Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/07
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive July 2021
Empty category POS78 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- No need for discussion, user POS78 actually wanted to nominate it for deletion, so I did it properly. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not contain any images. Seems to be self promotion. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: x-wiki spam. --Minoraxtalk 05:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
EMPTY CATEGORY/CREATED BY ACCIDENT -- SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Mario Draghi meets Italy national football team, Matteo Berrettini and Italy national U23 athletic team (12 July 2021)
[edit]Category only containing non-free images. Delete when empty. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This is not a good name: categories of objects should be in plural; reverse to the Category:Mandolins in art (that now is nominated for deletion). JopkeB (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok. --ЧастникУчастник (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the reverse/changes! I close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
ЧастникУчастник has made the requested reverse/changes. JopkeB (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to "Carl Hahn Jr." to match other categories of this type (such as "Category:Martin Luther King, Sr."). Thanks in advance. 78.152.250.236 22:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --Kirchenfan (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category was moved to new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Deletion 176.199.23.144 15:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Kept. --Achim (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Ngngmbmbmnmn mm. M ,n,njnjkknunnunu Inv,no,l2mFf 2407:7000:9891:E200:91AA:A778:D828:DE36 05:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep the presentation of this category request is vandalism itself. SHB2000 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep, nonsense nomination. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Wrongly created POS78 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty category (C2). --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wrongly created POS78 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty category (C2). --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Categorie heropenen en de doorverwijzing verwijderen want o.a.voedseltekorten/Food shortages, gaarkeukens en food storage horen niet bij Cuisine maar bij Food. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Toelichting: Om onduidelijke redenen heeft deze categorie een doorverwijzing naar Category:Cuisine of the Netherlands. Maar af en toe loop ik er tegenaan dat Cuisine of the Netherland niet de geschikte bovenliggende categorie is. Je kunt immers moeilijk volhouden dat Category:Food shortages in the Netherlands, Category:Food supply in the Netherlands, Category:Food storage in the Netherlands en Category:Food control in the Netherlands tot de Cuisine (= a characteristic style of preparing food) van Nederland behoren. Daarom zou ik deze categorie willen heropenen en de doorverwijzing willen verwijderen.
Voorstellen:
- Description Food of the Netherlands: Voedsel in Nederland. (Bovenliggende categorie)
- Description Cuisine of the Netherlands: Nederlandse keuken, karakteristieke stijl van kookgewoontes, kenmerkende manieren waarop in Nederland voedsel wordt bereid.(Onderliggende categorie)
| Food | Cuisine |
|---|---|
| Onbewerkte landbouwproducten voor menselijke consumptie, waarmee je nog alle kanten op kunt, zoals: rauwe groente, aardappelen, granen, rauwe melk of in opslagtanks, appels, suikerbieten, rauw vlees; daarnaast ook: ingrediënten in het algemeen, bijv. op een markt, in een winkel of in de kast; ook hier: Category:Food markets in the Netherlands, Category:Food storage in the Netherlands, Category:Vegetarianism in the Netherlands, Category:Food industry in the Netherlands (conform hun hoofdcategorieën) | Bereiding van gerechten en dranken (o.a. kookboeken, kookdemonstraties, mensen die gerechten bereiden), ingrediënten voor specifieke gerechten, de gerechten en dranken zelf, kant-en-klaar maaltijden; beroepen in de keuken (zoals kok, bakker, catering, chocolatiers), etende mensen |
JopkeB (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Aangezien er binnen een maand geen reacties zijn gekomen, ga ik ervan uit dat de wijzigingen kunnen worden aangebracht conform mijn voorstel. JopkeB (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Wijzigingen zijn aangebracht conform voorstel. JopkeB (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Empty category for a internet "celebrity" of doubtable notability Trade (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- There were a bunch of news articles recently. Benjamin (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: There is nothing here. It can be recreated when relevant material is uploaded. Susmuffin (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The draft has been deleted. Susmuffin (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Any attempts to add her to any Wikimedia project should be regarded as ongoing harassment and nuked on sight. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Empty category for a non-notable individual. Attempts to use the Wikimedia projects to "document" her in the way she has been on dedicated harassment sites should not be tolerated. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the current situation, delete and salt (including deadname) for reasons above. --92.236.0.141 14:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: --Trade (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per C2. There are no relevant images on Commons and I couldn't find any others about Chris Chan on the Internet. I have checked uploads from Chris Chan herself (CChanSonichu) and none are appropriate for this category. If Chris Chan so wishes, she should move them to a user category as per COM:USER#Categories. They aren't in this category right now, and they shouldn't be. Wumbolo (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Empty category created for promotional purposes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've created a duplicate of Category:Gagrypsh resturant by mistake Alaexis (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: If you make a simple mistake, you don't need to start a discussion about it. Just add {{Badname}} to the page. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Marked as badname. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Mahendra Kudiya Mahendra Kudiya (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Mahendra Kudiya: You don't say what needs discussing about this category. I just disconnected it from the Wikidata item, because the Wikidata item is for the person, not for their images. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
No reason for nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If the old category is a simple typo or you are the only person who ever used the category and you are the one fixing it up, it can safely be deleted. Request it for speedy deletion by marking it thus: ミラー・ハイト (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:HMS Amethyst (1903). Motacilla (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
No opposition in a month. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Category seems to duplicate Category:HMS Dreadnought (ship, 1906). Motacilla (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:HMS Swift (ship, 1907). Motacilla (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Motacilla: If you're going to open a discussion instead of just redirecting the category, please don't empty it until the discussion is finished. It makes it much harder to actually discuss the categories. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
No opposition in over a month. Deleted. Though BMacZero makes a good point about not emptying categories under discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:HMS Velox (ship, 1902). Motacilla (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
empty category and duplicate of Category:Eduard von Keyserling Robby (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. No need to list people's titles in their category name. Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This should be located at Category:Museums Victoria, as the Wikipedia page and all official media clearly call it such. No "Museum Victoria" organisation exists. For now, i have created a category redirect at the proposed page destination instead of moving as it's a pretty large cat, but i think it's a pretty clear cut case. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Moved as nom Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
redundant category, after syntax change toː Category:Durga Puja 2007 in Kolkata Oo91 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
should be deleted as a duplicate of Category:Summer-house of Joseph Stalin, Ritsa Alaexis (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The category is empty Rheathesecond (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Still empty a month later. Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
kamakaze attack 2001:44B8:1127:6F00:B18F:3C0D:5973:64A9 23:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Empty Category Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete as COM:CSD#C2. @Dan arndt: Next time you can simply tagged {{SD|C2}}for empty category. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Empty Category Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as COM:CSD#C2. @Dan arndt: Next time you can simply tagged
{{SD|C2}}for empty category. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Wrongly created POS78 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Nom is created. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Wrongly created POS78 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Nom by creator. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
EMPTY CATEGORY -- SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Promotional. Crosswiki promo (in eswiki). MiguelAlanCS (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is "promotional" any reason to delete on Commons? If any of this is INUSE on another wikipedia, then it would seem to pass at Commons. It's not our role here to tell other Wikipedias what notability policy is. I wouldn't include Wikidata in that, as Wikidata has no quality standards.
