language, but as far as I understand, this is how these words are mostly used. Ove Raul (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Category structure
[edit]It looks like we agree on the definitions. Good!
Now we can focus on the category structure. I suggest:
- Main category: Category:Overalls; on Commons we use this as the umbrella term, though in UK and USA English this term might have different meanings (see EN.wiktionary); suggested definition: any one-piece garment consisting of trousers and either covering the whole body (except for the head, hands and feet) or having a bib.
- Subcategories:
- Category:Overalls by country
- Category:Bib overalls
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear) as a subcategory
- Category:Boilersuits
- Category:Jumpsuits
- Category:Overalls by colour
Please comment. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don’t think this is right.
- These should not all be subcategories to Category:Overalls. It’s better to keep them all as subcategories of Category:One-piece garments.
- (A pair of) bib overalls and (a pair of) dungarees are (a pair of) overalls in English. A boilersuit may be called an overall in British English, but not in American English and is not (a pair of) overalls. Jumpsuits are never called overalls in English, as far as I understand. In some other languages, overall is used for what would be called a jumpsuit or a catsuit in English, but here at Wikimedia Commons we should use the terms as they are used in English.
- What should be done, OTOH, is to sort files to the correct categories. As it is now, some files are in the wrong categories. I have corrected some, but not all, because there are some where the picture and the file name and/or the accompanying text are not consistent. See e.g. File talk:Overall (clothing).jpg. Ove Raul (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted proposal for category structure
[edit]Thanks Ove Raul for your input. I now try to make a new category structure, but I still have questions:
- Should we merge Category:Overalls and Category:Bib overalls? Are they about the same concept? If yes: which one should stay? I would prefer Bib overalls because then there is less possibility to get confusion.
- Can we keep Category:Dungarees or should this one be merged also with (Bib) Overalls? For me this one can stay because it is about bib overalls as casual wear, there is a difference. I agree that sorting files to the correct categories should be done, especially for files in Category:Bib overalls that should be in Category:Dungarees.
My new proposal would be:
- Main category: Category:One-piece garments. Subcategories (among others):
- Category:Boilersuits
- Category:Jumpsuits
- Category:Overalls with subcategories:
- Category:Overalls by colour
- Category:Overalls by country
- Category:Bib overalls OR MERGE WITH OVERALLS?
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear)
Please comment. JopkeB (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Overalls are not one-piece garments
[edit]You do not wear overalls and nothing else. You always have a shirt with the overalls, because the bib does not make the upper body decent enough. So overalls are not a one-piece garment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Olo (talk • contribs) 19 sep 2021 22:49 (UTC)
- Thanks Lars Olo for your useful remark. So we should accept that there might not be a common umbrella term, a direct main category for these garments, we can only use See also's.
- Boilersuits and Jumpsuits are One-peace garments.
- Bib overalls and Dungarees are just Overalls, not One-peace garments.
- JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far and new proposal
[edit]- There is no common umbrella term to use as a main category for all the garment pieces discussed here.
- The content of Category:Overalls should be merged into Category:Bib overalls; "Bib overall" is a clearer term than "Overall" which can be confused in other languages with Coverall/Boilersuits and Jumpsuits.
- The subcategories of Category:Overalls that start with "Overalls" will be renamed to categories that start with "Bib overalls".
- The content of Category:Overalls in art should be merged into Category:Bib overalls in art. Category:Overalls in art will get a redirect to Category:Bib overalls in art.
- Category:Overalls will become a Disambiguation category which contains all the concepts we discussed here.
- Subcategories of Category:Bib overalls:
- Category:Bib overalls by colour (rename of Category:Overalls by colour)
- Category:Bib overalls by country (rename of Category:Overalls by country)
- The renamed subcategories of countries
- Category:Bib overalls in art (including the content of Category:Overalls in art)
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear)
- Category:Shortalls (bib overalls with short trousers)
- Category:Boilersuits and Category:Jumpsuits will have "See also's" to Category:Bib overalls and to each other.
- All discussed categories that will stay get the descriptions/definitions of Suggested definitions (including the correction in green).
