Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/01
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Nomination withdrawn, no consensus.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)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=525426249){kind=link}
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)