- If it's not, has not been, and is not likely to be, in use then I can't see it obviously passing SCOPE otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
empty category Caulfield (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
spanking art 2601:199:4180:A370:4C81:C07D:952C:77BD 20:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep Yet again and again NOTCENSORED Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep: no valid reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The category has two images, while the parent Category:Rajahmundry Airport has one, making three images in total. Is a category by year necessary? -- DaxServer (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Excessive subcategorization of minor airport category unlikely to grow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope category ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete category and contents. Spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope SHB2000 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Yahya (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of the project scope —MdsShakil (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Can "Malted milk" be considered as Category:Dairy beverages and can this category get a redirect to Dairy beverages? JopkeB (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused. What does "milk" mean here? Is it restricted to cows' and goats' milk or should it include soya milk, almond milk and coconut milk? But I agree that "dairy beverages" is more specific for malted milk, by implication. But goats are not associated with dairies. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good point! I did not think of plant milks. I see that yesterday someone added a lot more subcategories here (with overcategorization, so that is to be solved). About Category:Goat milk: ever since 2012 it has Category:Dairy farming as one of its parent categories, so I assume that goat milk is considered to be associated with dairies.
- Good point! I did not think of plant milks. I see that yesterday someone added a lot more subcategories here (with overcategorization, so that is to be solved). About Category:Goat milk: ever since 2012 it has Category:Dairy farming as one of its parent categories, so I assume that goat milk is considered to be associated with dairies.
- My proposal:
- Let's make "Milk-based drinks" the main category, with a good description.
- Let "Dairy beverages" be a subcategory with all drinks from cow and goat milk only there as subcategories (not in "Milk-based drinks").
- Let's keep subcategories about plant milk here.
- JopkeB (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Support Allforrous (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)- Support makes sense. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- My proposal:
- My thoughts:
- "Dairy product" is a synonym for "milk product" even if the product didn't come from an actual dairy. (But also keep in mind that dairies can be big or small, and there are many such businesses where mammals other than cows are milked.) Milk from any mammal could be included: cows, goats, sheep, camel, and any other mammal whose milk is consumed by humans or made into a product. Category:Milk by mammal shows some other such mammals.
- Malted milk is a dairy beverage because it is dairy (contains milk that came from an mammal) and is a beverage.
- Category:Milk should generally be restricted to mammal milks, from any mammal. If it isn't, we'd have to include things like crop milk, if we ever get any files related to that. It could have hatnotes pointing to plant-based things that are called milk (almond, coconut, soy, etc.). Either that, or they could be in a separate subcategory called "milk substitutes", "imitation milks", or something similar.
- Just my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good thoughts! It is good to have another perspective. It made me change my opions about Category:Milk and its structure. New proposals and questions:
- I agree that there should be a distinction between "real" milk from mammals and plant milks. @Rodhullandemu and Allforrous: Do you agree?
- Let's limit Category:Milk to milk from mammals, just like the EN Wikipedia does. Category:Milk will get a hatnote pointing to Category:Plant milk.
- Category:Plant milk should not be a subcategory of Category:Milk, but of Category:Milk substitutes (which is a subcategory of Milk).
- Because apparently "dairy product" is a synonym for "milk product": Can Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks be merged? If yes, we should make a seperate Discussion for it.
- Malted milk = Powdered gruel made from a mixture of malted barley, wheat flour, and evaporated whole milk, used to add its flavor to beverages, other foods and dough (derived from the EN Wikipedia) = a subcategory of Dairy beverages/Milk-based products/drinks (among others).