Please comment. --JopkeB (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No comments for over a month, so I close this discussion--JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions: see up here (Conclusions so far and new proposal). I'll add definitions/descriptions to the categories involved and make the changes. --JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Does this term exist out of Commons? E4024 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ahmad252 and other Iranian Commoners, can we have your input here, please? --E4024 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: Yes, it's the same thing as Category:Macaroni - more or less. All sorts of pasta, including spaghetti, are usually called "Macaroni". That said, at least as far as I know, it's not a special "Persian" spaghetti; it's just that the term "Macaroni" is used more broadly in Iran. Ahmadtalk 07:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- In Turkey we also say "makarna", for all Italian-type pasta varieties. Then we add a defining word like "fiyonk" makarna (farfelle), "burgu" makarna, "çubuk" makarna, etc. I take your answer as we do not need this cat. If you do not agree, please correct me. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or move it to Category:Spaghetti dishes in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect category name created by me, created a new correct one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kommuny_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk) 攝影師 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- At the same time, it is required to change the erroneous address indication in the file names, namely "Krasnaya" -> "Kommuny":
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_01.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_02.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_03.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_04.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_05.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_06.jpg 攝影師 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is this separate from Category:Collages? The concepts seem the same. On English Wikipedia there is en:Collage but montage is just a disambig which mentions the term en:Photomontage. Arguably Photomontage is a subcategory of one of those, but I don't see the need to split montages and collages. A quick glance also suggests that next to nobody sees the difference and nearly identical images are uploaded to one or the other at random. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Collages are specifically images which have been glued (from the French for glue) to a surface. Montage is a wider term which includes digitally-manipulated images. I see the need for a distinction, even if some are wrongly categorised. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense, assuming you are correct. For that we would need to see some sources, which in turn would be good to use to improve Wikipedia articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and Rodhullandemu: Would you consider both Category:Collages and Category:Photomontages to be subs of Category:Montages, as the latter is the more general term, and the other two are more specific methods of creating a montage? Josh (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'd be happy with that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Tentatively, but I am still concerned whether all those things are indeed separate. Particularly Montages and Collages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and Rodhullandemu: Would you consider both Category:Collages and Category:Photomontages to be subs of Category:Montages, as the latter is the more general term, and the other two are more specific methods of creating a montage? Josh (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense, assuming you are correct. For that we would need to see some sources, which in turn would be good to use to improve Wikipedia articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu and Piotrus: Closed (montages as parent with collages and photomontages as subs) Josh (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not much cities by county POS78 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @POS78: It seems that parent Category:Cities in Razavi Khorasan Province does the job. Also notice that this parent category have the {{Cities in Razavi Khorasan Province}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion in process. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Living people is not something that is used on Commons. It is a category commonly found on Wikipedia which is why it is present here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- observation - evidently, it is used on commons. since we are having this discussion (yet again). Lx 121 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful nor necessary anywhere. E4024 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- While its probably not as useful as Wikipedia it probably has some use for the same tracking purposes as WP since bad edits can be made to the categories, galleries and even images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- See linked discussions above, which already resulted in its redirection. It has been deleted twice more within the past year or so. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - consistent with wp/en categorisation, policy for content related to living persons (wp:blp, etc.), & obviously useful (as per my comments in previous discussions). currently is well-populated. ALSO, considering that apparently at least 2 other ppl have RE-CREATED this category just "within the past year or so" (on top of my creating it in the first place, years ago), i would say that the deletionists are out-numbered here. Lx 121 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also - there has been more category discussion on this subject over the years, & more recently, than just the 2 shown. (between this title & the very simillar "living persons by name" category; also deleted, by largely the same ppl) Lx 121 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete. RZuo (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, personality rights usually apply more to the living than the dead,
I can see why this category could become a pain in the arse as it would require to constantly maintain who's alive and who ain't, butit makes sense to have this, especially since we have to be more careful with images of living people. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- "A pain" is a serious understatement. Category:People by name has 762,107 sub-categories. Living people has 428. Unless you're offering to help sort through hundreds of thousands of categories, please don't vote to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- " please don't " tell other people how to vote. that is not appropriate. AND maybe part of the reason 'living people' has "only" 428 subcats (& growing) & 200-odd uncat. items, is because YOU KEEP DELETING IT & it keeps getting re-created & filled, by multiple editors - more than have ever bothered to hang out in the deletion debates section arguing about this. if you hadn't deleted the category, repeatedly, the entries would likely be in the low thousands by now. the entry-count WAS significantly higher the first time we argued about this category, a number of years ago.
- AND you are, yet again, mis-representing the nature of the problem. statistically, you would expect to have more notable dead people than living ones; given all of human history 'n stuff. excepting wiki-editor/personal-photo/user-page stuff, the total number of notable living persons with media files on commons right now would number a few thousand. Lx 121 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Going over it again it isn't "A pain" at all, in fact maintaining it would be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. As the saying goes "never let a man do a robot's work" as I just remembered that Wikidata exists; we can simply ask someone like user "Mike Peel" to
slipflip a few switches and let the "{{Wikidata Infobox}}" template automatically add this category where the qualifier "Live person" is used, all deaths will also simply be added through Wikidata (Q18093576) and the template will automatically change the categories here based on their connected items. In fact, this would require absolutely 0 (zero) maintenance from the Commons-side as we could just let our robot overlords do all the work and maintenance for us, then that frees up more time for us to go looking for free images of living people to upload. We already do this with the "Wikidata Infobox" template for example for categories like "1931 deaths" and "1873" births, Etc.
- Going over it again it isn't "A pain" at all, in fact maintaining it would be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. As the saying goes "never let a man do a robot's work" as I just remembered that Wikidata exists; we can simply ask someone like user "Mike Peel" to
- Wikidata is horribly underutilised for simple tasks like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- so much talk above, but how much action have they made to improve the code of wdib and solve some problems on Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox?
- lmao, that's an even worse idea. no one can update the yob and yod promptly. Category:Uses_of_Wikidata_Infobox_with_no_year_of_birth already has 30k cats. and there's no equivalent of "no year of death", because the template cannot be designed to determine whether the reason why no year of death is given is that the person is alive, or that their death is not reported by reliable sources, or that their death is not recorded in wikidata. given that so many people's life situations cannot be determined and they will be left out by this category, where is the claimed necessity for the socalled blp concerns?
- and wdib dont know whether 170k cats represent a human Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no instance of. RZuo (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- "lmao" - i am going to be nice & not spend time critiquing your grammar. but as to the other points you have raised: a) the technical problems you mention are all easily solvable. it is actually fairly easy; most people only live & die once, so they would only need to be recategorised in one time & out time. if implemented (whether via wikidata or not), the resulting bot(s) (&/or other automated functions) would work about as well as the myraid other useful bots on here. there are bots on here & especially on wikipedia that do MUCH MORE COMPLICATED tasks.
- & b) your comments show that you pretty clearly do not understand BLP issues, or that you are willfully disregarding them. i invite to go go look up WM POLICY on BLP, before you comment further on the subject :)
- aside from that, it really isn't hard to understand why it is useful to have separate working categories for "PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE" & "PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD". do you really need me to run up a list of how that is useful to editors, to end-users, AND for integration with other WM projects? Lx 121 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- talk is cheap. for people who dont code the easy solution they boast about, i dont find them trustworthy at all.