- JopkeB (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Agree with 1, 2 & 3 to a point. I think the separation between mammal milk and plant milk should be entirely complete, although linked by hatnotes for convenience, because they are so totally biologically different. I've always regarded our category structure as expressing inheritance, in that subcats either have or override the same properties as their parents. So if we have Category:Plant milk as an indirect descendant of Category:Milk via Category:Milk substitutes, we would imply that which we are trying to avoid. Sorry if that sounds complicated, but I've done a lot of Object-Oriented software. Agree to merge Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Also take help from Wikipedia. --Allforrous (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Agree with 1, 2 & 3 to a point. I think the separation between mammal milk and plant milk should be entirely complete, although linked by hatnotes for convenience, because they are so totally biologically different. I've always regarded our category structure as expressing inheritance, in that subcats either have or override the same properties as their parents. So if we have Category:Plant milk as an indirect descendant of Category:Milk via Category:Milk substitutes, we would imply that which we are trying to avoid. Sorry if that sounds complicated, but I've done a lot of Object-Oriented software. Agree to merge Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu and Allforrous: Thanks for your input, this all makes sense. But then we have another challenge: What should be the parent categories of Category:Milk substitutes? We can remove Category:Milk and keep Category:Food substitutes and Category:Dairy substitutes. But Dairy substitutes has also Category:Milk as a great-parent category via Category:Dairy-based food. Should Category:Dairy-based food also be reviewed? JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- No me pidan definiciones a mi, esta todo bien claro en Wikipedia. --Allforrous (talk) 14
- 03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@4: I have second thoughts about merging Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks. There would be a lot of subcategories for one parent category. I start a new discussion to discuss it. JopkeB (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- There should be a distinction between "real" milk from mammals and plant milks.
- Category:Milk will be limited to milk from mammals and get a hatnote pointing to Category:Plant milk. I made sure that there are no plant milk related subcategories anymore and made a "See also".
- Category:Plant milk should not be a subcategory of Category:Milk in any way, but of Category:Milk substitutes. I removed the parent category Category:Milk in Category:Plant milk.
- Category:Milk substitutes should not be a subcategory of Category:Milk. Category:Milk substitues will get a hatnote pointing to Category:Milk. I removed Category:Milk as a parent category from Milk substitutes and made a "See also". I also removed Category:Dairy-based food as a parent category from Category:Dairy substitutes and made a "See also" in Category:Dairy-based food for it.
- "Dairy product" = "milk product", from mammals. Allforrous made already a redirect for Category:Dairy products to Category:Dairy-based food. I made redirects for the subcategories Category:Dairy products by country and Category:Russian dairy products, and also for Category:Milk products (which is new, but had already two files).
- I added the definition of Malted milk (see point 5 above) to Category:Malted milk and made sure the parent categories are as discussed above (at least Category:Dairy beverages).
Category created by banned LTA - Jurisdrew SHB2000 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Useless discussion – should have been speedily deleted as empty after a potential closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Proposed flags of Chechnya. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: I've removed all files in this category as block evasion, but could any admin speedy delete this category? SHB2000 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted empty category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
since private labels are a kind of brands, and both Category:Brands by country and Category:Companies by country use a format of "xx of some country", this should be the same, using of instead of in. any objection? RZuo (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, The best cat-name is Category:Private labels of Japan? If so, I agree. --Benzoyl (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: yes that's what i meant. :)--RZuo (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
moved to Category:Private labels of Japan.--RZuo (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Surely this category should be: Dazaifu Amusement Park. Zenwort (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Renamed. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
bad empty redirect ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, redirects will be empty. We have 'bots to keep them that way. Why is this "bad"? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: singular -> plural, so this is a valid redirect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category is unused CzarJobKhaya (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category is unused CzarJobKhaya (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
wrong named - please delete Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This category is placed outside of the "unidentified churches" category tree and should be moved there. Fl.schmitt (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Consense! --Ulamm (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:Ships built at John Elder & Co, Glasgow. Motacilla (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. I followed this link in naming the category, but missed Category:Ships built at John Elder & Co, Glasgow. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Closed as merged and redirected. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense category. Pbrks (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Done: Empty category deleted. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
not needed considering there is category:Odia pronunciation, also the cat name has a spelling error Psubhashish (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Category created by x-wiki LTA (Jurisdrew) SHB2000 (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. It's unclear, how to make difference between active and non-active movements. Taivo (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The book from which these screenshots were taken was copyright freed as per DLI website. In 2019, site was shutdown to review the copyright status. Hence these images may be deleted. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
not CFD, but the request to delete files. Discussion is moved to Category talk:Image from "Suprasiddula Jeevitha Visheshalu" Estopedist1 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- + Category:N-hexyl position isomers
- + Category:Isopentyl position isomers
- + Category:N-pentyl position isomers
I think I understand the reason that led to creation of these categories (group all isomeric alkyl groups). However, both names and realisation of this categorisation is questionable. Names of these categories do not tell much about the about the content, categorisation under n-alkyl groups is also not right.
I see two better options for this:
- Move these categories to Category:<Group name> groups or better something like Category:Alkyl groups derived from xxx and then make Category:n-Alkyl group its subcategory:
- ex: Category:N-hexyl position isomers → Category:Hexyl groups or Category:Alkyl groups derived from hexane with Category:Hexyl group as its subcategory.
- Delete these four categories as redundant. All of these categories have 1–3 files. Category:Alkyl groups is not overloaded and its seems to me that creating separate categories for every functional group is better than such overcategorisation. If enough files are available, separate categories can be created, all of them will be easily accessible from Category:Alkyl groups, just like it is done for e.g. butyl groups.
Personally, I would choose option 2. Wostr (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that that these categories are not currently useful and I find option 2 to best as well. Delete these categories and move the files to Category:Alkyl groups. Marbletan (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- All four categories are now empty and can be deleted. Wostr (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 08:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The section on "keffiyeh" seems to have omitted the portion about "Sudra vs Keffiyeh" which offers some important historical context. I found it discussed on an alternate wiki site here https://pipiwiki.com/wiki/Keffiyeh#Sudra_vs_Keffiyeh 206.110.20.14 15:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- close So what? What action, in terms of Commons, are you expecting here? This isn't an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: the problem may be that Category:Sudra is a subcategory of Category:Keffiyeh. Enwiki doesn't confirm such hierarchy--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Then open a CfD (if needed) on Sudra. But that wouldn't change anything about this category, or this CfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: the problem may be that Category:Sudra is a subcategory of Category:Keffiyeh. Enwiki doesn't confirm such hierarchy--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Sudra has been moved from Category:Keffiyeh to Category:Headscarves. Please close the discussion. --Bohème21 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley, Estopedist1, and Bohème21: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
should be deleted as a duplicate of Category:Prince of Oldenburg Castle Alaexis (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- In fact the latter (2021), as newer, is a duplicate to the first (2019). The unique article in ru.wiki is named “Castle (Palace)...” It's better to preserve the “palace” name as a redirection (I'll make it). --Elkost (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alaexis and Elkost: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Changed my mind about creating this since, as of right now, it's too specific to require categorization. There are no images under this category other than the logo. Soapwort (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- upmerge the logo and delete the category. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Soapwort and Estopedist1: Closed (upmerge) Josh (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
duplicate, unneeded WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: the nominated category is redirected to Category:Round House (Aberdeen Harbour). Is it acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 and WereSpielChequers: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete category as it is a duplicate of Category:Napier, New Zealand. Nurg (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's an outright odd proposal. Do you understand how the categorisation system works? We have a parent Category:Districts of New Zealand for the territorial local authorities (TLAs), and a parent Category:Cities in New Zealand for the geographic areas, the latter being a sub-category of Populated places in New Zealand. The city / populated place is obviously something different to the TLAs, although for the cities (as opposed to the districts) they cover the same geographic area. If this is a problem for Napier and Napier City, why don't you put all city TLAs up for deletion? Surely, it's the same throughout. The same system of categorisation exists on Wikidata, and Wikipedia has articles that are separate for the TLAs and the cities. But for Napier, this is somehow a problem? Schwede66 02:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Schwede66. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "The city / populated place is obviously something different to the TLAs". I know there is a technical difference between defining a particular area by statute (or schedule, or executive order or however they do it) as a TLA area vs defining an urban area for statistical purposes or whatever. But in a case where the two types of areas coincide, it makes little difference when it comes to categorising files. The city of Napier is essentially the same as the TLA Napier City; or (wording it differently) the urban area of Napier is essentially the same as Napier City. Any minor difference is easily accommodated using just one category. We already have only one for Category:Lower Hutt (there's no Category:Hutt City) and Category:Wellington City (Category:Wellington is a redirect to it).
- I wouldn't make the same suggestion for TLA areas like Christchurch City or Dunedin City, because they both cover a much bigger area that includes other towns, e.g. Akaroa; Mosgiel.
- I'm also not sure what you mean by "Wikipedia has articles that are separate for the TLAs and the cities." If you meant TLA councils, it's true for a number of them, but this deletion proposal is not about a council. It is not true of the TLA areas I have checked. The TLA city names are just redirects or disambiguation pages: w:Napier City, w:Hamilton City, w:Tauranga City etc.
- I was initially just focused on Napier, but you prompted me to look at the others. Where the TLA area is more-or-less coterminous with the city / populated place / urban area, then yes I would nominate them to be deleted (but I will wait to see where this discussion goes). So w:Hamilton City and w:Tauranga City would be candidates for deletion. But, as I say, not for the likes of Christchurch City or Dunedin City. Nurg (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Its not the same thing, as noted this is a territorial authority district while Category:Napier, New Zealand is for the settlement, like civil parishes in England it might not be appropriate to have the distinction if the boundaries are similar to the settlement or are longstanding. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- The boundaries are more than similar – they are either identical or have very minor differences. That is what I meant when I said, "the urban area of Napier is essentially the same as Napier City". Nurg (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can see looking at GeoNames more than half of the TLA is rural and includes places in Bay View and Petane. If I look at Hastings (which was split on Wikipedia in January) it does indeed include a far larger area and its boundaries date from 1989 while the Wikipedia article for Napier City Council doesn't mention any boundary changes. Hastings district in England does include a small amount of rural land to the east but its mostly urban and its boundaries last changed in 1938. I have produced a table at w:User:Crouch, Swale/District split for districts in England (which mentions Hastings) so perhaps I should also produce one for New Zealand. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Try this. Go to the Statistics NZ map (as Stats NZ determine urban areas and the urban-rural boundaries) at https://statsnz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6f49867abe464f86ac7526552fe19787. Search for Napier. From the layer list, tick Urban Rural and the next lower level "Urban-Rural Areas - 2021". You should see the urban-rural boundaries for urban areas such as (from the north) Whirinaki, Napier, Clive, Whakatu, Hastings etc. See if there is any significant difference between the urban boundary and the Territorial Authority boundary. You might have to toggle the two layers on and off in turn to compare them where they coincide. As far as I can see, the only difference is that the urban area excludes the lagoon. Nurg (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I see, the urban area's boundaries do indeed apparently extend out far further and include almost all of the district. City Population shows the different boundaries clearer and gives the urban area as pop 66,300 (2020) and 104.9 km²[1] and the district as 66,300 (2020) and 105.5 km²[2] by contrast for Christchurch the urban area is 383,200 (2020) and 295.2 km²[3] (and 388,130 for the urban agglomeration) but the district is 394,700 (2020) and 1,415 km²[4]. The question then is what needs to be done with all of them? There appears to be 67 districts in New Zealand[5] so if all but 1 or 2 of them have distinctly different boundaries I'd just allow this to be separate for consistency but if say 10 of them are nearly the same then I'd consider making a rule than they can be combined meaning that Category:Napier, New Zealand is categorized as a district and Category:Napier City redirects there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Try this. Go to the Statistics NZ map (as Stats NZ determine urban areas and the urban-rural boundaries) at https://statsnz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6f49867abe464f86ac7526552fe19787. Search for Napier. From the layer list, tick Urban Rural and the next lower level "Urban-Rural Areas - 2021". You should see the urban-rural boundaries for urban areas such as (from the north) Whirinaki, Napier, Clive, Whakatu, Hastings etc. See if there is any significant difference between the urban boundary and the Territorial Authority boundary. You might have to toggle the two layers on and off in turn to compare them where they coincide. As far as I can see, the only difference is that the urban area excludes the lagoon. Nurg (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can see looking at GeoNames more than half of the TLA is rural and includes places in Bay View and Petane. If I look at Hastings (which was split on Wikipedia in January) it does indeed include a far larger area and its boundaries date from 1989 while the Wikipedia article for Napier City Council doesn't mention any boundary changes. Hastings district in England does include a small amount of rural land to the east but its mostly urban and its boundaries last changed in 1938. I have produced a table at w:User:Crouch, Swale/District split for districts in England (which mentions Hastings) so perhaps I should also produce one for New Zealand. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The boundaries are more than similar – they are either identical or have very minor differences. That is what I meant when I said, "the urban area of Napier is essentially the same as Napier City". Nurg (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nurg, Schwede66, and Crouch, Swale: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Please delete this category of a non-existent street. Thanks. Rc1959 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Google seems to think it exists: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+du+Chemin+de+Fer,+Saint-Ouen,+France/@48.9126999,2.3455249,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47e66eeb4859548d:0xaeb03bf74631c93b!8m2!3d48.9126999!4d2.3477136
- Do you mean that File:Rue du Chemin-de-Fer.Saint-Ouen.20210709 114336.jpg and File:Rue du Chemin-de-Fer.Saint-Ouen.20210709 114350.jpg were incorrectly named? In which case, the fix needs to rename them and we can leave the category (if it stays empty, it will be swept up anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rc1959 and Andy Dingley: Closed (now empty) Josh (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Blatant advertising, to be deleted. Sticking a few bits of wood on your building does not make a shop of a coffe-house chain relevant. Zenwort (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No policy-based reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy. Commons does not have a notability policy in the same vein as enwikis. @Zenwort: If the images are out of scope (which I don't think they are), you'll need to get them deleted first via the image deletion process, but as long as they exist, they should be group in a category (this one). – BMacZero (🗩) 17:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Zenwort, Andy Dingley, and BMacZero: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This category is as same as Category:Changlemen，so it is surplus.已经有相同事物的分类页面Category:Changlemen了，所以这个分类需要删除。 Liuxingy (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect something.
- This is badly handled and I would ask the nominator to not do similar things again. This should have been treated as a rename, not a deletion.
- There is a question, should this gate be described as 'Category:Changle Gate' or as 'Category:Changlemen'? That's a fair question: Commons' usual working language vs. the language of the subject. But afterwards, we should likely keep both of these, with one rdirecting to the other.
- As it is, the category (which may be in use as a link target from Wikipedia) has now been emptied, immediately before this deletion nomination. Our policies are specifically against doing that: it's a bias against the deletion target, it makes the situation unclear to new editors unfamiliar with this category, and it's likely that a wandering admin will then delete it (which is against specific policy too).
- I have no opinion on favouring one of these categories over the other, but we should keep both, one as a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: This shows my ignorance as I do not know what "Changlemen" means in English. I suggest Changle Gate (Xi'an), or something similar, since there is Category:Archers' Tower of Changle Gate that could go there. Krok6kola (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Changlemen" has no meaning in English. We'd need to translate it afterwards, this is also why the English version Category:Changle Gate should stay, even if only as a redirect.
- But I don't know which of these should be primary, on a platform that's very strongly latin alphabet, moderately biased towards English words. (Category:长乐门 isn't going to happen on Commons.) I'd never translate "l'Arc de Triomphe", for instance. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: So I will try to do that. Krok6kola (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: This shows my ignorance as I do not know what "Changlemen" means in English. I suggest Changle Gate (Xi'an), or something similar, since there is Category:Archers' Tower of Changle Gate that could go there. Krok6kola (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxingy, Andy Dingley, and Krok6kola: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Since Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst is redirected to {{PDMark-owner}}, this maintenance category is no longer in use A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- the nominated category is created by user:Josve05a. Care to comment, Josve?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Empty category which is deemed to not be needed anymore, so delete. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} no longer redirects to {{PDMark-owner}}, so this category may start seeing some use again. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#{{PDMark-owner}} on new uploads from Flickr2Commons. Alex Cohn (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel, Estopedist1, Josve05a, and Alex Cohn: Closed (cat appears to be in use again) Josh (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Flickr upload bot has been inactive since 2014, this category is unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm a sucker for historical things and this was created in October 2007. IMHO we should keep historical things not delete them. –Davey2010Talk 10:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and Davey2010: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
My cat naming was reverted, though it is better as there are portraits with the collar in this cat and not the collars Oursana (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- the nominated category is under the name Category:Collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece in portrait paintings. Is the current solution acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Oursana and Estopedist1: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Laser Doppler flowmetry or Category:Laser Doppler velocimetry according to Wikipedia article; no reason for "Doppler" to be lower case. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, Doppler is a proper name and should not be lowercase. I suppose I would prefer Category:Laser Doppler velocimetry as this is used by enwiki and WD. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Any objection to Category:Laser Doppler velocimetry as suggested by BMacZero (talk · contribs) so we can conclude this? Josh (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No objections. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Any objection to Category:Laser Doppler velocimetry as suggested by BMacZero (talk · contribs) so we can conclude this? Josh (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4 and BMacZero: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
As of today this category contains several categories devoted to individuals. Why? Are they human traffickers? Have they publicly opposed human trafficking? Both groups of people would more appropriately belong in subcategories, like Category:Individuals convicted of human trafficking
Category:She Has a Name is listed here. If you check out that category "She has a name" is a play about human trafficking. I suggest it would more appropriately belong in something like Category:Works of art about human trafficking Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest no images of individuals should be listed here, merely because they are VIPs who have publicly opposed human trafficking, when the image in question is not from an event where human trafficking was on the agenda. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
No ship called "Appapa" existed in Lloyd's Register. This is a mis-spelling of "Apapa". Motacilla (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- If it's this one, it's probably easiest just to redirect this category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Motacilla: Unfortunately, the category is now empty and it is not possible for the discussants to find out where its content has disappeared and whether its categorization were adequate. Motacilla (talk · contribs) removed the only included file File:06-1939 P.Vendres, Appapa Foto L. Sitenský.jpg from the category without finding and proving the correct name for the ship. If the ship's name in the category title was inaccurate, the category should be properly renamed or redirected to the correct name, not simply emptied or even deleted. Btw., the file name proposal contains also no reasons, resources and identification, so no one can comply with it either.