- read m:BLP before making any more wrong assertions about it.
- and there's no blp for commons. there's a large collection of defamatory, disparaging or factually incorrect stuff here, but they're hosted because they show what the real world is. but let's say if those people implement this category according to their socalled blp, then the minute their bot doesnt add a living person into this cat it's making a mistake and violating their blp. then i'll congratulate them shooting themself in the foot. RZuo (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1. - 3 of my nephews & one of my best friends are comp sci graduates; several of them are now in quite senior positions. & i've been playing with computers since before i got my first commodore vic20. i decided not be to a coder because that is not how i wanted to spend my time (& respect to those who do it! <3), BUT i know my way around simple-ass data-sorting functions like the ones we are talking about here. I could write the code for that. in BASIC. on my vic20.
- aside from that, it really isn't hard to understand why it is useful to have separate working categories for "PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE" & "PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD". do you really need me to run up a list of how that is useful to editors, to end-users, AND for integration with other WM projects? Lx 121 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & 2. re - BLP: YEAH, you just kind of ^^proved my point there^^. thank-you for DEMONSTRATING how you do not know, do not understand, &/or do not care about BLP concerns. again i invite you to reasearch WM POLICY (& history) on BLP-related matters (not just cherry pick one stale draft proposal), before you have any further opinions on this, & hurt yourself... (seriously) xD as to your main talking-point: we DO NOT host libelous/slanderous content on here. there is no magic wand that makes the WMF immune to getting its' ass sued off. & the famous safe-harbour provisions of u.s. law come with conditions that MUST be adhered to. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- they are cs graduates, but sadly this fella isnt. go write the code in BASIC, which can be translated into lua and python for wdib. unless this fella writes the code, he's just wasting everybody's time with his nonsense. RZuo (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & 2. re - BLP: YEAH, you just kind of ^^proved my point there^^. thank-you for DEMONSTRATING how you do not know, do not understand, &/or do not care about BLP concerns. again i invite you to reasearch WM POLICY (& history) on BLP-related matters (not just cherry pick one stale draft proposal), before you have any further opinions on this, & hurt yourself... (seriously) xD as to your main talking-point: we DO NOT host libelous/slanderous content on here. there is no magic wand that makes the WMF immune to getting its' ass sued off. & the famous safe-harbour provisions of u.s. law come with conditions that MUST be adhered to. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
AND - after leaving the discussion hanging open & mostly stale for the last YEAR (during which the "living people" category has been growing, in spite of efforts to de-populate it), the only pro-deletion arguement amounts to "it's too much work" (& nvm utility, & nvm blp issues) & the "score" is 4 delete, 3 keep, PLUS all the editors who keep re-creating & populating the category but DON'T spend their wiki-time hanging out in deletion debates. Lx 121 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've coded up auto-adding this category in the Wikidata Infobox, if there is a birth year and no death year on Wikidata, and the birth year is less than 100 years ago. Please try {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}. I'll include this in the next update, unless this category is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- LOVELY! & thank-you! :) given that this discussion has lasted about a year, i would think we can manage to wait for the wikidata implementation, before concluding it. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- AFTER it's up & running, i can think of some tweaks we might want to make; for example: there IS a "dead people" category-set; so the script should automatically exclude items with the characteristics "person" & "dead" (or simply if they are included in the dead people, dead people by name, etc. cat & subcats) Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not quite how it works: the infobox only uses information from the Wikidata item, it can't use the data from categories or subcategories here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- pity! - isn't there a way for wikid to data-mine the other wm projects for stuff like that? Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not quite how it works: the infobox only uses information from the Wikidata item, it can't use the data from categories or subcategories here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- AFTER it's up & running, i can think of some tweaks we might want to make; for example: there IS a "dead people" category-set; so the script should automatically exclude items with the characteristics "person" & "dead" (or simply if they are included in the dead people, dead people by name, etc. cat & subcats) Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- d:special:permalink/1624134799#Two_stats_about_humans: the estimates are roughly 30k people are alive and have commons cats but dont have dob. the percentage of aged-85+ among all people who have a dob and are possibly still alive is 8%, but in real life only roughly 5% of the population live past 80, so there are as much as half of all 85yo+ people who are dead but whose dod are not recorded.
- have fun correcting this large number of mistakes. where is the easy magic code some people say they can write? RZuo (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & yet ALL the wikipedia projects, in all the different languages, manage it as a routine function of wiki-maintenence. Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- AND follow-up: you are either grossly mis-respresenting, or you mis-understood the exchange you cited @ wikiD. quote: "Trying again, specifically for Commons I got 298 and 313; so about 305 with a sampling error either way of about 20. And maybe 30,000 such items across wikidata as a whole." the tl,dr = the number was ~305 NOT "roughly 30k people" that part was FOR ALL OF WIKIDATA, NOT COMMONS. also, the way you worded your questions @ wd was almost incoherent(!) Lx 121 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I went with 100 years since that's the oldest most people are likely to live to (except for some exceptions), and cuts out people who were born a very long time ago and we just don't have their date of deaths in Wikidata. The infobox can handle adding/removing them from the category, but the data does have to be managed manually on Wikidata - the good thing being that it's then a shared effort between all users of the data, not just a problem for Commons editors to solve. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 100 seems like a good place to start; as long as it can be corrected (easily) when it needs to be. i.e.; for the odd centenarian+ out there. Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping this category if wikidata can be used effectively, but I'm not qualified to judge if that's possible. The discussion might be moved to the wikidata infobox talk page or somewhere else with a broader audience like Commons:Village pump. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- *comment* - this discussion has been going on for a year & it has been stale for most of that time. not to mention ALL the previous fights over this. net result: there is no consensus to delete. i am willing to wait & see how the new wd tool implements before closing this, BUT i do not think "forum shopping" the arguement to other locations is appropriate. we have talked this to death, you should pardon the expression... xD Lx 121 (talk)
- @Lx 121: Your arguments depend on the potential for this to be done automatically. If you can't confirm that it can be done automatically by "forum shopping", you have no new argument beyond multiple previous consensuses to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You might have missed my comment above, it's implemented in the infobox sandbox and should be ready to go (bar any extra testing people want to do), I can deploy it that so this category is added automatically when we're ready. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Awesome! Thanks. I'm fine to close this discussion then. If it works well, there should be no need for future discussion at all. If it has problems, it can be discussed somewhere other than CfD. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You might have missed my comment above, it's implemented in the infobox sandbox and should be ready to go (bar any extra testing people want to do), I can deploy it that so this category is added automatically when we're ready. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept The category is now being auto-populated by Template:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Subjective to the point of being meaningless Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
- I contributed to this cat, but hesitantly. I would not object to any decision about it. --E4024 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Yes this category is somewhat subjective, as is any category depicting an art-style or movement. That being said, it is not "so subjective to be meaningless," as there does appear to be a general public consensus as to what a cursed image is (though the category page can probably be trimmed a bit, as there are a few debatable photos in there). As United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said (regarding the definition of pornography), "I know it when I see it." I see the "level of subjectiveness" here as being roughly equal to something like Category:Minimalist photography, or Category:Erotic photography (aka clearly important to have, but hard to define unambiguously). Yitzilitt (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- But this category does not contain mages from "an art-style or movement"; it's a random collection of images, with no apparent relation to each other; as the gallery I've just added, above, shows. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Yitzilitt, I think you should also say you have initiated this cat. As I said above, I was a bit confused about this cat, but I liked the images in Category:Cursed images of food and even made a subcat to it. (Indeed I like everything, or almost everything edible. :) Having said that, I remembered I had a very nice upload that would go well in there, File:Alligator in my plate.jpg. I cannot understand why, someone simply moved it to a dull name, without asking my opinion. The reason showed is "preposterous description". I have no idea what "preposterous" means. Normally each time I see a new word for me, even in cases where I can imagine the meaning, I go to dictionaries to learn about it. Probably the lack of tolerance towards a sympathetic description (name?) made me not to be curious to learn what that chic word means. I did not protest, I even forgot it. Now speaking about the Cursed images of food subcat, I remembered. However it is not the same thing putting there a file named "Seafood linguini". (I may show you what a seafood linguini is, something like this, although it is spaghetti and I had only mussels at home as seafood. Whereas, the above dish was about a fantasy film, where there was lots of water/juice in the plate, and animals swimming in it. The few sticks of pasta were like snakes accompanying the other animals... (And I ate this disaster in Italy, mamma mia! :) Whatever, delete it if there is little tolerance. Or keep it, it sounds much better to my eyes than cats like "Category:Nude or partially nude women with shaved armpits but unshaved genitalia sitting with legs wide open and smiling with teeth while giving a handjob to a seminude male". Bye. --E4024 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- E4024 sorry I didn't mention that I initiated the cat; that's my bad. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is about, though I certainly sympathize with the struggle of fellow Wikipedians not understanding a given naming schema. Yitzilitt (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to gallery. I agree with Andy Mabbett; this doesn't quite fit into the Commons' category tree, but I think it is okay to have this as a standalone gallery. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Keep Nomination is based on false assumptions. "Cursed images" are a coherent concept discussed as such, even if a subjective one, and much more comparable to art movements than the nominator's dismissal of the concept permits. See discussion of the concept in e.g. the Intelligencer, the New Yorker, Paper Magazine, TheNextWeb, and Wired. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep but clean up and remove the “cursed food” subcat. The definition (mediocre-to-low-quality images with bizarre and/or creepy content) is semi-subjective but straightforward enough to not be arbitrary and meaningless. Some of the pics currently in the category are silly because they are too mundane to be called “bizarre and/or creepy” by the majority of viewers (i.e. a bad flash photo of a bidet shooting water) but that just means they should be removed from the category, not the category from WM commons. The “cursed food” cat however is completely subjective, since almost every single picture is simply some boring food item that is badly prepared, poorly photographed, unfamiliar to westerners, or being used for sexual purposes.Edit I’ve removed several images that I’m fairly certain nobody would ever seriously call “creepy” or even “bizarre”, including the photo of metal ritual objects seen above and the aforementioned toilet image (I was particularly amused and puzzled by the inclusion of a photo of a Hatsune Miku Dominos delivery vehicle). Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Edit I have now also cut “cursed food” down to just a few of the best/worst(?) images. Whether or not they justify a separate category is still up in the air, but at least the category is no longer just “bad food photography” mixed with “food I don’t like”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)- edit I am not opposed to making this category into a gallery, as an alternative to deleting. I feel like keeping it as-is will result in never-ending debates about what should be included, but there’s enough value to it that it shouldn’t be completely destroyed. Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete What counts as a "cursed image" is largely a matter of opinion, and isn't a clearly understood or defined genre of images. Essentially any image that can be interpreted as disturbing or strange can be considered a "cursed image". Different images can elicit different emotions from different people, so even assuming that there was a clear definition of cursed image being those that elicit a specific emotion, nothing could be objectively categorized in that way. This category is about as useful as something like "sad videos" or "ugly animals". Di (they-them) (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It includes File:ABNORMALITIES; Tabulae ad illustrandam embry Wellcome L0032358.jpg and File:Eddie Leonard 1929.jpeg, pictures of human beings that effectively say that certain people, by existing, are worthy of mockery. File:のりくら高原温泉郷・湯川温泉せせらぎの湯 ２人入浴P8118150.jpg is a little more complex--is it just the censorship of the eyes?--but could be read as the same thing. Let's mock some guy's fursuit with File:LionatFrolicon.jpg! Here's another one--File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0801-131, Leipzig, Sportfestabschluss, Berliner Bären.jpg which gives the chance to mock cultural traditions along with fursuits! File:TOYOTA ist Pikachu Car.jpg and File:Oldreive's New Iron Horse tricycle, ca. 1882.jpg--cheap shots at sweet cars and old bikes!