- @Rodhullandemu: IMHO, a cargo ship built in 1973 cannot be photographed in 1939 as a military ship. --ŠJů (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- My superpowers are many and great, but even I am not gifted with knowing what *used to be* in an empty category. There seems to be enough category information in the file to narrow it down, assuming it's correct information. But a quick Google supports that it is, in fact, a separate ship. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Btw., Gpkp moved the file (on User:Motacilla's request) without redirect, and without any source documenting the correct name of the ship. By default, redirect should be left when renaming a file, especially if the file is linked from several pages, and we do not have the option to verify if it is not linked from the outside. Until we have no source, what should convince us that the uploader had an error in the name and Motacilla knows the ship's name reliably? Two rename proposals, no evidence nor source, no reaction in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: The file wasn't linked to any article, so I didnt leave the redirect. Also while renaming a file, if the corresponding file is linked to any article, there is no option to rename it without leaving a redirect. Meanwhile I renamed it checking the category name. --Gpkp (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirects are not just useful to Commons. If a file has been linked to from an external website, not leaving a redirect will break their page. The only times a redirect should not be left, IMO, are (a) a file has just been uploaded with an incorrect name or (b) the original filname is hopelessly useless, i.e. File:IMAGE_1997. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. Thank you @Rodhullandemu: . --Gpkp (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirects are not just useful to Commons. If a file has been linked to from an external website, not leaving a redirect will break their page. The only times a redirect should not be left, IMO, are (a) a file has just been uploaded with an incorrect name or (b) the original filname is hopelessly useless, i.e. File:IMAGE_1997. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Motacilla, Rodhullandemu, ŠJů, and Gpkp: Closed (stale discussion; no consensus to change current state) Josh (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Licensing issue. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louise Bishop and baby Shirley Bishop - 1961 (25366810083).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Andy Dingley: this is not CFD, but discussion about file(s)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and Estopedist1: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
the term "activities" is a vague concept. No equivalent category in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Neither of these are a reason for deletion. Although "activities" is broad, it isn't vague. It's also a very reasonable title for a meta-category which groups specifi activities in a way that would be hard to do otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: if you look eg Category:Activities in Russia then you see that almost everything can be in this veeery broad category. Category:Activities is maybe OK, but if divided by country, then seems to be an obvious clutter category--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- If we have some broad combination of "Activities", "Laundry in Russia", "Activities in Russia", then "Activities by country" would seem an obvious addition, consistent with how we do everything else. It's also useful as a starting point for queries through SPARQL, Petscan or Wikidata. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: if you look eg Category:Activities in Russia then you see that almost everything can be in this veeery broad category. Category:Activities is maybe OK, but if divided by country, then seems to be an obvious clutter category--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem with Activities (as compared with Events) but I know not what "country of location" is meant to mean. What's wrong with just "country"? "Location" is vague and often misused when we have specifics as Country, County, Council Area, Canton, Departement, Arrondissement, Oblast, etc. and its use should have been strangled at birth. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- We have no clear convention for this (and could use one) but we do frequently distinguish "of origin" and "in location" - particularly for things like cars where these are both clearly distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu: I get your point and I am not a fan of an index that is just 'by location' but 'by country of location' is very different as Andy Dingley points out, in that it actually clarifies from other relationships the subject may have with countries. Essentially it means 'by the country it is located in', as opposed to 'by the country it is from' or 'by the country it belongs to', etc. Josh (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Activities by country of location is a basic index of Category:Activities based on the criteria of the country in which the activity depicted is located/occurs. Category:Activities is one of Commons' core Category:Topics, so it is indeed a broad topic, but so long as Category:Activities exists and its contents can be sorted by country of location, Category:Activities by country of location has an appropriate purpose. Additionally, Commons categories are fundamentally used differently (and I would posit are actually better structured) than enwiki categories which serve a more limited role. As COM:CAT makes clear, there is no intent to reflect enwiki category structure in Commons categories. Josh (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge This category should be merged with Category:Activities by country, as there is no difference between an activity in a country and an activity of, or originating in, a country - in order to do the latter, you can only do the former. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes merge, because "Activities by country" and "Activities by country of location" are currently the same topic. Alternatives don't exist yet (e.g. Category:Activities by country of origin?), and don't seem likely to exist anytime soon. We can always recreate this when there is a reason to have it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. That looks like a duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. A country's athletes competing internationally, an army fighting in another country, the list goes on of activities that are done by a country but not in their country. Josh (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1, Andy Dingley, Rodhullandemu, Bahnfrend, and Ruff tuff cream puff: Closed (stale discussion; no consensus to merge) Josh (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Category is redundant to Category:Mel Lopez Boulevard. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- You don't say whether you want this category deleted, or some other action. If this was the name of the road in the past, how about making this a redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: that will result in an implausible redirect. Note that this category was created by Judgefloro who is now blocked due to issues on derivative works and repetitive and redundant (usually out of scope) files, and this category was created for the purpose of hosting more redundant and potentially OOS files. This only encourages redundancy, and it is better to have this deleted than retained (making this a redirect may leave an open possibility of someone reverting it and utilizing it to host more OOS files). Plus there is already a redirect Category:Marcos Road, and this superfluous category is no longer needed as redundant and a potential magnet for OOS files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 and Auntof6: Closed (no objection; currently cat is empty) Josh (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Should probably be merged with Category:Deer in crest Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Deer in crest should be merged with Category:Deers in crest : Types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form (cf. Commons:Categories#Category names --BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The more commonly accepted standard plural form of "a deer" is "deer", "deers" being regarded as nonstandard, see Wiktionary:deers. The other deer related categories already follow this naming pattern, see Category talk:Deers in heraldry. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support keeping "Deer in crest", per original proposal and to be consistent with other category names. I also note that we have multiple "deers" categories that redirect to "deer" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @BeatrixBelibaste: Any objection to plural form 'deer' suggested by Fenn-O-maniC (talk · contribs) and Auntof6 (talk · contribs), so we can conclude this? Josh (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Na, all good. BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
redirected to Category:Deer in crest, the correct plural form.--RZuo (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The UK protests against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seem to have become a much more notable use of the slogan than the protests currently covered by the category. For protests in the USA, Kill the Bill doesn't seem to have been used as a unified name for a campaign or protest (as far as I can see from a quick Google search). Gazamp (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is just confusing: the category for these images needs a better name, probably one indicating the date and location too. There might be a meta supercategory above this, but that too should have a better name. At most, this category page should become a redirect to the metacategory. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Should be renamed to something more specific and self-explanatory. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gazamp, Andy Dingley, and Infrogmation: Any proposal for a specific delete, rename, or merge action, or is this discussion stale? Either way, it would be nice to close this one. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Would it work to move the photos either to Category:Post healthcare vote rally on Senate steps (July 25, 2017) or to Category:July 25, 2017 protest against Trumpcare at the United States Capitol (Both are demonstrations on the same day and in the same place; I expect it fits better with the second but I don't have a lot to go on from the photo descriptions) so that it can be used for UK protest photos? Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gazamp: The format of the first seems a bit better than the second, either wording is okay, except that it would be better to use YYYY-MM-DD date format in whatever is chosen. Josh (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yeah the first one does look better (I must have mixed them up or something) - should I move the photos there and then move the category to Category:Post healthcare vote rally on Senate steps (2017-07-25) then? Gazamp (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gazamp: It looks fine to me, let's give a chance for anyone else to comment on it...if there is no objection in the next week or two I think we can close this and you can proceed with the proposed move. Josh (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley and Infrogmation: Any objections with moving to Category:Post healthcare vote rally on Senate steps (2017-07-25) as suggested by Gazamp (talk · contribs)? Josh (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Seems to be no opposition so have moved the photos and the Senate protest category, will repurpose the Kill The Bill category for the UK protests now. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would it actually be easier to make the category Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for the UK protests and then have the Kill the Bill category as a disambiguation? It seems like there are a fair amount of other bills that people want killed: the Trumpcare protests that were in the category originally and the Religious Discrimination Bill in Australia (see Category:Kill the Bigot Bill - No Right to Discriminate in Melbourne (9 February 2022)) just for starters. Gazamp (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gazamp: Sounds like a good idea to dab it since it certainly could refer to a lot of different such movements. Josh (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yeah the first one does look better (I must have mixed them up or something) - should I move the photos there and then move the category to Category:Post healthcare vote rally on Senate steps (2017-07-25) then? Gazamp (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gazamp: The format of the first seems a bit better than the second, either wording is okay, except that it would be better to use YYYY-MM-DD date format in whatever is chosen. Josh (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gazamp, Infrogmation, and Andy Dingley: Closed (no objection; move content to descriptive category and dab original) Josh (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between Fire safety and Fire prevention and Category:Fire protection (Category:Fire protection)? Which media should be where? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that fire prevention is the effort to keep fires from starting. Fire safety is what to do after a fire has started, whether the planning of it or the execution of it. I think these should not be merged. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- (1) The first part I agree on: Fire prevention is the effort to keep fires from starting.
- (2) The second part: Fire safety is what to do after a fire has started, is not what the descriptions/definitions say now, neither in the category nor in the Wikidata Infobox, but it is a clear definition to me, so I can agree. The EN Wikipedia says: Practices intended to reduce the destruction caused by fire, this is perhaps somewhat more specific. Perhaps merge both definitions into: Practices/Actions to reduce destructions after a fire has started? We should adjust the descriptions in this category and the Infobox, after we have reached a conclusion. And there might be some subcategories and files here that belongs to Fire prevention, according to these two definitions.
- Conclusion 1: These two categories should not be merged.
- (3) And then there is also Category:Fire protection (I am sorry, I only see it now; I added this one into the main question). Fire protection is about:
- mitigating (reducing) the unwanted effects of potentially destructive fires (EN Wikipedia) - this looks a lot like our definition of Fire safety - what is the difference?
- all measures, that prevent or avoid the occurrence of a fire or the spread of fire (Wikidata Infobox) - that looks like both other definitions.
- So I am still confused: what is the difference with the other two? JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far
[edit]- Fire prevention is the effort to keep fires from starting. (I have included this definition in the description of the category.)
- Fire safety involves practices and actions to reduce destructions after a fire has started. (I have included this definition in the description of the category.)