- There's some which are more fair, but still, why do we need a selection of files from Category:Ectoplasm (paranormal) here? Or from Category:Cthulhu Mythos? Art form categories like Category:Impressionism are almost completely citable; if you were working off of cites, I would be more sympathetic, but I completely oppose any such category as a subjective creation. Perhaps Category:Outsider art is a better comparison; it is a very real category of art, but it could be very problematic if slapped on "own work", especially if done willy-nilly like this category currently feels like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think a lot of images were meant to be considered “worthy of mockery” by being in this category (i.e. 2 is just an unintentionally unsettling smile, 3 is the eyes, 4 is bad flash + uncanny valley, 6 is also uncanny valley) , although there are definitely some unfortunate implications of, say, the traditional arts/culture or deformities pics. But on second inspection I agree that even though I hoped that the category could be salvaged by establishing two main criteria (low image quality + odd, creepy, surreal content) it’s obvious this is never going to work and people are just going to fill it with “images that I think are kind of odd and/or funny”. Thus I have struck my original vote and will leave it as “convert to
galleryhidden category or delete” in the spirit of “blow it up and start over”. Dronebogus (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC) - Hide Really this is just a spooky version of Category:Commons' weirdest photographs (which it's already a non-hidden subcategory of), so it could just have a COM:HIDDENCAT. As an aesthetic that relies on the eye of the curator, though, cursed images work better from a single person's Twitter or Tumblr account. A swarm of Commons editors making individual calls about what they personally find unfamiliar is likely just going to give us another "Commons' weirdest photographs", minus the funny ones. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
enwiki has also en:Cursed image. So we probably want to keep this category--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ve hidden the cat if nobody minds Dronebogus (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: As multiple editors pointed out, this is an entirely subjective categorization; one person's cool hotel or exciting Saturday afternoon is another person's cursed image. While the enwiki article lists some common characteristics, they don't allow for consistent categorization as we would expect with, say, Category:Impressionism. The tendency of some editors to add images of things like cultural artifacts and people with unusual physical features to this category says a great deal about those editors. While some have called for a gallery, this is likely to suffer from the exact same subjectivity issues as the category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Category currently unused, no need for very small categories to which nothing will ever be added Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete one-member cat with little potential to grow--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I initially wanted to nominate Category:Views from Going-to-the-Sun Road as it was the only category using the hyphenated version rather than the spaced one, but as the Wikipedia article is also using hyphens, I think it makes sense to rename the other categories instead. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, the official name given by the NRHP is hyphenated and I see no reason why this cat and the ones inside shouldn't be as well eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4, @Eviolite I support this change to match the National Park Service official name as well as match the Going-to-the-Sun Mountain. Local tribes use the hyphens also. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Consensus for the change to match the National Park Service official name. Discussion started 23 May 2021 --Ooligan (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently unused, only ever contained one image, not specific to the book; unlikely any more images will ever be added Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I see today that the editor who has created the category has populated it with a large number of irrelevant images, not taken from the book Positioning Yoga (it contains only a small number of monochrome images), and not used in the Wikipedia article w:Positioning Yoga either (though that would not be sufficient reason for adding them here). I am at a loss to understand what User:Allforrous's logic can be for either creating this pointless category, or for populating it with nonsense. The phrase "Positioning Yoga" is not a term in wide use, indeed it is an intentionally punning title by the book's academic author, Sarah Strauss, and it makes no sense as a category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The Category:Notgeld der Handelskammer Saarbücken should be deleted, because localities and not institutions are required. 5snake5 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- This emergency currency is related to Saarbrücken, so the category ist subcategory of Category:Notgeld of Saarbrücken and it's related to the institution Handelskammer Saarbrücken (today Industrie- und Handelskammer des Saarlandes), so the category ist subcategory of Category:Industrie- und Handelskammer des Saarlandes. No reason for deletion given; media to be removed to category discussed.--Karsten11 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This category has fulfilled its purpose, so therefore it is not need for it and should be deleted. FanNihongo (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Almost — just 鷄 is not yet animated -- sarang♥사랑 05:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you are right. FanNihongo (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
ResolvedAlmost all subcats (58 so far) pertain to individual buses and are named «Category:Wagen nnn». That naming is grossly ambiguous and doesn’t follow language policy. I suggest wholesale renaming to «Category:Stadtwerke Aschaffenburg bus №nnn» or something of the sort. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then change it if you really want to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverZenglein (talk • contribs) 2021-05-18 16:07:50 (UTC)
- It’s a go, it seems. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that is a go. But please watch if you change the category names of the retired busses not to get them to the current busses like you did it wiht No 143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverZenglein (talk • contribs) 2021-05-21 23:20:35 (UTC)
- Guy, sign your posts. If retired buses needs separate categorization, then add it — you’re the one who knows this subject. Use your knowledge within positive collaboration, not as a way to score points in some sort of one-upmanship nobody else cares about. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- All Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: can we close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Renamed by Tuválkin -- CptViraj (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Category only ever contained one image, a piece of cover art which can fit well into Yoga in art. It seems very unlikely any further files will ever come into this category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete one-member cat with little potential to grow --Estopedist1 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Dependent upon the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمد كريم العبيدي.jpg this category is likely to be empty. It appears intended to contain vanity pictures of the named individual Timtrent (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: in the meantime, the other file is added to this category. I personally don't like one-member categories, but I guess that we have to keep this category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent, @Estopedist1, referring to the original message for this request, I see the picture has been deleted but I believe the exact same has been uploaded again from Flickr under File:Massin Kevin Labidi.jpg. The Flickr account is under that person's name but this does not prove he has the proper rights to share this (knowing he is not the photographer).
- I add @Dyolf77 so we can check this case and attempt to close it. Moumou82 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Moumou82 Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Massin Kevin Labidi.jpg where I have suggested bith inappropriate licencing for the second picture, and also asked for admins to check whether it is the re-creation of a file created after deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio as empty. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Category:1850s events in Singapore
- Category:1870s events in Singapore
- Category:1880s events in Singapore
- Category:1890s events in Singapore
- Category:1920s events in Singapore
- Category:1930s events in Singapore
- Category:1950s events in Singapore
- Category:1960s events in Singapore
- Category:1980s events in Singapore
- Category:1990s events in Singapore
- Category:2000s events in Singapore
- Category:2010s events in Singapore
- Category:2020s events in Singapore
It's really a question of which way harmonizes these categories. The vast majority in Category:Events in Singapore by decade are named in the format of Category:1850s events in Singapore while this one follows the Events in Singapore structure. I think we should use the events in format but I figure it's better to ask thank keep on having this one alone moved. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've tagged the only other exception, Canada as well. Aside from Canada and Singapore, all the other categories in Category:1990s events by country are in the style "Events in [Country] in the 1990s." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- if we look at the most superior parent cat Category:Events by date, by year and by millennium are "xx events" but by decade and by century are "events in xx". RZuo (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've tagged the only other exception, Canada as well. Aside from Canada and Singapore, all the other categories in Category:1990s events by country are in the style "Events in [Country] in the 1990s." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Move all to "Events in Singapore in the XXXXs" as in the categories above. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved per consensus to "Events in Singapore in the XXXXs" format, for consistency with the other categories in Category:1990s events by country. Robertsky (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
What top views are not Category:Views from above? They seem redundant. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly looks redundant to me. Merge to Category:Views from above which is clearer and already better organized. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Top views should contain only photos taken from a point vertically above the object (perpendicularly). Category:Views from above should contain all images taken from a point anywhere above the object (angeled view).
-
top view -
view from (somwhere) above -
top view -
view from (somwhere) above
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=525426249){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Youthful_Cupbearer_-_Saint_Louis_Art_Museum.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:148_km,_train_station.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
- To answer the question: Every "top view" is a "view from above" (but not the other way around) and so the Category:Top views should be an subcategory of Category:Views from above. At the moment the content of both categories is mixed up. -- Common Good (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Common Good: That sounds reasonable, but maybe something like Category:Views from directly above would be clearer? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Renaming it might clarify the purpose of the category. But we have
- So Category:Top views, Category:Top views of vehicles, Category:Top views of automobiles, ... better fits this systematic naming scheme. -- Common Good (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Common Good: You're right, and systematic naming is certainly important. So then the question is, do we value systematic naming over clarify? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Consensus to treat Top views as a subcat of Views from above. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Surnames by original language. CptViraj (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete so do I --Bohème21 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Category without comprehensible sources, please delete. --HarryNº2 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While this second-level category is problematic, the first-level Category:English-language surnames is an issue as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Broichmore (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, clear consensus. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sir Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister)
[edit]Replaced by Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister). Ammelida (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ammelida: do we redirect or delete the nominated category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please delete the nominated category. Thank you. Ammelida (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
We do not have any "Category:Carpet & Drapery Stores in ..." cats and I doubt we will have in the near future. Is this a proper name BTW? "Carpet & Drapery Stores"? Where else do they have branches? E4024 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete orphan, out of system--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: as discussed - out of system, no images in this category and only one subcategory. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hard to see what this might be for; the sole subcategory once contained one cover art image, so Yoga as art handled it fine. If we had videos, animations etc the category might be useful, but we don't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: empty category. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sir Thomas Godsalve and His Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister)
[edit]replaced by Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) Ammelida (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both are currently empty anyway. Is one of them going to be populated? If so, populate it, then tag the other with {{Bad name}}. Is there need for any other discussion? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Auntof6, Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) is the right one. The other two won't be populated and (if there's no objection) can be tagged with {{Bad name}}, no need for for further discussion. Ammelida (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: was speedily deleted. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What is this age with capital letter here? Is this a really necessary cat, BTW? E4024 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Do you happen to recall why you moved this from Category:Young and old? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: There are Category:Young and old animals (since 2007) and Category:Young and old people (since 2017).