- These two categories should not be merged.
- Still open for discussion: What is Fire protection about in comparison to Fire prevention and Fire safety? Can this category be merged into one of the other two?
JopkeB (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Fire safety is the general term, that includes fire prevention (what we do before a possible fire, to prevent it or its effects) and fire protection (what we do after a fire, to diminish the entity of effects). Hence, Category:Fire safety has to containCategory:Fire prevention and Category:Fire protection as subcategories. --Ensahequ (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ensahequ, these comments are enlightening. It makes sense to me. --JopkeB (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
New conclusions
[edit]So now we have:
- Fire safety is the general term that should contain Category:Fire prevention and Category:Fire protection as subcategories. It involves practices and actions to prevent a fire from starting as well as reduce destructions after a fire has started.
- Fire prevention is the effort to keep fires from starting, it is what we do before a possible fire, to prevent it or its effects.
- Fire protection is protection after a fire has started, what we do after a fire, to diminish the entity of effects.
- These categories should not be merged.
Auntof6 and Ensahequ: do you (and others!) agree with these conclusions? Can I implement them in this way or should there be any changes? --JopkeB (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:JopkeB: I agree. --Ensahequ (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Since there were no more comments in about four months, I implement these conclusions and close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Fire safety, Fire prevention and (Category:Fire protection) cannot be merged, they have different meanings, see New conclusions.
This category name seems too vague. Is it for any media featuring the acronym TERF? Is it for media of people who have been called a TERF? For media of people who self-identify as a TERF? Those latter two would be duplicating the purpose of Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists, right? Should File:TERF sticker.jpg belong in this category?
Several images in this category right now (e.g. File:Feminism is intersectional No Terfs No Swerfs (49643458203).jpg, File:Belgrade Pride 2019 - STOP TERF.jpg) seems like they would be better put in Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of transgender rights, and/or a new subcategory to that called, like, Category:Anti-TERF or Category:Anti-TERF signage or something. Brainy J (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I created Category:Anti-TERF banners and signs and moved some of the images that were in Category:TERF. Feedback on this is welcome. --Brainy J (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Move was done months ago. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:Great Expectations (ship, 1992) Motacilla (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- As found in the discussion page: "Several pictures on flickr show her with the name Great Expectations C.D." and others. So I used this full name to categorise. Useually without M.V., only when it had been painted on the ship. In that case it is part of the name. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Motacilla and Stunteltje: Any objections to merging both into Category:Great Expectations C.D. (ship, 1992)? Josh (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Have a look at MV_Hythe_Scene and you'll find the article was named MV Great Expectations there. I named the category according what had been painted on the ship, but could not find any reference to that "C.D." later. So I prefer just Category:Great Expectations (ship, 1992), according Hythe-Southampton Ferries --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Merged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Not useful and rather confusing. Either a full delete or a rename to something like "Logos associated with the word tesla", but I don't really find that useful, either. Pbrks (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - No need for this category as it's now empty but whatever was in here could be added to any of the subcats .–Davey2010Talk 21:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete two companies mixing--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Pbrks, Davey2010, and Estopedist1: Any objection to making this a DAB instead of just a deletion? Some users may not initially be aware of the distinction and if we simply delete, I worry someone will soon re-create it in error. Josh (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No objection. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No objections here either, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 00:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Converted to DAB. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate Category:Greek Ship (Kish Island). This category might be useful for historic images of the ship while it was still in service. However, Commons has none. Motacilla (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I categorise the ship itself according the name and year of completion. So in my opinion this is the correct category for the ship. No problem to categorise Category:Greek Ship (Kish Island) in this category, as it is a category by location, not of the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC) By the way, did you see my remarks at the Athenian?
@Motacilla and Stunteltje: Any objection to merging Category:Greek Ship (Kish Island) into Category:Khoula F (ship, 1943) so we can close this CfD? Josh (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- For me O.K. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Merge already performed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Moved from Category:Iron Maiden (band) without proposal, discussion or consensus. en:WP describes Iron Maiden as a "band", as do many other language Wikipedias, and for once, I agree that is the term of most popular understanding.Our own headnote to the category describes them as a "band". True, they may strictly be a "musical group" but so are the Palm Court Orchestra and the Band (sic) of the Grenadier Guards. In terms of rock and pop music everyone understands "band" as a term. So there was no obvious reason to do this move, and Blackcat's only justification is that "band" is not a Commons Category to use as a disambiguator. Category names have never been required to be disambiguators, nor should they be. I wish Blackcat would stop just moving things to his own preference; this is not the first time, and it should stop, if necessary by a topic ban because it potentially causes a load of work for others. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment it's customary we disambiguate by category topic. We haven't "band" as category, so it's inconsistent disambiguating for something which is not even at topic. As well as we disambiguate by, for i.e. "association football player", not by "footballer", "soccer player", or else, no matter how en.wiki calls something. Simply is a matter of consistency. I hardly find a sense in this CfD, apart from adding a new pointless discussion to the long list of discussions that haven't reached an end after years. -- Blackcat 
16:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Where is this custom expressed? We don't just make things up as we go along. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Should be moved back to band, The move was made by a contributor who has a history of pov pushing, edit warring, tool abusing and bizarre decisions stemming from a lack of comprehension of English. Oxyman (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- There was a previous CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Iron Maiden. While w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Maiden (blues rock band) was closed at delete it may still have images here, so perhaps further disambiguation should be done? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since it was already agreed to name the category Category:Iron Maiden (band) by the CfD above, if we cannot reach a new consensus to move the category to Category:Iron Maiden (musical group) (or any other name), then the category should be returned to its originally agreed upon name of Category:Iron Maiden (band). Josh (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Consensus was to return the category to Category:Iron Maiden (band). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)