- Young and old / Youth and Age, Two are different meaning? --Benzoyl (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Sorry, I mistakenly thought you had moved it in 2015 - but you just redirected Category:Young and old to the pre-existing (since 2006) Cateory:Youth and Age. Still, it seems to me that "young and old" that would be the way to go. However it started, it's now about Category:Age comparisons, not simply a merger of Category:Youth and Category:Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Youth and Age means Category:Youth and Aged? The word "Youth" used in only human (not in animal)? --Benzoyl (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Sorry, I mistakenly thought you had moved it in 2015 - but you just redirected Category:Young and old to the pre-existing (since 2006) Cateory:Youth and Age. Still, it seems to me that "young and old" that would be the way to go. However it started, it's now about Category:Age comparisons, not simply a merger of Category:Youth and Category:Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Maybe that was the intention, but then it's redundant with Category:Young and old people. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Considering who created this category and in particular their (lack of) knowledge of English, this should have indeed been Category:Young and old instead. Keep in mind to also rename Category:Youth and age in art once the CfD concludes. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Young and old, per consensus. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Need to be renamed to Category:Mindaugas Hill, Novogrudok. The English name is obviously Mindaugas Hill. The search of Mindaugas Hill gives 900 results, Mindoŭh Hill gives 197 results, most of these are Wikimedia projects or texts copied from Wikimedia projects. There are a lot of sources in English which use Mindaugas Hill and Mindaugas Castle: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] just from the beginning of the search. Mindoŭh Hill uses diacritics and can not be the most common English name.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The geographical place with the proposed name Mindaugas Hill is situated in en:Kernavė [45], which is in different country with different local language and so different local place names, so the provided search results are not relevant. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was searching for "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok vs "Mindoŭh Hill". Fully relevant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok [46] actually gives just 16 results. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keeping Novogrudok after the comma is enough to distinguish different hills, For example, the same standard is used when there are dozens of churches named after the same saints, whose names are unified with the most common variant (see: Category:Buildings named after Saint Anne), so in this way it would be Mindaugas (see article about Mindaugas in Encyclopaedia Britannica). There is no need to exclude this location with a different name of a foreign ruler in the present-day Belarusian territory as such ill practice only creates confusion whenever it is the same person or not. Google search offers 5,910,000 results for Mindaugas and only 2,190 results for Mindoŭh, so such name is not recognized internationally and only creates confusion. Such exceptionally low amount of usage could possibly be qualified as an original research. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok [46] actually gives just 16 results. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was searching for "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok vs "Mindoŭh Hill". Fully relevant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The current English name is in use (example 1, example 2) while there is only one [47] really related example of using the proposed English name for this specific Belarusian geographical place (the hill, not castle or the Lithuanian king). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure there is more [48]. and Mindaugas Castle is on Mindaugas Hill, no reason to discard these.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- One more example is not much more. And the castle is actually not situated on the Mindoŭh hill [49]. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure there is more [48]. and Mindaugas Castle is on Mindaugas Hill, no reason to discard these.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Quote the reasonable comment by User:Homoatrox [50] from the related discussion: «It seems that the name of the original person (Mindaugas/Mindoŭh/Mindovg) is irrelevant in this case because the hill is in Belarus where the local name of the hill was formed. And as all toponyms in general it should be called based on its local name, not on the etymology (even for unification purposes). The etymological way seems dangerous: for example, in many Slavic languages Rome (city) is called Rim/Rym, and therefore we have Rimskaya metro station in Moscow, Římská street in Prague, Rimski spa-source in Serbia, etc. There is a filled P138 "named after" in Wikidata for the interested people.» --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Because Mindaugas is a foreign monarch to Belarus, which did not existed when the Lithuanian King's castle was built on this hill. The name is older than Belarus itself as it is only a 20th century state. See Category:Buildings named after Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Category:Things named after Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as an examples of things named after foreign monarchs. There absolutely is no need to keep one location with a modified name of the same monarch as it only creates confusion. -- Pofka (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support There already is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18380321 and the name in general internationally is better known under "Mindaugas hill", as Pofka rightly points out. Moreover, it seems to me that Mindaugas is easier for English speakers to pronounce in contrast to Mindouh. In addition, even Belarusian websites oriented towards foreign tourists use the term, e.g. https://vedaj.by/index.php/en/towns/grodno/navahr/navahrudak . Plus, it already is mentioned under the name "Mindaugas hill" in the article about Mindaugas. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose That's a toponym, so the "native" name of the original person is irrelevant, even if he's a "foreign ruler". There are a bulk of places named after Alexander the Great which use the Arabic—Persian—Turkish version of his name (Iskander/Iskandar), not the Greek Alexandros: Iskanderkul lake, Iskander Darya river, Iskandariya city in Iraq, İskenderun city in Turkey, etc. (Alexandria in Egypt is a prominent exception). I think that "named after" parameter in a template and redirects should be enough. Homoatrox (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- As presented by Itzhak Rosenberg, name Mindaugas is also used in Belarus, therefore name Mindoŭh is an original research of a very small group. The comparison of 5,910,000 results versus 2,190 results proves that. -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both official languages in Belarus use Cyrillic script and therefore are excluded from your analysis. It's like making decisions comparing 0.7% and 0.3% without noticing 99%. Once again, I see the established tradition to name toponyms in their local forms, not based on the etymology. I don't challenge the name of the original person, I claim it doesn't matter in this discussion. — Homoatrox (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- As presented by Itzhak Rosenberg, name Mindaugas is also used in Belarus, therefore name Mindoŭh is an original research of a very small group. The comparison of 5,910,000 results versus 2,190 results proves that. -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Keep uniform naming of toponyms which are parts of the title: both should be in same language, because there are no obviously common names in English due to rarity. The name of the person irrelevant. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not always understand the names in the Belarusian Latin alphabet. But I agree that place names should not be translated. We are not now writing WhiteRussia, but Belarus. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | The last comment on this is from three years ago and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change the name of the category. So I'm closing the CfD as "no consensus." | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
It looks like the cat-opener retired; what do others think about the necessity for this and similar "open mouth" cats? If they are so indispensable, should they not use "open" better? E4024 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- DeleteThe person who created this category caused a massive amount of problems across multiple projects with their careless creation of redirects and categories, this is just another example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were many, many more. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a useful category --Kritzolina (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- revise the content - most of included photos contain not really open but just ajar (slighty open) mouths. --ŠJů (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with user:ŠJů. We have already Category:Women_with_opened_mouths, and other similar categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, delete all of the subcategories and brother categories Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete but we need to list all the subcategories and get rid of them individually. I don't see what needs to be revised. No one is objecting to whether the wrong images here; people debate the need for this category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and would like to see a broader discussion of this sort of categories. As I recently mentioned on the Village pump, a photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree about the objectification issue. See the VP discussion. Brianjd (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Just as useful as Men by facial expression, Women by facial expression, etc. (and other subcategories), which are just as useful as Men by posture, Women by posture, etc. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- All of which I would consider problematic, at least when applied to photos that were intended simply as portraits of identifiable individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- How does stating a facial expression violate personal rights? Trade (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Trade: It's not rights in legal sense; it's a matter of a human being described in terms that overly focus on their appearance rather than who they are (an object rather than a subject). If we could somehow confine categories like this to images of performance, I'd have no problem with them, but in practice we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning the assertion that this is about a «
human being described
», I think it’s not. This is about describing media files, in this case, photos. (Are any of these categories applied to categories about people? That’s would be wrong in most cases — except stuff like this one.) In an ideal world devoided of weirdos and creeps, there should be no fuss over this the same way there’s no fuss about Category:Rail vehicles with open doors. - That said, I often get a weird feeling when photos of people in Commons are categorized in great detail concerning posture and looks while lacking categories about, say, time and place and other event context — or when of several people depicted one (often, a woman) got disproportionately more attention from the detailed categorizer. However that issue should be dealt with by reaching out tho the editors (mis?)using the categories, not by deleting the categories.
- (Not to mention when this kind of potentially problematic categories are misused — as when this one is applied to a group photo where only one mouth is open. However, as in any other case of miscategorization, it should be corrected where occurring, not by deleting the misused category itself.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin I agree with everything you said in the first two paragraphs.
- But applying this category to a group photo where only one mouth is open (and that mouth belongs to a man) is consistent with normal practice, at least in my experience (if we wanted photos with multiple opened mouths, then it should be something like ‘Groups of men/people with open mouths’). If we now regard that as miscategorization, we need to discuss that too. Brianjd (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Jmabel. Brianjd (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's much harder to tell the location and time from a photo than it is an individual's facial expression or appearance. It's not surprising that the later is far more used. Trade (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still say that these categories are problematic at best. If kept, should be confined to things that are in some sense a deliberate visual performance (an actor on a stage, a figure in a painting that is not specifically someone's portrait, someone in a parade, etc.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning the assertion that this is about a «
- E.g. it might be right to use appearance-focused categories for an essentially anonymous person in a parade, but I think they become extremely inappropriate when applied to portraits of notable people. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Is it really any different what image hosting sites like Flickr does? Trade (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Are you saying that it is OK to objectify people as long as they are
essentially anonymous
? Even if we set aside the objectification issue, you are still saying that it is OK to draw attention toan essentially anonymous person
, but not OK to draw attention – at least in this way – to people who are already the main focus of the image. That does not seem right. Brianjd (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- @Brianjd: again, I'd rather see these categories just plain gone but, yes, it's much more of a problem when their name is on it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade: It's not rights in legal sense; it's a matter of a human being described in terms that overly focus on their appearance rather than who they are (an object rather than a subject). If we could somehow confine categories like this to images of performance, I'd have no problem with them, but in practice we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- How does stating a facial expression violate personal rights? Trade (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Are they? There are twenty-five subcategories in Category:Joe Biden by posture and twenty-two ways of splitting Category:Kamala Harris by posture because I assume those have been the most thoroughly diffused but are people really looking through the pictures of Kamala Harris we have on Commons and going down the tree into the five variations of her standing because they can't find the particular image of her standing a particular way they want? This feels like categorization for the sake of creating categories and in the end you lose out on the generic photographs of Harris because it's all within layers of categorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682 Given that many of these subcategories have hundreds of files, and some have over a thousand files, maybe this diffusion is a good thing. Anyway, all the ones I checked were created by Missvain; perhaps they would like to comment here.
- Also, we have tools like PetScan to extract useful information from layers of categorisation. Not working for you? Then let’s improve those tools instead. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- All of which I would consider problematic, at least when applied to photos that were intended simply as portraits of identifiable individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Useless category. We should delete this and similar categories. The hyper-categorization has gotten out of hand. Nosferattus (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per others above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per Brianjd. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Jmabel, Nosferattus and others. Useless category. Delete with all sub-categories. --Bohème (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Humans have various facial expressions. Don't be abstract, More subdivision is necessary. --Benzoyl (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not surprised to see you taking this stance, but I think you may be a bit of an extremist in this regard, as I've said before. This kind of extremely granular sub-categorization is not helpful. More subdivision just makes things needlessly complex. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I recently changed my name, I used to be Beeblebrox. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Extremist? Trade (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. We had a discussion some years ago about the way they create categories[51]. Nothing came of it, kind of like this discussion. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not surprised to see you taking this stance, but I think you may be a bit of an extremist in this regard, as I've said before. This kind of extremely granular sub-categorization is not helpful. More subdivision just makes things needlessly complex. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | ||||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There's clearly a consensus to delete the category. This is way to subjective and granular anyway. Most of the images in the category aren't of people with their mouths open to begin with either. And yes I'm aware that there similar categories, but I don't think they have the same problems. So I'm closing this as delete. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Unclear what this is and how this helps Commons Multichill (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good catch, user:Multichill! Unfortunately the category creator (user:Jenaesthetics) is left from Commons (last contribution in 2013). This paper/scientific article has some connection with Commons. Deletion is easy, but maybe we get some input yet (eg user:Oursana)--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we can now delete it. It is without anybody knowing what it is for online since 3 years. Carl Ha (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/06 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/07 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/08 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/09 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/10 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/11 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/12